Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
04-14-14 CC Reg Mtg AgendaP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2014 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mai or Zerb Hotvet Siakel Sundberg Woodruff Attachments B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2014 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 24, 2014 Minutes 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be remo>>ed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following remo>>al from Consent Agenda A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List B. Election Judge Compensation Rates Cleric's memo, Resolution C. Full Time Regular Appointment to Light Equipment Operator Position Director of Public Works memo, Resolution D. Accept Proposal for Safety Training Director of Public Works memo E. Accept Proposal from AET for Galpin Lake Soil Borings Engineer's memo F. Accepting a Donation from the American Legion Finance Director's memo G. Accept Proposal and Authorize City Administrator to Enter Into an Agreement Planning Director's for City Hall Landscape Maintenance memo 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action Nvill be taken) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA — APRIL 14, 2014 Page 2of2 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Recognition of Service of Park Commissioner Bob Edmondson 7. PARKS A. Report by John Savaell on the April 8, 2014 Park Commission Mtg. 8. PLANNING A. Report by Dustin Maddy on the April 1, 2014, Planning Commission Mtg B. Summit Woods P.U.D — Development Stage Applicant: Homestead Partners Location: 23040 Summit Avenue 9. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Retaining Wall Change Order Alternatives for the Excelsior Boulevard Trail 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of a Resolution Malting an Appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission B. Mayor and City Council Compensation C. Agreement Nvith the Christmas Lake Homeow ner's Association for Inspections 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Three Rivers Park District Lake Mtka. LRT Pedestrian Bridge update 2. Municipal Street Improvement District Legislation B. Mavor and Citv Council 13. ADJOURN Attachments Cleric's memo Minutes Minutes from April 1 and March 4 Planning Director's memo, Resolution Engineer's memo Clerk's memo, Resolution Administrator's memo, Ordinance Planning Director's memo Sample Letter CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 . 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • -,N-ww.ci.shorewood.mn.us • citchall 'ciici.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, April 14, 2014 7:00 p.m. 5:30 PM – A Council Special Meeting is scheduled to interview a candidate for the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC). 6:00 PM – A Work Session is scheduled to hear a presentation of the Southshore Center "Cove" proposal by Deb Kind, Mayor of Greenwood and Elli Ansari, Councilmember of Tonka Bay Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item 4313: Approval of a resolution setting the Election Judge Compensation rates effective Nvith the 2014 Election. Proposed rates are $9.50 for Supervisor/Head Election Judge and $8.50 for Election Judge. Agenda Item 43C: Mr. Brett Baumann has successfully completed his six month probationary period for the Light Equipment Operator for the Department of Public Works. Agenda Item 431): This motion accepts the proposal by SafeAssure Consultants for safety consultation services. Agenda Item 43E: Staff is recommending acceptance of a proposal for Geotechnical Services N ith AET for the Galpin Lake Road Wallowa -,T Improvement Project. Agenda Item 4317: This is a motion accepting a donation of $250 from the American Legion for this year's Safety Camp program scheduled for August 13, 2014. Agenda Item 43G: The City has received a proposal from Stonescapes to perform landscape maintenance services for the City Hall property, just as they did last year. The monthly cost is the same as last year. The total cost is less than last year because an initial cleanup is not necessary this year. Staff recommends approval. Agenda Item 44: Matters from the Floor— members of the public have an opportunity to address the Council on an issue not on the agenda; no Council action Nvill be taken. Agenda Item 45: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening. Agenda Item 46A: Former Park Commissioner Bob Edmondson Nvill be present this evening to receive recognition for his five years of service on the Park Commission. Agenda Item 47A: John Savaell is scheduled to provide a report on the April 8 Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item 48A: Dustin Maddy is scheduled to provide a report on the April 1 Planning Commission meeting. Executive Summary — City Council Meeting of ApHl 14, 2014 Page 2of2 Agenda Item 48B: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the Development Stage Plans and preliminary plat for the Summit Woods P.U.D. After two meetings, the Commission voted unammousIv to recommend approval, subject to the items raised by staff being included in the final plans and development agreement for the project. Agenda Item 49A: Staff is providing retaining Nvall change order alternatives for the Excelsior Boulevard trail. Agenda Item 41OA: This resolution makes an appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission board. Agenda Item 41OB: Consideration of an increase in compensation for the Mavor and City Council members. Agenda Item 41OC: The Christmas Lake HomeoN -,ners Association has proposed to contract directly Nvith Volt Workforce Solutions for AIS inspections at the Christmas Lake Access. The City Attornev has drafted an agreement to that effect for Council consideration. Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Agenda Item 411: There are no items of old business this evening. Agenda Item 412A1: An update on the County Road 19 Pedestrian Trail Neill be provided. Agenda Item 412A2: A sample letter to the Governor is attached regarding municipal street improvement district legislation. Staff Nvould like direction from Council if it N fishes to support this legislation by sending a similar letter to legislators. Agenda Items 41213: Mavor and City Council Members may report on recent activities. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014 1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:34 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Siakel, Absent: None B. Review Agenda Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as p 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATE FOR CONSIDER SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION A. 6:30 P.M. Jeffrey Ische, 25365 Smithtoi 3. ADJOURN 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD LARGE CONFERENCE RM 6:30 P.M. Motion passed 510. OF APPOINTMENT TO THE Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of March 24, 2014, at 6:59 P.M. Motion passed 510. Christine Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2014 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Hotvet, Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Director of Public Works Brown; and City Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Mayor Zerby noted that staff has asked that Item 93 Consideration c Management be added to the agenda. Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as a 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Woodruff, Attorney cc Director DeJong; ight Work by Telecom Transport A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2014 Motion passed 510. Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4 *1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 10, 2014 Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of March 10, 2014, as presented. Motion 'passed 4/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2014 Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Woodruff abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 2 of 9 Woodruff moved, Hotvet seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolution Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -019, "A Resolution Accepting Improvements for 2013 Pavement Marking Project and Authorizing Final Payment, City Project No. 13 -09." C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -020, "A Resolution Accepting Proposal for Professional Services for Record Preparation County Road 19 Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project NO. 12 -01." D. Accepting Resignation of Park Commissioner Bob Edmo E. Accept Proposal for Professional Services for Water Tower Inspection Councilmember Hotvet stated that for Item 3.E the proposal from KLM, she asked if the City has every used KLM in the past. Director Brown stated many times. Hotvet then asked where the funding for the water tower inspection will come from. Brown stated out of to Water Fund Capital Improvement Program. Motion passed 510. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor Dresented this 5. PUBLIC None. 6. REPORT None. 7. PARKS A. Report on the March 11, 2014, Park Commission Meeting Park Commission Chair Mangold reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 11, 2014, Park Commissions meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Woodruff asked what the Park Commission is going to do about the City charging a $10 fee per person per season for organized hockey. Is it going to come back to Council during its next meeting? Chair Mangold clarified the fee was not formally discussed. Mangold noted that the representatives present at the meeting from the Youth Hockey Association did not think the fee was problematic. He stated the representatives had pointed out that very few of about 15 rinks do not charge a fee and they seemed to think that the rinks that are free seem to get used a lot. He questioned if the City wants to have more organized teams using the City's rink. He is not sure if the City rink is being used CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 3 of 9 very much generally. He encouraged the Commission to make a recommendation to Council before it starts to discuss budgets. Chair Mangold noted that the City charges that same $10 fee for all sports. Yet, for all of the other sports the parks seem to be utilized adequately by organized sports organizations. Director Brown stated he and Park and Recreation Coordinator Grout have discussed this and decided they need to research what the other cities are doing. Other cities may not be charging a user fee. But it's likely they may be charging a fee in other ways. Councilmember Woodruff stated if that $10 fee is keeping Shorewood kids from playing hockey in Shorewood then something should be done about the fee. Chair Mangold stated the Park Commission was surprised that person, per- season fee for youth hockey participants. Councilmember Siakel asked if the Youth Hockey represents indication if, for example, the rink in the City of Tonka Bay is organizations. Chair Mangold stated the question was not spe conversation it appeared that girls youth hockey was growing in Chair Mangold stated the representatives ii indoor ice. He then stated he thought that outdoors and the games would be moved i possibly having some of the older school cl Mayor Zerby congra 8. 9. ENGINEERING /Pt A. Receive 'FO& Improvemen Engineer Hornby noted the m improvements project. He exl It goes between Eureka Road on each side. Id on his y other cities do not charge a per- gave the Parke Commission any to capacity by organized hockey fly „asked. But, from the general onka area. that people are used to traveling so they can skate on Youth Hockey Organization all of their practices are He commented there has been some discussion about ay some of their hockey games outdoors. -W role and thanked him for his report this evening rt and Setting a Public Hearing Date on Sunnyvale Lane Proj packet contains a copy of a feasibility report for the Sunnyvale Lane d it is for a one block section of roadway approximately 600 feet long. vleadowview Road. There are eight parcels abutting the roadway; four He explained that staff his held the initial public information meeting. The two biggest issues discussed were drainage and the possible watermain extension. Staff learned quite a bit about drainage problems from the residents. This project would mitigate or eliminate some of the current problems. The two parcels abutting Eureka Road are connected to City water. The owner of one of those parcels was in attendance. Six parcels would benefit from watermain extension. Owners of four of those parcels were also in attendance. Out of those four, three of them were not interested in municipal water. One couple was interested in case their well failed. He noted he encouraged all of the property owners to attend the public hearing for the improvements for this project that is scheduled for May 12, 2014, or at least submit written comments to the City Clerk before the hearing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 4 of 9 He then explained the street improvements are estimated to cost $585,119. Of that $357,639 will be funded out of the Street Improvement Fund, $102,328 out of the Stormwater Management Fund and $21,862 out of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. The watermain extension is estimated to cost $103,290. The extension would be assessed to the six properties for an estimated assessment amount of $17,215 per parcel. After the assessment was determined he found out that the assessment is consistent with the updated water report. He went on to explain that because watermain was not extended when improvements were made to Meadowview Road there is no watermain to connect to at the end of the project. It would be a dead -end main. He stated in the feasibility report the option is whether or not to it extension as part of the project. He noted the meeting packet contains a the feasibility reports and calling for the public hearing on May, 12, Sunnyvale Lane. Staff recommends Council adopt the resolution, Mayor Zerby thanked Engineer Hornby for his report. quite some time. He noted that he is aware that them stated the watermain extension would cost a lot. Eng and other pipe costs also go up. Councilmember Woodruff asked if the estimated costs are close capital funds. He then asked if it is necessary to reconstruct the rc Valleywood Lane is not that wide and that he is unsure how wide T reconstruction is necessary to address the stormwater manageme without the reconstruction? Engineer Hornby explained that the t Lane have conveyed that the storm properties on the north side. Addin; sewer system and route it down to by this project. He ex improvements do not rain , event, He then Program is $590,000. Jude the assessable watermain resolution for Council receiving 2014; on the improvements to ect has been oh the schedule for drainage issues,ifi that area. He pined iron prices keep going up is budgeted for in the three 26 feet wide. He stated that yew Road is. He also asked if Could they been addressed jority of the owners of the property on the south side of Sunnyvale iter flows off their ,properties across the roadway and on to the :urb and gutter would help redirect the stormwater to the storm ie north side of Valleywood Lane. That was planned for when He noted that not all of the drainage issues will be fully addressed ionic areas that are very low. Caution needs to be taken so that the poling of a lot of stormwater on property backyards after a heavy it 'atnount budgeted for this project in the Capital Improvement Councilmember Woodruff suggested surveying the owners of the six properties again about watermain extension now that there is a better estimate for what they would be assessed. Councilmember Hotvet asked when that development was built. Engineer Hornby responded sewer was installed in 1970/1971 and the roadway was put in on top of that. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the assessment has to be paid for all at once. Engineer Hornby explained the City can establish the payback period for six, eight or ten years. Councilmember Woodruff stated some property owners have financed assessments through other financial institutions. Councilmember Siakel stated she agrees with surveying the property owners again. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 5 of 9 Engineer Hornby noted that he has encouraged the property owners to submit their desires in writing to the City if they are unable to attend the public hearing. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 14 -021. "A Resolution Receiving Feasibility Report and Calling for Public Hearing on Proposed Improvements Sunnyvale Lane Improvements, City Project 14 -01." Motion passed 510. B. Consideration of Night Work by Telecom Transport Management Director Brown explained that late last week staff was involved in discussions; with Telecom Transport Management (TTM) regarding its request for authorization to perform maintenance to cellular antennas on the West water tower located on the Minnewashta Elementary School property during evening hours. TTM provides the backbone and network for various cellular providers; in this case AT &T and Sprint. The City has routinely enforced its work hours which are 7:00° A.M. to 7 :49 P.M. Monday through Friday, 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturday, and work on Sunday is only allowed with Council approval. Initially TTM proposed to do the work between 9:00 P.M. and 5:00 A.M. on April I or April 4. Staff and Lonnie Beck, a TTM representative who manages TTM's grounds and facilities who is present this evening, have been discussing doing some of the maintenance work during the day being the students are on spring break on those days. Staff has contacted school representatives and the representatives indicated their preference for the work being done while the students are on spring break. They would defer to Council as to what the work hours could be. He noted there is a project underway at the School and the representatives agreed to work within the specified hours. Lonnie Beck, with TTM, explained TTM carries celb switches. TTM needs to replace its existing antenna capacity for cell phone services. Originally there had planned to do its maintenance. But, after speaking with the tower work during the day. The new antenna w6u: least amount of disruption with cellular service it wo work to cutover to the new antenna. During the day it customers are the cellular cai Mr. Beck stated that in the,cs the cellular services for that needed repairs to the antenna crane in and go up and make doing that. Director Brown e his office has to he contacte( on its grounds. Councilmember Siakel minutes. TTM personne tlar phone calls from the towers to the company )n the tower with one that has about double the been some misunderstanding about when TTM Director Brown, TTM has decided it can do all of d be put up during the day. In order to cause the rld come back after midnight and do the ground would remove the old antenna. He noted TTM's are cell phone users. e of a lightning strike or storm and the failure of the antenna on that tower -a and the extended area around it would be down until TTM can make the In those emergency situations he asked if TTM would be allowed to bring a ie repairs any time. And, he asked who TTM would have to contact before paed that emergency work is outside of normal work hours. To do that i d City staff will inform the School District about the activities occurring what the down time would be. Mr. Beck stated it would be about 30 . be on site no more than two hours during the night. Hotvet moved, Woodruff seconded, granting Telecom Transport Management authorization to perform night work as recommended by staff. Motion passed 510. Councilmember Woodruff stated that earlier in the day he spoke with Director Brown and suggested staff review all of the City's agreements that lease space on the towers to ensure the time of work concerns are clear. Mayor Zerby suggested Attorney Keane be involved with that. Woodruff suggested Brown conduct the initial review. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 6 of 9 In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel, Administrator Joynes explained the City's agreement with TTM gives TTM access short of an act of God or an emergency. The City tries to eliminate night work because of noise. Councilmember Woodruff noted he did not consider the review of the agreements to be urgent for staff. 10. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Making an Appointment to the Park Commission Mayor Zerby noted that just prior to this meeting Council had a specialmeeting to interview applicant Jeffery Ische for an open position on the Park Commission. He stated he, was very impressed with Mr. Ische. Zerby moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RES( Appointment of Jeffrey Ische to the Park Commiss 15, 2015." Councilmember Sundberg stated that she also thought Mr Park Commission. Councilmember Woodruff thanked Mr. Ische Motion passed 510. 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Admini Budget ial Report )N 14 -022, "A Resolution Making the ective March 24, 2014, through February be an excellent addition to the a copy of the February 2014 General Fund Monthly 2014 Arctic Fever Event Director Brown explained the 2014 Arctic Fever event ended up with a surplus of $1,788 based on the funds available and the Arctic Fever Princess Tea event ended with a deficit of $615 based on funds available. He noted that Park and Recreation Coordinator Grout did the tallying. Councilmember Woodruff noted that based on that he thought the event was from a financial perspective a great success. Other Director Brown stated the City has a sanitary sewer issue on the islands in the City. One of the lift stations near the Shady Island Bridge has a substantial leak in one of the pipes. The City is working with a CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 7 of 9 company to repair that and earlier in the day he learned that the bad spot can be grouted to hopefully stop the inflow of water. He noted that is not a dire problem. Mayor Zerby stated he received a phone call from a resident regarding the status of the pedestrian bridge proposed for over County Road 19 at the LRT trail. There had been discussion about that project starting this past September. He asked Director Brown to comment on this. Brown stated the City just received draft plans for that project. Brown explained the approximate 400 - foot -long ramps proposed almost brought the project to a halt. He noted he will provide Council with a full update during its next meeting. Zerby asked if the project has been approved for construction in 2014. Brown responded he does not know. Engineer Hornby provided an update on the Galpin Lake Road trail. Keane to order the title work for the unplatted properties along the c� the right -of -way (ROW). If the City does not have all of the ROW ea determine how much more is needed. The majority of properties,alc five or six that are not. Staff is trying to figure out how to align'tf which would save money and time. Staff is assessing stormwater in possible to reduce the amount of storm sewer needed that was incl amount of the trail will be along Trunk Highway 7. Therefore, that f the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (MnDOT's) function, a close ally in MnDOT to keep the project moving forward. There soon as the ground thaws and there is enough growth to determine wl Mayor Zerby stated it seems the project is more'com Engineer Hornby stated trail projects become com project would be complicated and it is trying to Smithtown Road west sidewalk project. He noted property owners who lad concerns about the p Adjustments will be made if possible. Mayor on less for that proj Director DeJong explained tha component of the new financial in the utility billing system in it of April 21. le has been working with Attorney ridor. That is to ensure the City has meat needed then staff will have to the corridor are platted; there are trail to avoid acquiring easements iagement in more detail. It may be led in the feasibility report. A fair rtion of the project will go through review. The City will have to have ill be wetland delineations done as vegetation is. fed very quickly. He then stated staff new this some things different than were done for the he and Director Nielsen have met with some city of the proposed trail to their properties. east trail project come before Council sooner versus later based cts. Engineer Hornby stated if there will be about one year of h starting the first steps of the project relatively soon. -vious week there was the first download from the utility billing . Utility billing is in the process of conversion. Staff will be trained He then stated the 2013 financial audit will be conducted the week Administrator Joynes stated he had received a note from Director Nielsen asking that a joint Council and Park Commission meeting be scheduled for April 8 at 6:00 P.M. He then stated staff has been in contract with representatives for the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (CLHA). He explained the CLHA has expressed interested in changing the management process of the aquatic invasive species (AIS) inspection program at the Christmas Lake boat launch area. The CLHA wants to have greater responsibility for that. Staff is working through the legal aspects of how to make that happen. He noted he thinks that is not a bad idea. He stated he has reached out to Eric Sill, a business education teacher involved with the Minnetonka High School Vantage Program, and asked him if the Vantage Program is interested in renting space in the Southshore Community Center (SSCC). Mr. Sill indicated they are still trying to finalize the scope of the Program for the next school year. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 8 of 9 Mayor Zerby noted the Vantage Program leaders report to the school board. He stated if any members of Council have a relationship with any member of that School Board he suggested they reach out to them about the City's interest in having the Program rent space. B. Mayor and City Council 1. Southshore Community Center Report Councilmember Sundberg stated she and Councilmembers Hotvet session with Lake Area Women's Councils. Councilmember Siakel i therefore cannot attend. Sundberg asked what is going on with regar Bees. Administrator Joynes stated there is a lot of activity going on E decline in pollinating bees. Joynes explained that is a complicated 'i current landscape maintenance practices and what Humming for Bey sure things will be done within the timeframe that group would like. Council within a month or two. Sundberg then stated that she and Councilmember Woodruff attend AIS Symposium: Long -Tenn Solutions Through Public- Privah informative. She indicated she does not know how the City can be; mitigation. She noted she will be speaking with Gabriel Jabbour w Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought it was a very good experts were invited to speak to the State Legislat noted there were a lot of members of various co various agencies. Dr. Sorenson fro 'in the University Research Center] was one of the speakers. He statf do are woefully underfunded. The Research Center prudent for local governments,to send that message. and Sakel „have been invited to a ndicated she will be out of town and d to the proposal from Humming for [t the State legislative level about the ssue for City staff with regard to its ,s is asking the City to do. He is not He stated staff 'will try to get back to titled 2014 Minnesota rrtnerships. She found it to be more proactive than it is with AIS anka Bay Marina more about this. then stated a number of on Match 19. It was an interactive session. He in attendance as well as representatives from Scientific Director, University of Minnesota AIS activities Dr. Sorenson spoke about wanting to 3 more funding than it is currently receiving. It is Councilmember Sundberg agreed that Dr. Sorenson and the Research Center are woefully underfunded. She stated that is a State funding issue. She suggested Council focus on encouraging the State legislative representatives for the City to support funding at the State level. Councilmember Woodruff concurred the funding issue is at the State level. Mayor Zerby stated he attended the March 11, 2014, Tonka Bay City Council work session. He explained the 3 -Year Pilot Project Proposal regarding the Southshore Community Center prepared by Greenwood Mayor Kind and Tonka Bay Councilmember Ansari was presented by Kind and Ansari. He stated he thought that overall the proposal was well received by the Tonka Bay City Council. That Council was more interested in the lower upgrade cost number in the proposal; one number was about $44,000 and the other about $64,000. That Council wanted to be clear that Tonka Bay was stepping up for this one time. It would then evaluate the results after three years. There was discussion about when to start the three -year evaluation — this year or after improvements have been made to Badger Park, specifically the parking lot improvements. It wants to use the funding ratio that was used for the construction of the SSCC facility. It was aware that the City of Deephaven wants no part of the joint proposal. He indicated he thought that Council's response was better than he had anticipated. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2014 Page 9 of 9 Administrator Joynes noted that the City of Excelsior City Council will have the same presentation on its agenda for its second meeting in April. The Shorewood Council will have it on its April 14 meeting agenda. Councilmember Siakel stated based on what Mayor Zerby explained she understands that Deephaven does not want to participate in the SSCC anymore or pay for improvements to the SSCC. And, that Tonka Bay wants to participate at the lowest participation rate possible. She then stated it seems Tonka Bay wants only to participate in a short -term solution. Councilmember Sundberg stated during Council's March 10, 2014, work session staff had presented a number of concerns it had with the proposal. She recommended those concerns be incorporated into Council's consideration. She stated she thought the proposal was a little "squishy ". Councilmember Woodruff noted he watched the video recording ofthat work session. He stated he agrees staff needs to come back with more realistic cost and revenue projections than those included in the proposal. He recommended against introducing any more numbers at this time to the general audience for this. He preferred to let them react to what is on the table. Mayor Zerby stated during the Tonka Bay Council work session there was some criticism the size of the font and too much information on the digital display sign for the SSCC. The message was difficult to read when driving by the sign. There was also concern expressed about having events at the SSCC and sporting events in Badger Park at the same time because of parking` constraints. Councilmember Siakel noted that she will attend the March 26, 2014 Excelsior Fire District Board meeting. 13. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, 2014, at 8:02 P.M. Christin ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, ed ourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 24, Scott Zerby, Mayor City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/ Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists from both old and new financial systems #3A MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid from current funds available? Background: Claims for council authorization. 60207 -60211 & ACH 37,040.40 ACH 9,487.10 60249 1,050.00 60252 & ACH 21,172.14 Pending Checks 416,529.30 Total Claims $485,278.94 Staff has implemented the new software for the financial side of the operations, but we are still sorting out reporting processes. We have included the claims from the old system which are payments for invoices dated through the end of December. New claims for 2014 are entered into the new software. We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending March 22, 2014 & April 5, 2014. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Accounts Payable Check Detail User: imiguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11:31 AM Check Number Check Date Amount 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 04/07/2014 Inv 10,611.57 0 Total: 10,611.57 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 10,611.57 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account 60252 04/07/2014 Inv 1,325.00 60252 Total: 1,325.00 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total: 1,325.00 11- MN DEPT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 04/07/2014 Inv 1,786.79 0 Total: 1,786.79 11- MN DEPT OF REVENUE Total: 1,786.79 9 - PERA Line Item Account 0 04/07/2014 Inv 6,160.73 0 Total: 6,160.73 9 - PERA Total: 6,160.73 1- WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 04/07/2014 Inv 1,288.05 0 Total: 1,288.05 1-WE LLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 1,288.05 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:31 AM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Total: Amount 21,172.14 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:31 AM) Page 2 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11:33AM Check Number Check Date Amount 4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 Inv 204.00 Inv April -2014 204.00 0 Total: 408.00 4 - AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Total: 408.00 12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION Line Item Account 60207 03/24/2014 Inv April -2014 312.32 60207 Total: 312.32 12 - AFSCME COUNCIL 5 - UNION Total: 312.32 3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 Inv 239.46 Inv April -2014 239.46 0 Total: 478.92 3 - DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total: 478.92 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 Inv 11,263.33 0 Total: 11,263.33 5 - EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,263.33 6 - HEALTH PARTNERS Line Item Account 60208 03/24/2014 Inv 6,230.65 Inv April -2014 6,396.05 60208 Total: 12,626.70 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Amount 6 - HEALTH PARTNERS Total: 12,626.70 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Line Item Account 60209 03/24/2014 Inv 1,325.00 60209 Total: 1,325.00 2 - ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Total: 1,325.00 7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 Inv 195.42 Inv April -2014 195.42 0 Total: 390.84 7 - MINNESOTA LIFE Total: 390.84 11- MN DEPT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 Inv 1,845.61 0 Total: 1,845.61 11 - MN DEPT OF REVENUE Total: 1,845.61 10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Line Item Account 60210 03/24/2014 Inv April -2014 16.00 60210 Total: 16.00 10 - NCPERS MINNESOTA Total: 16.00 9 - PERA Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 Inv 6,239.24 0 Total: 6,239.24 9 - PERA Total: 6,239.24 8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Line Item Account 60211 03/24/2014 Inv 483.57 Inv April -2014 362.82 60211 Total: 846.39 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date 8 - PRUDENTIAL GROUP INSURANCE Total: 1- WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 03/24/2014 biv 0 Total: 1- WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: Total: Amount 846.39 1,288.05 1,288.05 1,288.05 37,040.40 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 3 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: innguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11:32AM Check Number Check Date Amount 285 - MIDWEST GOVERNMENT ADVISOR Line Item Account 0 04/14/2014 Inv Mar -2014 7,795.00 0 Total: 7,795.00 285 - MIDWEST GOVERNMENT ADVISOR Total: 7,795.00 286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Line Item Account 0 04/14/2014 Inv 1 St Qtr- 2014 -UB 1,692.10 0 Total: 1,692.10 286 - MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC Total: 1,692.10 Total: 9,487.10 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:32 AM) Page 1 Accounts Payable Check Detail User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11:31AM Check Number Check Date Amount 129 - BROWN, LAWF ENCE Line Item Account 60249 04/14/2014 Inv AW WA -2014 1,050.00 60249 Total: 1,050.00 129 - BROWN, LAWRENCE Total: 1,050.00 Total: 1,050.00 AP -Check Detail (4 /10/2014 - 11:31 AM) Page 1 Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: mnguyen Batch: 00002.03.2014 - PR03242014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund DEPT 00 Non- Departmental 101 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 45,881.73 CASH AND INVESTMENTS DEPT Total: 0.00 45,881.73 DEPT 11 Council 101 -11 -4103 -0000 1,300.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -11- 4122 -0000 99.47 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE DEPT Total: 1,399.47 0.00 DEPT 13 Administraton 101 -13- 4101 -0000 7,526.80 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13- 4121 -0000 475.35 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4122 -0000 501.07 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13 -4151 -0000 27.60 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 8,530.82 0.00 DEPT 15 Finance 101 -15- 4101 -0000 4,646.68 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -15- 4121 -0000 306.24 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 310.24 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4151 -0000 17.34 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 5,280.50 0.00 DEPT 18 Planning 101 -18- 4101 -0000 6,271.65 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 392.87 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18 -4122 -0000 380.64 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18 -4151 -0000 18.39 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 7,063.55 0.00 DEPT 24 Protective Inspections 101 -24 -4101 -0000 3,966.01 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24 -4121 -0000 254.91 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/24/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101 -24 -4122 -0000 229.52 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24 -4151 -0000 22.18 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 4,472.62 0.00 DEPT 32 Public Works Service 101 -32 -4101 -0000 10,333.52 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4102 -0000 224.28 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -32- 4105 -0000 284.00 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY 101 -32- 4121 -0000 677.71 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 681.05 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32 -4151 -0000 512.08 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 12,712.64 0.00 DEPT 33 Ice & Snow Removal 101 -33 -4101 -0000 1,152.41 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -33 -4102 -0000 72.00 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -33- 4121 -0000 88.76 0.00 PERA CONTRTB - CITY SHARE 101 -33- 4122 -0000 75.34 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -33- 4151 -0000 56.10 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 1,444.61 0.00 ! DEPT 52 Park Maintenance 101 -52- 4101 -0000 2,263.85 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52- 4121 -0000 112.17 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4122 -0000 143.08 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52 -4151 -0000 110.99 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 2,630.09 0.00 DEPT 53 Recreation 101 -53 -4101 -0000 721.41 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53 -4102 -0000 10.24 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -53- 4103 -0000 1,395.88 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -53 -4121 -0000 51.75 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 161.75 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4151 -0000 6.40 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 2,347.43 0.00 FUND Total: 45,881.73 45,881.73 FUND 201 Southshore Center DEPT 00 Non - Departmental 201 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 2,155.10 CASH AND INVESTMENTS PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/24/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 201 -00 -4101 -0000 1,102.08 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00 -4102 -0000 368.55 0.00 OVERTIME 201 -00 -4103 -0000 425.00 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00 -4121 -0000 106.62 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00 -4122 -0000 141.25 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00 -4151 -0000 11.60 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 2,155.10 2,155.10 FUND Total: 2,155.10 2,155.10 FUND 601 Water Utility DEPT 00 Non - Departmental 601 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 5,691.25 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00 -4101 -0000 4,540.46 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00 -4102 -0000 170.40 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00- 4105 -0000 284.00 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601 -00- 4121 -0000 306.16 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4122 -0000 316.74 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4151 -0000 73.49 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 5,691.25 5,691.25 FUND Total: 5,691.25 5,691.25 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility DEPT 00 Non - Departmental 611 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 7,374.26 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00 -4101- 0000 6,041.00 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 611 -00 -4102 -0000 127.80 0.00 OVERTIME 611 -00- 4105 -0000 284.00 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611 -00 -4121 -0000 411.83 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00 -4122 -0000 406.45 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4151 -0000 103.18 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 7,374.26 7,374.26 FUND Total: 7,374.26 7,374.26 FUND 621 Recycling Utility DEPT 00 Non - Departmental 621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 242.63 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00 -4101 -0000 216.23 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 621 -00 -4121 -0000 12.71 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/24/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 3 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 621 -00 -4122 -0000 13.69 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE DEPT Total: 242.63 242.63 FUND Total: 242.63 242.63 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility DEPT 00 Non- Departmental 631 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 2,562.91 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631 -00 -4101 -0000 2,197.67 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00- 4121 -0000 153.61 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4122 -0000 142.34 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4151 -0000 69.29 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION DEPT Total: 2,562.91 2,562.91. ; FUND Total: 2,562.91 2,562.91 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund DEPT 00 Non- Departmental 700 -00- 1010 -0000 63,385.75„ ._, _ .... - 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00- 2170 -0000 0.00 32,850.78 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700 -00- 2171 -0000 0.00 6,230.65 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 4,058.07 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 1,845.61 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 7,205.26 FICA/MEDICARE TAY PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 6,239.24 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 1,325.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 1,028.64 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2179 -0000 0.00 192.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00- 2180 -0000 0.00 195.42 LIFE INSURANCE 700 -00 -2181 -0000 0.00 483.57 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700 -00- 2183 -0000 0.00 1,288.05 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700 -00- 2184 -0000 0.00 239.46 DENTAL DELTA 700 -00- 2185 -0000 0.00 204.00 DENTAL - UNION DEPT Total: 63,385.75 63,385.75 FUND Total: 63,385.75 63,385.75 Report Total: 127,293.63 127,293.63 PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/24/2014 - 11:33 AM) Page 4 Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: mnguyen Batch: 00001.04.2014 - PR04072014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Account Number DebitAmount CreditAmount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 42,113.13 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101 -13- 4101 -0000 7,942,88 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13- 4121 -0000 505.51 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4122 -0000 532.53 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4151 -0000 24.96 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -15- 4101 -0000 4,646.68 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -15- 4121 -0000 306.24 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 308.75 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4151 -0000 5.19 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -18- 4101 -0000 6,161.57 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 384.89 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4122 -0000 376.80 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4151 -0000 7.89 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -24- 4101 -0000 4,013.37 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24- 4121 -0000 258.35 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4122 -0000 229.63 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4151 -0000 20.40 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -32- 4101 -0000 8,284.26 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4121 -0000 492.29 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 524.60 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4151 -0000 429.49 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -33- 4101 -0000 2,240.70 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -33- 4102 -0000 656.82 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -33- 4121 -0000 210.05 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -33- 4122 -0000 184.72 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -33- 4151 -0000 131.55 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -52- 4101 -0000 1,869.57 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52- 4121 -0000 83.60 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4122 -0000 117.71 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4151 -0000 90.27 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -53- 4101 -0000 932.99 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53- 4121 -0000 66.35 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 69.89 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4151 -0000 2.63 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR - G/L Distribution Report (04/07/2014 - 11:38 AM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND Total: 42,113.13 42,113.13 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 922.12 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201 -00- 4101 -0000 487.83 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00- 4103 -0000 337.50 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00- 4121 -0000 35.37 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4122 -0000 60.46 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4151 -0000 0.96 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 922.12 922.12 FUND 601 Water Utility 601 -00 -1010 -0000 0.00 11,630.43 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00 -4101 -0000 9,206.70 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00 -4102 -0000 668.13 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00 -4105 -0000 142.00 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601 -00 -4121 -0000 670.24 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00 -4122 -0000 616.05 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00 -4151 -0000 327:31 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 11,630.43 11,630.43 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 4,113.50 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00- 4101 -0000 3,142.64 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 611 -00- 4102 -0000 170.40 0.00 OVERTIME 611 -00- 4105 -0000 284.00 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611 -00- 4121 -0000 204.78 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4122 -0000 220.68 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4151 -0000 91.00 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 4,113.50 4,113.50 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 235.98 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00 -4101 -0000 210.63 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 621 -00 -4121 -0000 12.30 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00 -4122 -0000 13.05 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE FUND Total: 235.98 235.98 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 1,342.14 CASH AND INVESTMENTS PR - G/L Distribution Report (04/07/2014 - 11:38 AM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 631 -00 -4101 -0000 1,080.17 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00 -4102 -0000 82.14 0.00 OVERTIME 631 -00 -4121 -0000 78.56 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00 -4122 -0000 75.88 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00 -4151 -0000 25.39 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,342.14 1,342.14 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700 -00 -1010 -0000 60,228.01 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00- 2170 -0000 0.00 29,836.90 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700 -00- 2171 -0000 0.00 6,396.05 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 3,950.07 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 1,786.79 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 6,661.50 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 6,160.73 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 1,325.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 1,157.04 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2179 -0000 0.00 192.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00- 2180 -0000 0.00 406.73 LIFE INSURANCE 700 -00- 2181 -0000 0.00 754.83 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700 -00- 2182 -0000 0.00 312.32 UNION DUES 700 -00- 2183 -0000 0.00 1,288.05 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT FUND Total: 60,228.01 60,228.01 Report Total: 120,585.31 120,585.31 PR - G/L Distribution Report (04/07/2014 - 11:38 AM) Page 3 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 104 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 866913 Building Inspection- 1 st Qtr Check Total: Vendor: 111 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC. 61747 Sunnyvale Lane Improvement Project General Check Total: Vendor: 114 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 044754 -13113 Journal of the APA - 2014 -2015 044754 -13113 Zoning Practice - 2014 -2015 044754 -13113 APA Membership - 2014 -2015 044754 -13113 Minnesota Chapter - 2014 -2015 General Check Total: Vendor: 458 BRETT BAUMANN 2014 -BOOTS 2014 Boots Exp 68.43 Check Total: Vendor: 123 BLUE -TARP FINANCIAL INC 4062014332 Replace Broken Jack - Trailer Check Total: Vendor: 454 BROOKFIELD RELOCATION 03- 810004 -01 6080 Strawberry Lane Utility Final Refund Escrow Check Total: Vendor: 131 BUDGET PRINTING AND AWARDS 4428 Plaques Council Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Check Sequence: 1 67.29 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4400 -0000 General Mun Bldg 67.29 453.00 Check Sequence: 2 Escrow Non -Dept 3,100.00 04/14/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0004 Street Cap Non -Dept 3,100.00 Pub Works 223.92 Check Sequence: 3 Escrow Non -Dept 48.00 04/14/2014 101-18-4331-0000 General Planning 95.00 04/14/2014 101-18-4331-0000 General Planning 260.00 04/14/2014 101 -18- 4433 -0000 General Planning 50.00 04/14/2014 101 -18- 4433 -0000 General Planning 453.00 Check Sequence: 4 Escrow Non -Dept 223.92 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works 223.92 Check Sequence: 5 Escrow Non -Dept 89.99 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 General Pub Works 89.99 Check Sequence: 6 Escrow Non -Dept 68.43 04/14/2014 601 -00 -1150 -0000 Water Non -Dept 68.43 Check Sequence: 7 Escrow Non -Dept 125.00 04/14/2014 101 -11- 4245 -0000 General Council 125.00 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 136 CENTERPOINT ENERGY 03312014 20405 Knighsbridge Rd - 02/20 -03/21 03312014 28125 Boulder Bridge - 02/20 -03/21 03312014 24200 Smithtown Rd - 02/20 -03/21 03312014 5745 Ctry Club & 25200 Hwy 7- 02/20 -03/21 03312014 5755 Country Club Rd - 02/20 -03/21 79456885- 032514 5735 Country Club Rd - 02/20 -03/21 86501806- 032514 20630 Manor Rd - 02/20 -03/21 404.36 Check Total: Vendor: 137 CENTURY LINK 612E451785 -AP14 612 -E45- 1785 -Bldr Brdg- Apr Svc 612E458019 -AP14 612 -E45- 8019 -SE Areas -Apr 9524702294 -MA14 952- 470 - 2294 -PW 9524706340 -MA14 952- 474 - 6340 -CH 9524709605 -MA14 952- 474 - 9605- Amesbury 9524709606 -MA14 952- 474 - 9606 - Amesbury Check Total: Vendor: 147 CITY OF MOUND 2nd Qtr -2014 2014 - Fire Payment - 2nd Qtr Check Total: Vendor: 148 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 1 st Qtr -2014 5735 Ctry Club Rd- 1 st Qtr Utility Check Total: Vendor: 159 CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER March -2014 Drinking Water - Marc Check Total: Vendor: 163 DELEGARD TOOL COMPANY 888136 Tools Check Total 3,640.48 Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept 315.39 Check Sequence: 8 Escrow Non -Dept 171.35 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Water Non -Dept 399.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept 1,578.70 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4380 -0000 General Pub Works 542.39 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 General Park Maint 404.36 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4380 -0000 General Mun Bldg 450.32 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4380 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 94.36 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 General Park Maint 884.47 5,893.25 5,893.25 155.89 155.89 62.87 62.87 140.41 140.41 Check Sequence: 10 Escrow Non -Dept 04/14/2014 101 -22- 4400 -0000 General Fire Check Sequence: 11 Check Sequence: 9 Escrow Non -Dept 315.39 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept 236.43 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4398 -0000 Water Non -Dept 59.56 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4321 -0000 General Pub Works 123.07 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4321 -0000 General Mun Bldg 75.01 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Water Non -Dept 75.01 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Water Non -Dept 884.47 5,893.25 5,893.25 155.89 155.89 62.87 62.87 140.41 140.41 Check Sequence: 10 Escrow Non -Dept 04/14/2014 101 -22- 4400 -0000 General Fire Check Sequence: 11 Escrow Non -Dept 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4380 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Check Sequence: 12 Escrow Non -Dept 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4245 -0000 General Mun Bldg Check Sequence: 13 Escrow Non -Dept 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4240 -0000 General Pub Works Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen City' of Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Shorewood Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor: 171 ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION & MAINT. CO Check Sequence: 14 Escrow Non -Dept 0012815 -IN Replace Timer Smithtown Road Flasher - School X -ir 978.88 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4400 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 978.88 Vendor: 219 ELLY PIEPER Check Sequence: 15 Escrow Non -Dept 03/18/2014 03/18/14 Tablecloths 44.00 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 44.00 Vendor: 179 EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT Check Sequence: 16 Escrow Non -Dept 2nd Qtr -2014 Building- 2nd Qtr 69,605.66 04/14/2014 101 -22- 4620 -0000 General Fire 2nd Qtr -2014 Operations- 2nd Qtr 81,303.90 04/14/2014 101 -22- 4400 -0000 General Fire Check Total: 150,909.56 Vendor: 184 GREGORY FASCHING Check Sequence: 17 Escrow Non -Dept 04/09/2014 Child Care Reimbursement - 04/09/14 1,115.00 04/14/2014 700 -00- 2179 -0000 Payroll Non -Dept Check Total: 1,115.00 Vendor: 200 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL Check Sequence: 18 Escrow Non -Dept 99512 Mar Svc 33.48 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept 99512 Mar Svc 33.48 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4400 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 99512 Mar Svc 33.49 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4400 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept Check Total: 100.45 Vendor: 202 GRAINGER INC Check Sequence: 19 Escrow Non -Dept 9400715984 Plumbing Parts 44.84 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4221 -0000 General Park Maint 9401836037 Plumbing 35.50 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4223 -0000 General Park Maint Check Total: 80.34 Vendor: 208 HACH COMPANY Check Sequence: 20 Escrow Non -Dept 8693304 Pocket Clear Master Chlorine System 399.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4240 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 399.00 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen City' of Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Shorewood Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor: 211 HAWKINS INC Check Sequence: 21 Escrow Non -Dept 3577723 -RI Chlorine 105.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4245 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 105.00 Vendor: 212 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD. Check Sequence: 22 Escrow Non -Dept C155323 Hydrant Repair Parts 124.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4221 -0000 Water Non -Dept C155648 Hydrant Repair Parts 61.15 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4221 -0000 Water Non -Dept C155658 Hydrant Repair Parts 22.15 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4221 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 207.30 Vendor: 216 HENN COUNTY TAXPAYER SERVICES Check Sequence: 23 Escrow Non -Dept 519 - 1094660 Easement- Valleywood- Kulas -Hanus 138.00 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4351 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept 519 - 1094684 Easement - Woodside Cemetery -Mary McDermott 92.00 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4351 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept 519 - 1094685 Easement & Consent - Luke- Hilyar- McNutt 276.00 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4351 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept 519- 728953 Stormwater Easement - Abstract & Torrens Record 46.00 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4351 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept 519- 736347 Stormwater Easement - Abstract & Torrens Record 91.00 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4351 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept Check Total: 643.00 Vendor: 224 INFRATECH Check Sequence: 24 Escrow Non -Dept PR140154 Sunnyvale Sanitary Sewer Inspection 1,861.80 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4321 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Check Total: 1,861.80 Vendor: 457 JOHN HENRY FOSTER Check Sequence: 25 Escrow Non -Dept 10112631 -00 Air Compressor Parts 27.50 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4221 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 27.50 Vendor: 455 KDV, LTD Check Sequence: 26 Escrow Non -Dept 193586 Mar - Consulting Svc 2,170.00 04/14/2014 101 -15- 4301 -0000 General Fin Check Total: 2,170.00 Vendor: 240 KENNETH N POTTS PA Check Sequence: 27 Escrow Non -Dept March -2014 Prosectution Svc - March 2,500.00 04/14/2014 101 -16- 4304 -0000 General Prof Svcs Check Total: 2,500.00 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 247 DREW KRIESEL Feb -2014 Feb - Cleaning Feb -2014 Feb- Rental Svc Mar -2014 Mar- Rental Svc Mar -2014 Mar- Cleaning Svc SSC Check Total: Vendor: 259 CLARE T LINK 2014 -10 Park Commission Meeting - 04/08/14 Pub Works Check Total: Vendor: 260 LOCATORS & SUPPLIES, INC. 0221495 -IN Traffic Cone Holder 0221690 -IN Traffic Cone Holder Check Total: Vendor: 263 JOSEPH LUGOWSKI 2014 -MN -AWWA 2014 MN- AWWA Reimbursement Escrow Check Total: Vendor: 277 MEDTOX LABORATORIES, INC. 032014504782 Drug Test - Annual Fee Non -Dept Check Total: Vendor: 281 METRO CITIES 68- 2014 -Dues 2014 Membership Dues Check Total: Vendor: 283 METRO SALES INC 589427- Credit Overpaid from Inv 589427 594067 Svc Fr- 03/08 -14- 06/08/14 594067 Svc Fr- 03/08 -14- 06/08/14 596377 Yearly Maint.- 04/13 -04/14 Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Non -Dept Check Sequence: 28 Escrow Non -Dept 640.00 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 50.00 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 540.00 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 133.00 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 1,363.00 743.00 Check Sequence: 29 Escrow Non -Dept 187.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4400 -0000 General Park Maint 187.00 Check Sequence: 30 Escrow Non -Dept 334.45 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works 70.01 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works 404.46 Check Sequence: 31 Escrow Non -Dept 23.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4437 -0000 Water Non -Dept 23.00 Check Sequence: 32 Escrow Non -Dept 50.00 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4433 -0000 General Pub Works 50.00 Check Sequence: 33 Escrow Non -Dept 3,123.00 04/14/2014 101 -11- 4433 -0000 General Council 3,123.00 Check Sequence: 34 Escrow Non -Dept -10.00 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 General Mun Bldg 39.00 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 General Mun Bldg 414.00 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 General Mun Bldg 300.00 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 General Mun Bldg 743.00 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 453 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (SAC) 1 st Qtr- 2014 -SA Quarterly SAC Svc- 1 st Qtr 9,840.60 Check Total: Vendor: 286 MIDWEST MAILING SYSTEMS INC 73410 Utility- Postage- 1 st Qtr Addt'l 73410 Utility- Postage- 1 st Qtr Addt'l 73410 Utility- Postage- 1 st Qtr Addt'l 73410 Utility- Postage- 1 st Qtr Addt'l 17.16 Check Total: Vendor: 456 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIP 0311783 Hydrant Repair Parts Recycling Check Total: Vendor: 298 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 19456053220 Quarterly Surcharge Permit - 1 st Qtr Report ABR00924241 1038454 & 54556E Pressure Vessel Check Total: Vendor: 313 MICHELLE NGUYEN March -2014 Mileage - March 427.50 Check Total: Vendor: 322 OFFICE DEPOT 696485129001 Cartridge Laser 696953069001 Wallet Expand 702109307001 Office Supplies 702498583001 Supplies - Envelopes & USB Drive Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept 122.68 Check Sequence: 35 Escrow Non -Dept 9,840.60 04/14/2014 611 -00- 2082 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 9,840.60 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 56.36 Check Sequence: 36 Escrow Non -Dept 17.16 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4208 -0000 Water Non -Dept 17.16 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4208 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 17.16 04/14/2014 621 -00- 4208 -0000 Recycling Non -Dept 17.16 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4208 -0000 Storm Water Non -Dept 68.64 Check Sequence: 37 Escrow Non -Dept 427.50 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4221 -0000 Water Non -Dept 427.50 2,852.05 89.60 Check Total: 479.93 Check Sequence: 38 Escrow Non -Dept 2,832.05 04/14/2014 101 -00- 2085 -0000 General Non -Dept 20.00 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4437 -0000 General Pub Works Check Sequence: 39 Escrow Non -Dept 89.60 04/14/2014 101 -15- 4331 -0000 General Fin Check Sequence: 40 Escrow Non -Dept 122.68 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 134.38 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 166.51 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin 56.36 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4200 -0000 General Admin Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 325 ON SITE SANITATION INC A- 532105 Badger Park - Svc 03/29 -04/25 A- 532106 Cathcart Park- Svc 03/29 -04/25 A- 532107 Freeman Park- Svc 03/29 -04/25 A- 532108 Silverwood Park- Svc 03/29 -04/25 A- 532109 South Shore Skate- Svc 03/29 -04/25 A- 532110 Christmas Lk Boat Access- Svc 03/29 -04/25 General Check Total: Vendor: 329 JEAN PANCHYSITYN Feb - Mar - 2014 -Ex MCFOA & Other Mileage Reimbursement Mar - 2014 -MCFOA MCFOA Conf - St Cloud Hotel Exp TrueSound Exp Studio Recording Light- TrueSound 3,131.56 Check Total: Vendor: 452 PREHALL ELECTRIC INC. 04/04/2014 4828 Rustic Way- Escrow Refund 256 Wiring Recording Sign - Council Chamber 257 Replace Lamps & Lights Check Total: Vendor: 336 PURCHASE POWER 04/07/2014 Postage Refill- 04/07/14 04/07/2014 Postage Fee- 04/07/14 Check Total: Vendor: 108 REPUBLIC SERVICES No.894 0894 - 003449291 Recycling Svc - Apr Check Total: Vendor: 346 SAFETY SIGNS 14200024 Traffic Control Watermain Break - Amesbury Check Total Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept 13 8.8 8 Check Sequence: 41 Escrow Non -Dept 50.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint 50.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint 150.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint 50.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint 50.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint 220.00 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4410 -0000 General Park Maint 570.00 3,591.56 Check Sequence: 42 Escrow Non -Dept 13 8.8 8 04/14/2014 101-13-4331-0000 General Admin 191.04 04/14/2014 101-13-4331-0000 General Admin 89.95 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4223 -0000 General Mun Bldg 419.87 Check Sequence: 45 Escrow Non -Dept 13,741.20 Check Sequence: 43 Escrow Non -Dept 100.00 04/14/2014 880 -00- 2200 -0000 Escrow Non -Dept 360.00 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4223 -0000 General Mun Bldg 3,131.56 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4223 -0000 General Mun Bldg 3,591.56 Check Sequence: 44 Escrow Non -Dept 1,200.00 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4208 -0000 General Admin 19.99 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4208 -0000 General Admin 1,219.99 Check Sequence: 45 Escrow Non -Dept 13,741.20 04/14/2014 621 -00- 4400 -0000 Recycling Non -Dept 13,741.20 Check Sequence: 46 Escrow Non -Dept 103.20 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept 103.20 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen City' of Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Shorewood Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor: 354 SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Check Sequence: 47 Escrow Non -Dept 118777 Blower Starter Cord 14.50 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 General Pub Works Check Total: 14.50 Vendor: 355 SHRED -N -GO INC Check Sequence: 48 Escrow Non -Dept 36199 Svc Thru - 03/20 35.00 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4400 -0000 General Admin Check Total: 35.00 Vendor: 360 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPT. Check Sequence: 49 Escrow Non -Dept 1 St Qtr- 2014 -CO Court Overtime - 1 st Qtr 154.21 04/14/2014 101 -21- 4440 -0000 General Police 2nd Qtr- 2014 -LP Lease Payment - 2nd Qtr 57,441.00 04/14/2014 101 -21- 4620 -0000 General Police Apr- 2014 -OBE Operating Budget Exp - Apr 86,879.67 04/14/2014 101 -21- 4400 -0000 General Police Sept- 2014 -HCPF Henn Cty Processing Fee - Sept 2012 94.48 04/14/2014 101 -21- 4400 -0000 General Police Check Total: 144,569.36 Vendor: 364 SPRINGBROOK SOFTWARE INC Check Sequence: 50 Escrow Non -Dept INV27681 Live Training - Travel Expenses 1,790.93 04/14/2014 403 -00- 4680 -0000 Equip Repl Non -Dept INV27745 Live Training - Travel Expenses 1,006.97 04/14/2014 403 -00- 4680 -0000 Equip Repl Non -Dept Check Total: 2,797.90 Vendor: 446 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUI Check Sequence: 51 Escrow Non -Dept 1 st Qtr -2014 Water Surcharges- 1 st Qtr 2,153.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 2081 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 2,153.00 Vendor: 296 STATE OF MN -MN DEPT. OF HEALTH Check Sequence: 52 Escrow Non -Dept April -2014 Bruce Stark - Register 23.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4331 -0000 Water Non -Dept April -2014 Christopher Pounder - Register 23.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4331 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 46.00 Vendor: 451 JASON STRUCK Check Sequence: 53 Escrow Non -Dept 2013WA- Refund 5615 Eureka Rd -Qater Connection Refund 5,000.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 3711 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 5,000.00 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 381 TKDA ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS 002014000809 Shorewood Valleywood 2013 Rehab - Feb Check Total: Vendor: 382 TOLL GAS & WELDING 10017289 Welding Supplies General Check Total: Vendor: 384 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 9774 Newsletters - Apr Svc 9774 SSCC Insert - Apr 9774 Spring Clean Up Insert - Apr Check Total: Vendor: 388 UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS CORP. 234475 Cold Mix Check Total: Vendor: 392 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. 19909 Watermain Break at Amesbury Check Total: Vendor: 421 VERIZON WIRELESS 9721683628 Brad's Cell Svc 02/13 -03/12 9722240631 L.S. Phones - 02/22 -03/21 Check Total: Vendor: 398 VOYAGER FLEET SYSTEMS INC 869293803413 Closing Date 03 -24 -14 Check Total: Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Check Sequence: 54 Escrow Non -Dept 38.72 04/14/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0003 Street Cap Non -Dept 38.72 1,032.50 Check Sequence: 57 Escrow Non -Dept 1,001.25 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 1,001.25 Check Sequence: 58 Escrow Non -Dept 4,786.64 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept 4,786.64 Check Sequence: 59 Escrow Non -Dept 56.42 04/14/2014 101 -18- 4321 -0000 General Planning 225.89 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4321 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 282.31 Check Sequence: 60 Escrow Non -Dept 4,303.23 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4212 -0000 General Pub Works 4,303.23 Check Sequence: 55 Escrow Non -Dept 159.67 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4245 -0000 General Pub Works 159.67 Check Sequence: 56 Escrow Non -Dept 663.50 04/14/2014 101 -13- 4400 -0000 General Admin 237.00 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 132.00 04/14/2014 621 -00- 4400 -0000 Recycling Non -Dept 1,032.50 Check Sequence: 57 Escrow Non -Dept 1,001.25 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4250 -0000 General Pub Works 1,001.25 Check Sequence: 58 Escrow Non -Dept 4,786.64 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept 4,786.64 Check Sequence: 59 Escrow Non -Dept 56.42 04/14/2014 101 -18- 4321 -0000 General Planning 225.89 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4321 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 282.31 Check Sequence: 60 Escrow Non -Dept 4,303.23 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4212 -0000 General Pub Works 4,303.23 Accounts Payable Computer Check Proof List by Vendor User: mnguyen Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 Invoice No Description Vendor: 415 WARNER CONNECT 29918096 Comp Maint -New Comp Setup Svc 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 Check Total: Vendor: 401 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI -MN 6636753 - 1593 -6 5735 Country Club Rd - Apr 6636754 - 1593 -4 24200 Smithtown Rd - Apr Check Total: Vendor: 402 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE 4873 Watermain Break at Amesbury 192.53 Check Total: Vendor: 405 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 720477 Tires -17350 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4400 -0000 Check Total: Vendor: 327 WINDSTREAM 57184003 CH Service- Mar 57184003 PW Service- Mar 57184003 Boulder Bridge Well Svc- Mar 57184003 Badger Well Service- Mar 57184003 Parks Service- Mar 57184003 West Water Tower Service- Mar of Shorewood Check Total: 544.82 Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Check Sequence: 61 Escrow Non -Dept 303.75 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4221 -0000 General Mun Bldg 303.75 Check Sequence: 62 Escrow Non -Dept 192.53 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4400 -0000 SSC Non -Dept 450.63 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4400 -0000 General Pub Works 643.16 Check Sequence: 63 Escrow Non -Dept 272.40 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4400 -0000 Water Non -Dept 272.40 Check Sequence: 64 Escrow Non -Dept 1,126.43 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4221 -0000 General Pub Works 1,126.43 Check Sequence: 65 Escrow Non -Dept 115.06 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4321 -0000 General Mun Bldg 51.52 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4321 -0000 General Pub Works 54.17 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept 110.02 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4395 -0000 Water Non -Dept 159.87 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4321 -0000 General Park Maint 54.18 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4321 -0000 Water Non -Dept Check Total: 544.82 Accounts Payable XCEL ENERGY Check Sequence: 67 Escrow Computer Check Proof List by Vendor Stmt# 406874629 5700 County Rd 19 - Svc 02/27 -03/30 43.46 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 User: mnguyen Stmt# 406874629 5700 County Rd 19 - Unit Light- Svc 02/27 -03/30 253.03 City' of General Printed: 04/10/2014 - 11.20AM C.H. Svcs - 01/28 -03/11 710.67 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4380 -0000 Shorewood Mun Bldg Batch: 00004.04.2014 - COUNCIL- 04142014 636.67 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4380 -0000 General Pub Works Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Fund Dept Vendor: 410 WSB AND ASSOCIATES INC 1,070.53 Check Sequence: 66 Escrow Non -Dept 01459- 350 -39 GIS & CAD Support - Feb Svc 386.50 04/14/2014 101 -31- 4303 -0000 General Engineering 01459- 690 -18 Smithtown Rd Trl - Feb 1,898.00 04/14/2014 406 -00- 4620 -0001 Trail Non -Dept 01459- 700 -17 MCES Forcemain - Feb 147.00 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4680 -0001 Sewer Non -Dept 01459- 760 -10 Valleywood Area St - Feb 971.00 04/14/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0003 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459- 790 -10 Cty Rd 19 Sidewalk - Feb 65.25 04/14/2014 406 -00- 4640 -0004 Trail Non -Dept 01459 -800 -8 Pavement Marking - Feb Svc 139.25 04/14/2014 101 -31- 4303 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -810 -9 Galpin Lk Rd Trl - Feb 2,179.00 04/14/2014 406 -00- 4620 -0002 Trail Non -Dept 01459 -820 -8 Mill St Trl Conn - Feb 73.50 04/14/2014 406 -00- 4620 -0003 Trail Non -Dept 01459 -830 -5 Pass Thru - Feb - Summit Woods Development 1,226.50 04/14/2014 101 -00- 3414 -0000 General Non -Dept 01459 -850 -2 Sunnyvale Ln Improvements - Feb 6,415.25 04/14/2014 404 -00- 4620 -0004 Street Cap Non -Dept 01459 -860 -1 Lift Station No. 11 Rehabilitation - Feb 425.75 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4680 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept 01459 -870 -2 Gen Eng Svc - Feb 4,000.00 04/14/2014 101 -31- 4400 -0000 General Engineering 01459 -890 -1 Wellhead Protection Plan Amendment Part 2- Feb 552.00 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4303 -0000 Water Non -Dept 02092 -710 -4 MS4 Svcs - Feb 802.50 04/14/2014 631 -00- 4302 -0005 Storm Water Non -Dept Check Total: 19,281.50 Vendor: 411 XCEL ENERGY Check Sequence: 67 Escrow Non -Dept Stmt# 406874629 5700 County Rd 19 - Svc 02/27 -03/30 43.46 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works Stmt# 406874629 5700 County Rd 19 - Unit Light- Svc 02/27 -03/30 253.03 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works Stmt #405687280 C.H. Svcs - 01/28 -03/11 710.67 04/14/2014 101 -19- 4380 -0000 General Mun Bldg Stmt #405687280 P.W. Bldg Svc - 01/28 -03/11 636.67 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4380 -0000 General Pub Works Stmt #405687280 P.W. Street Lights Svc - 01/28 -03/11 3,113.17 04/14/2014 101 -32- 4399 -0000 General Pub Works Stmt #405687280 Parks- 01/28 -03/11 1,070.53 04/14/2014 101 -52- 4380 -0000 General Park Maint Stmt #405687280 Amesbury Svc - 01/28 -03/11 528.74 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt #405687280 Boulder Bridge Svc - 01/28 -03/11 1,463.15 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4396 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt #405687280 S.E. Area Svc - 01/28 -03/11 2,848.36 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4398 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt #405687280 Street Lights - 01/28 -03/11 612.35 04/14/2014 611 -00- 4380 -0000 Sewer Non -Dept Stmt #406406004 24253 Smithtown Rd - 02 -24 -03/25 794.30 04/14/2014 601 -00- 4395 -0000 Water Non -Dept Stmt #406429893 5735 Country Club Rd - 02/24 -03/25 718.30 04/14/2014 201 -00- 4380 -0000 SSC Non -Dept Check Total: 12,792.73 Total for Check Run: 416,529.30 Total of Number of Checks: 67 k,\ ;\ City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Approving Election Judge Compensation Rates Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments: Resolution MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should the Election Judge Compensation rates be increased effective with the 2014 Election? Background: For the 2008, 2010, and 2012 Elections, the City of Shorewood compensated Election Judges as follows: Supervisor Judge $8.50 /hr., and Election Judge $8.00 /hr. Staff is recommending ar increase to $9.50 for the Supervisor Judge and $8.50 for the Election Judge. A survey of what other nearby cities pay their elections judges is provided in the table below: City Supervisor /Head Judge Election Judge Tonka Bay $8.00 $7.50 Mound $8.50 $8.00 Minnetonka Beach $9.00 $8.50 Deephaven $9.00 $8.50 Shorewood $9.50 $8.50 Proposed for 2014 Excelsior $9.50 $8.50 Wayzata $11.00 $9.00 Staff is proposing a $1.00 increase in the 2014 Supervisor /Head Election Judge salary due to the level of responsibility they have in the polling place. An increase of .50 cents is recommended for all other Election Judges. Options: Council may 1) approve a resolution setting the Election Judge compensation at $9.50 /hr for Supervisor /Head Judge and $8.50 /hr for the Election Judge; or 2) approve a different rate; or 3) leave the compensation at the current rate. Financial Considerations: When preparing the 2014 Budget, staff calculated the Election Judge salaries using the proposed rates of $9.50 /hr and $8.50 /hr. Recommendation /Action Requested: Staff is recommending approval of the attached Resolution establishing the Election Judge Compensation Rates of $9.50 Supervisor /Head Judge and $8.50 for Election Judge. Rates will be effective for the 2014 Election year. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION APPROVING ELECTION JUDGE COMPENSATION RATES WHEREAS, the City has a need for citizens to serve as election judges in the primary and general elections; and WHEREAS, the position titles and compensation rates for election judges have been reviewed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: That the City of Shorewood will establish the following election judge positions and hourly salary rates, beginning with the year 2014 elections, for those individuals who serve as judges for both the primary and general elections: Supervisor /Head Judge $9.50 / hour Election Judge $8.50 / hour ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 14"' day of April, 2014 ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Full Time Regular Appointment to the Light Equipment Operator Position Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: lean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood make appointment to the Light Equipment Operator position, now that the candidate has successfully completed the probationary period? Background: On April 7, 2014 Mr. Brett Baumann successfully completed his six -month probationary period for the position of Light Equipment Operator within the Department of Public Works. Mr. Baumann continues to bring a wide variety of skills to the table and fits in well with the organization. Mr. Baumann maintains an enthusiastic attitude and strong work ethic. Therefore, Mr. Brett Bauman is recommended for permanent appointment as Light Equipment Operator within the Department of Public Works. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of the resolution that appoints Mr. Brett Baumann for Full Time regular appointment as Light Equipment Operator within the Department of Public Works, effective retroactively to April 7, 2014. A resolution is attached for your consideration. Financial or Budget Considerations: In accordance with the initial offer letter to Mr. Baumann, if the candidate successfully completes the probationary period, the wage rate would be increased to the next step increase. This results in a revised wage of $23.27 per hour. Options: 1. Adopt the proposed resolution making the appointment. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: 1. Staff is recommending Option 1 that adopts the resolution making appointment be approved. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing adequate and quality staffing directly impacts quality public services. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REGULAR FULL TIME APPOINTMENT OF BRETT BAUMANN AS LIGHT EQUIPMENT OPERATOR WHEREAS, on September 23, 2013, the Shorewood City Council passed a motion filling the position of Light Equipment Operator within the Department of Public Works; and WHEREAS, said Motion appointed Mr. Brett Baumann to the position, subject to a six -month probationary period; and WHEREAS, said six -month probationary period ended on April 7, 2014; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Director has reviewed the performance of Mr. Baumann and has recommended that the City Council appoint Brett Baumann to the position of Light Equipment Operator /Utility Operator. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of Shorewood does hereby appoint Brett Baumann to the position of Light Equipment Operator for the City of Shorewood, effective retroactively to April 7, 2014. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 14"' day of April, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Safety Consultation Services Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: lean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments Proposal by SafeAssure Consultants Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood enter into a contract with SafeAssure Consultants to provide safety training and mandated safety programs Background / Previous Action The Occupational Safety and Health Association (OSHA) mandates safety training for all employees. Each year all employees must be certified in the following areas: ♦ Employee Right to Know ♦ Blood Borne Pathogens ♦ Emergency Action Plan Beyond the training indicated above, Public Works Personnel are also to be certified annually in the following areas: ♦ A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Program (AWAIR) ♦ Control of Hazardous Energy ♦ Hazard Communications ♦ Recording and Reporting of Injuries and Illnesses ♦ Confined Space Entry /Rescue ♦ Respiratory Protection ♦ Occupational Noise Exposure ♦ Powered Industrial Trucks ♦ Excavations /Trench Safety ♦ Logging Operations ♦ Operation of Mobile Earth Moving Equipment ♦ Personal Protective Equipment ♦ Overhead Cranes ♦ Ergonomics 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 SafeAssure Inc. has provided these services previously, as a joint project with 11 other Lake area communities. The ability to train with other municipalities provides the opportunity to train at a cost of approximately one fourth the cost of other programs. SafeAssure also provides an automated Safety Data Sheet program. OSHA mandates that every material that an employee comes in contact with must have a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) that outlines health risks, protective equipment to be utilized, and chemical reaction data. This mandate, not only applies to chemicals, but to everyday items such as bolts, wood, and asphalt. The job of keeping SDS sheets current for every product that is received is an ominous task, at best. As testimony to the program, the City has previously had a surprise inspection completed by OSHA. That inspection occurred at the time when the City was contracted with SafeAssure Consultants. Staff is pleased to report that the inspection went very well. The OSHA inspectors examined many parts of the program and were very satisfied as to how the program was outlined, and how the program was being implemented. Attachment 1 is the proposal from SafeAssure in the amount of $2,958.00. This cost is identical to last year's cost and has been budgeted for in the Public Works Operations Budget. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of a motion accepting the proposal from SafeAssure Consultants, as provided. Financial or Budget Considerations: The services, as specified, have been programmed into the annual 2014 operating budget. Options: 1. Accept the proposal by motion. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: 1. Staff is recommending Option 1 that accepts the proposal from SafeAssure for safety consultation services be approved. Connection to Vision / Mission: Providing safe services for employees helps provide quality services to our residents. The United States Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Minnesota Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration require employers to have documented proof of employee training and written procedures for certain specific standards. The attached addendum and training schedule clarifies written and training requirements. The required standards that apply to The City of Shorewood are listed below: A.W.A.I.R. MN Statute 182.653 "An employer covered by this section must establish a written Work- placeAccident& Injuryprogram that promotes safe & healthful working conditions': EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN 29 CFR 1910.35 THRU .38 "The emergency action plan shall be in writing and shall cover the designated actions employers & employees must take to insure employee safety from fire & other emergencies" : CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY 29 CFR 1910.147 & MN Statute 5207.0600 "Procedures shall be developed, documented & utilized for the control of potentially hazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section': HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS 29 CFR 1910.1200 & MN Statute 5206.0100 thru 5206.1200 "Evaluating the potential hazards ofchemicals, and communicating information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees may include, but is not limited to, provision for development & maintaining a written hazard communication program for the work - place... " RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 29 CFR 1904 "Each employer shall maintain in each establishment a log and summary ofall occupational injuries and illnesses for that establishment ........... . CONFINED SPACE 29 CFR 1910.146 If the employer decides that its employees will enter permit spaces, the employer shall develop and implement a written permit space program........ RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 29 CFR 1910.134 Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators shall be established. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE 29 CFR 1910.95 The employer shall institute a training program for all employees who are exposed to noise at or above an 8 -hour time weighted average of 85 decibels, and shall ensure employee participation in such a program. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS 29 CFR 1910.1030 Each employer ha ving an employee(s) with occupational exposure as defined by paragraph (b) of this section shall establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure. 1 VIII Of 7 POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS 29 CFR 1910.178 "Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to operate a powered industrial truck Methods shall be devised to train operators in the safe operation of Powered Industrial Trucks": GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE PL91 -596 "Hazardous conditions or practices not covered in an O. S. H. A. Standard may be covered under section 5(a)(1) of the act, which states Each employer shall furnish to each of {their} employees employment and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to {their} employees " PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 1926.95 a) 'Application. "Protective equipment, including persona / protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities, protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers, sha/ /be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and re /tab le condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or environment, chemical hazards, radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function of any part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact OVERHEAD CRANES 1910.179(j)(3) Periodic inspection. Complete inspections of the crane shall be performed at interva /s as genera //y defined in paragraph (j)(1)( / /)(b) of this section, depending upon its activity ..................... ERGONOMICS 29 CFR PART 1910.900 THRU 1910.944 "Training required for each employee and their supervisors must address signs and symptoms of MSD s, MSD hazards and controls used to address MSD hazards " MOBILE EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT MN RULES 5207.1000 Mobile earth- moving equipment operators and a// other employees working on the ground exposed to mobile earth- moving equipment sha// be trained in the safe work procedures pertaining to mobile earth- moving equipment and in the recognition of unsafe or hazardous conditions. 2 VIII Of 7 In the interest of Quality Safety Management, it may be recommended that written procedures and documented employee training also be provided for the following Subparts. (Subparts represent multiple standards) 1910 Subparts Subpart D - Walking - Working Surfaces Subpart E - Means of Egress Subpart F - Powered Platforms, Man - lifts, and Vehicle- Mounted Work Platforms Subpart G - Occupational Health and Environmental Control Subpart H - Hazardous Materials Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment Subpart J - General Environmental Controls Subpart K - Medical and First Aid Subpart L - Fire Protection Subpart M - Compressed Gas and Compressed Air Equipment Subpart N - Materials Handling and Storage Subpart 0 - Machinery and Machine Guarding Subpart P - Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand -Held Equipment. Subpart Q - Welding, Cutting, and Brazing. Subpart S - Electrical Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances 1926 Subparts Subpart C - General Safety and Health Provisions Subpart D - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls Subpart E - Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment Subpart F - Fire Protection and Prevention Subpart G - Signs, Signals, and Barricades Subpart H - Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal Subpart I - Tools - Hand and Power Subpart J - Welding and Cutting Subpart K - Electrical Subpart L - Scaffolds Subpart M - Fall Protection Subpart N - Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors Subpart 0 - Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations Subpart P - Excavations Subpart V - Power Transmission and Distribution Subpart W - Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection Subpart X - Stairways and Ladders Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances Applicable MN OSHA 5205 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5207 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5206 Rules (Employee Right to Know) 3 VIII Of 7 All training on the programs written by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will meet or exceed State and /or Federal OSHA requirements. These programs /policies and procedures listed on the addendum do not include the cost of hardware such as labels, signs, etc. and will be the responsibility of The City of Shorewood to obtain as required to comply with OSHA standards. Our contract year will begin on the signing of this proposal /contract. Classroom training will be accomplished at a time convenient to most employees /management and so selected as to disrupt the workday as little as possible. All documents and classroom training produced by SafeAssure Consultants for The City of Shorewood are for the sole and express use by The City of Shorewood and its employees and not to be shared, copied, recorded, filmed or used by any division, department, subsidiary, or parent organization or any entity whatsoever, without prior written approval of SafeAssure Consultants. It is always the practice of SafeAssure Consultants to make modifications and /or additions to your program when necessary to comply with changing OSHA standards/ statutes. These changes or additions, when made during a contract year, will be made at no additional cost to The City of Shorewood. All written programs /services that are produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. are guaranteed to meet the requirements set forth by MNOSHA /OSHA. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will reimburse The City of Shorewood should MNOSHA /OSHA assess a fine for a deficient or inadequate written program that was produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. does not take responsibility for financial loss due to MNOSHA /OSHA fines that are unrelated to written programs mentioned above. 4 VIII Of 7 ADDENDUM SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Shorewood Written Programs & Training A.W.A.I.R. (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Act) • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • accident investigation • simulated OSHA inspection Employee Right to Know /Hazard Communication • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel (general and specific training) • various labeling requirements • assist with installing and initiating DAMARCO Solutions, LLC, MSDS and data base program Lock Out /Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy) • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Emergency Action Plan • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Respiratory Protection • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Bloodborne Pathogens • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Cranes - Chains - Slings • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel (inspections) Hearing Conservation (Occupational Noise Exposure) • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • decibel testing and documentation Personal Protective Equipment • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Confined Space • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personal 5 VIII Of 7 Powered Industrial Trucks/ Forklifts • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • testing and licensing Ergonomics • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • job hazards - recognition • control steps • reporting • management leadership requirements • employee participation requirements Mobile Earthmoving Equipment • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personal General Safety Requirements • review /modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel The " "SafeAssure Advantage" • On -Line training available for AWAIR, EAP, ERTK, ERGO, Bloodborne • Safety Committee Advisor • Employee Safety Progress Analysis • SafeAssure " "Client Discount Card" from Fastenal Stores or Catalogs (15% off any item) • Job Hazard Analysis (JHA for more hazardous tasks /jobs) • Training manual maintenance • Safety manual maintenance • Documented decibel testing • Documented air quality readings -(CO2 testing in shops with 5 or more vehicle capacity) • Documented foot - candle readings (if needed) • OSHA recordkeeping • General Duty Clause • Assistance during an actual OSHA inspection • General safety recommendations • "ALERT" data base • Unlimited consulting services 6 VIII Of 7 Contract/ Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made this first day of May, 2014 between The City of Shorewood, Shorewood, Minnesota, herein referred to as The City of Shorewood and SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. 200 S.W. Fourth Street, Willmar, Minnesota, herein referred to as SafeAssure. SafeAssure agrees to abide by all applicable federal and state laws including, but not limited to, OSHA regulations and local /state /national building codes. Additionally, SafeAssure will practice all reasonable and appropriate safety and loss control practices. SafeAssure agrees to provide, at the time of execution of this contract/agreement, The City of Shorewood (upon request) with a current Certificate of Insurance with proper coverage lines and a minimum of $2,000,000.00 in insurance limits of general liability and statutory for workers' compensation insurance. SafeAssure is insured by "The Hartford" insurance companies. SafeAssure further agrees that The City of Shorewood will not be held liable for any claims, injuries, or damages of whatever nature due to negligence, alleged negligence, acts or omissions of SafeAssure to third parties. SafeAssure expressly forever releases and discharges The City of Shorewood, its agents, members, officers, employees, heirs and assigns from any such claims, injuries, or damages. SafeAssure will also agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless The City of Shorewood, its agents, members and heirs from any and all claims, injuries, or damages of whatever nature pursuant to the provisions of this agreement. SafeAssure and its employees is an independent contractor of The City of Shorewood, and nothing in this agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of an employer /employee. In consideration of this signed agreement/contract, for the period of Twelve Months from the signing month, SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. agrees to provide The City of Shorewood, the aforementioned features and services. These features and services include but are not limited to OSHA compliance recommendations and consultations, providing scheduled classroom- training sessions, writing and maintaining mandatory OSHA programs. These features and services will be prepared to meet the specific needs of The City of Shorewood. ANNUAL CONTRACT $ 2858.00 DAMARCO SERVICES (MSDS ON -LINE) $ 100.00 ANNUAL $2,958.00 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, we agree to the day and year first above written and, if representing an organization or similar entity, further certify the undersigned are a duly authorized agent of said entity and authorized to sign on behalf of identified entity. TWELVE MONTH CONTRAC7II=* X The City of Shorewood X _ The City of Shorewood XCU 040114 SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. Date 7 VIII Of 7 #3E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accept Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation for Galpin Lake Road Walkway Improvement Project, City Project 13 -06 Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Paul Nornby, City Engineer Attachments: AET Proposal dated March 17, 2014 Policy Consideration: Should the City proceed with Geotechnical Evaluation services with American Engineering and Testing, Inc. (AET) for the Galpin Lake Road Walkway Improvement Project? Background: The Galpin Lake Road Walkway Improvement Project construction plans and specifications were previously authorized by the City Council. TO complete project plans, a geotechnical evaluation will be necessary. Enclosed with this memorandum is a proposal from American Engineering Testing, Inc. for these professional services. As outlined in the proposal, AET will perform the following services: Fieldwork Perform 15 SPT type soil borings, 12 borings advanced to terminal depths 20 feet deep for retaining walls, and 3 borings advanced to terminal depths of 10 feet deep for pavement and utilities, for a project total of 270 feet. Locate and mark the proposed 15 borings in the field at locations as indicated in the plans. Clear underground public utilities through Gopher State One Call System. Record thicknesses of pavement and aggregate base encountered. Engineering Analysis/ Report Perform logs of the test borings, indicating the existing bituminous and aggregate base thickness. Document thickness of topsoil and other soil strata encountered. Provide descriptions of drilling, sampling, testing, and classification methods. Review the soil conditions encountered and provide an estimated R Value for pavement design. R Value estimates will be based on soil classification type and our experience. Provide recommendations for utility bedding, sub -grade preparation and pavement design. Provide recommendations for bearing capacity at foundation elevation for the retaining walls. 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 Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee for the scope of services proposed is $13,400. If approved, this will be funded from the Trail Fund. The proposed fee is higher than some of the previous improvement projects designed for the City. This is due to the recommended number of borings for retaining walls as an effort to reduce construction costs by providing more information to contractors bidding and constructing the project. Options: 1. Accept the proposal by motion and authorize staff to execute the proposal agreement. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option 1, Accepting the Proposal for Geotechnical Services with AET in the amount of $13,400, and authorizing staff to execute the proposal agreement. AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC, March 17, 2014 City of Shorewood c/o WSB & Associates, Inc. 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Attn: Mr. Paul Hornby — City Engineer RE: Proposal for Geotechnical Services Galpin Lake Road Walkway Shorewood, MN Dear Mr. Hornby: CONSULTANTS • ENVIRONMENTAL • GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • FORENSICS At the request of WSB & Associates, we are submitting this proposal to conduct subsurface exploration and geotechnical engineering services for providing recommendations for street and utility improvements and trail and retaining wall constriction along Galpin Lake Road in Shorewood, MN. SCol2e Fieldwork • Perform 15 SPT soil borings: 12 borings advanced to terminal depths 20 feet deep for retaining walls and 3 borings advanced to terminal depths of 10 feet deep, for a project total of 270 feet. • Locate and mark the proposed 15 borings in the field at locations as indicated in the plan provided by you along with your request for proposal. • Clear underground public utilities through Gopher State One Call System. • Record thicknesses of pavement and aggregate base encountered. Engineering Analysis / Report • Logs of the test borings, indicating the existing bituminous and aggregate base thickness, thickness of topsoil and other soil strata encountered. • Descriptions of drilling, sampling, testing, and classification methods. • Review the soil conditions encountered and provide an estimated R Value for pavement design. R Value estimates will be based on soil classification type and our experience. • Provide recommendations for utility bedding, sub -grade preparation and pavement design. • Provide recommendations for bearing capacity at foundation elevation for the retaining walls. 550 Cleveland Avenue North I St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 651 -659 -9001 1 Toll Free 800 - 972 -6364 1 Fax 651 - 659 -1379 1 www.amengtest.com I AA /EEO This document shall not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of American Engineering Testing, Inc. Galpin Lake Road Walkway Paul Hornby — City Engineer Page 2 of 3 The outlined scope is based on performing a boring for every 100 feet of retaining wall and advancing to a depth equal to or greater than twice the wall height. We understand the proposed retaining walls will be on the order of 5 to 8 feet in height. If unsuitable soils are encountered at the terminal depth of the wall borings, we will advance the borings to a depth of 5 feet into naturally deposited, competent soil. Global stability of retaining walls is not included in the scope of our work and will be the responsibility of the contractor's retaining wall designer. AET will deploy standard advance warning traffic control signs if needed. We assume extensive traffic control will not be required due to low traffic in the residential area, and is not in our scope for this work. We assume WSB will survey the field locations after our field operations have been completed. We assume the boring locations can accessed with a trick- mounted drill rig. In the case that we need to mobilize an ATV - mounted drill rig, additional cost will be incurred as detailed in the following fees section of this proposal. The scope of work defined in this proposal is intended for geotechnical purposes only, and not to explore for the presence or extent of environmental contamination at the site. However, we will note obvious contamination encountered. Fees Our services will be invoiced for a lump sum total fee. For the scope of services described previously, our fee will be $13,400. Additional drilling for added footage or additional locations will be invoiced at $30 /ft. If a greater degree of traffic control is warranted, we will provide a single flagman to manage traffic around the drill site, and an additional lump sum fee of $700 /day will be invoiced. If access requires, we will mobilized an ATV - mounted drill rig to the site for an additional lump sum fee of $1000. In the event the scope of our work needs to be revised, we will review such scope adjustments and the associated fees with you, and receive your approval before proceeding. Schedule Based on our current schedule and weather permitting, after we receive written authorization to proceed, we anticipate our trick rig field work can begin in about two to three weeks and our ATV rig field work can begin in about four to five weeks (mid - April), if needed. The final reporting will be completed 2 weeks after field work has been completed. Terms /Conditions Our services will be performed according to the Contract Agreement between the City of Shorewood and AET for Professional Services dated 9/13/99. Galpin Lake Road Walkway Paul Hornby — City Engineer Page 3 of 3 Accel2tance To indicate acceptance, please endorse a copy of this proposal and return it to us. Remarks If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE BY: Ben Hoefer, PE Signature: Senior Engineer Phone 4651 - 659 -1377 Printed Name: Cell 4612 -685 -6432 bhoefer @amengtest.com Date: #3F MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Accepting a Donation from the American Legion Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Policy Consideration: All donations to the City of Shorewood must be accepted by the City Council. Background: The American Legion has given a $250 donation for this year's Safety Camp program. The contribution is voluntary in nature. Financial or Budget Considerations: This donation will help to cover expenses of the Safety Camp program that will be held on August 13. Options: • Accept the Donation, or • Reject the Donation Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the donation be accepted, and a thank you note will be mailed to the American Legion. 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 WON owl City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: City Hall Landscape Maintenance — Proposal Meeting Date: 14 April 2014 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Stonescapes Proposal #3G MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Policy Consideration: Should the City contract with a landscape maintenance company for periodic maintenance of landscaping at the City Hall? Background: Last year the City contracted with Stonescapes for periodic maintenance of the City Hall property. The contractor has submitted its proposal for doing the work again this year. Stonescapes' proposal is the same as last year, except there is no initial cleanup effort required this year, resulting in a less expensive total ($1470 versus $4250 last year). It should be pointed out that a line item in the proposal includes $74 per yard for mulch as needed. Justin Mangold suggests that additional mulch may not be necessary this year since the landscape beds were top- dressed last year. It is worth noting that staff has begun work on an overall Landscape Standards Manual for all of the City's properties. The Park Commission has already begun working on the Parks element of the manual. Once completed, the manual should address long -term and ongoing maintenance of landscaping for city property. Financial or Budget Considerations: As mentioned above, the current proposal is $1470, $2780 less than last year's effort. Options: Approve the proposal, deny it, or modify it. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Council should authorize the Administrator to execute the agreement with Stonescapes. Next Steps and Timelines: Stonescapes has taken the liberty of having its staff do some preliminary pruning of plants. Mr. Mangold assures us that we will not be charged for that work if, for some reason, the Council does not approve the Stonescapes proposal. Connection to Vision / Mission: 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 I ,n Customer Information 525 Creekridge Dr, Suite D Chaska, MN 55318 Office: 952.474.1951 Fax: 952.380.3683 stonescapesdesign. com 2014 Maintenance Service Agreement Tuesday, March 4, 2014 City of Shorewood - City Hall Gardens Attn: Brad Nielsen 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Garden Management • Shrub & Ornamental Tree Pruning - As needed for the season Site Information City of Shorewood - City Hall Gardens Attn: Brad Nielsen 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 • Landscape Bed Weeding - Every other week visits April to mid - October • Snapshot Pre - emergent Weed Control - 2 visit per year • Perennial & Shrub Fertilizing - 2 visits per year • Mulch Topdressing With Pine Bark - I visit per year $210.00 per month (April through October) $74.00 per yard Initial Initial the line next to your selection(s). Pricing does not include applicable Minnesota sales tax. This proposal may be withdrawn by StoneScapes if not accepted within fifteen days. Terms & Conditions: The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and hereby accepted. The payment terms are net 30. Work crews shall arrive at the job site unannounced unless otherwise noted herein. StoneScapes shall attempt to meet all performance dates, but shall not be liable for damages due to delays from inclement weather or other cause beyond our control. StoneScapes is not responsible for normal property wear and tear or any damage to irrigation systems. Extras & Change Orders: New sod and /or seed mowing for the first three cuts will be billed at a rate of $42.00 per hour. Any debris, commonly fallen tree limbs, in the work area will be pickup by crew for $16.00 per yard with a quarter yard minimum. Additionally, for any per hour garden services debris will be hauled away at same the rate. Fuel surcharges of 1.5% of the total invoice will be assessed each month fuel prices go above $4.00 per gallon, with an additional 0.5% for each $0.25 thereafter. Any additional alteration or deviation from the agreement specifications involving extra costs will be executed by a written change order and will become an extra charge over and above the proposed agreement amount, with adjustment in the agreement price and /or agreement time. Cancellation & Renewal: Both parties have an unconditional right to cancel the agreement, without penalty or any further obligations. Cancellation must be done by giving the other party written notice indicating intention. Upon cancellation StoneScapes shall invoice at the end of the given month for all work performed before cancellation date. Please return one copy to StoneScapes I ,n 525 Creekridge Dr, Suite D Chaska, MN 55318 Office: 952.474.1951 Fax: 952.380.3683 stonescapesdesign. com The agreement auto renews for subsequent years until either party cancels the agreement, the scope of work changes and /or the price changes. Photo Waiver: StoneScapes can use photographs taken of the work at the location for use in any publications. Property owner waives any right to inspect or approve the finished photographs and waives any right to royalties or other compensation arising from or related to the use of the photographs. Late Payment Charges: Amounts not paid according the terms, net 30, will be charged a $15.00 late fee per month and a service charge of 1.5% per month or the maximum legal rate allowable, whichever is higher, until paid in full. StoneScapes shall also be entitled to recover all reasonable costs, charges, expenses and attorney fees expended or incurred therein. Invoice & Payment Options: The first of each month an invoice will be sent for all work performed in the previous month. On the third Friday of the month your credit card will be charged for previous month's balance or check payments are due by the 30th of each month. Payment Method Visa ❑ Master Card ❑ Discovery ❑ Amex ❑ Check ❑ (check box) Credit Card # Expiration Date Security Code How would you like to recevie your invoices? Standard Mail ❑ Email ❑ or both ❑ (check box) Email Address I/We agree to the above costs and specifications and authorize you to do the work as outline above. Customer Signature: City of Shorewood - City Hall Gardens Date Estimator Signature: Justin Mangold Tuesday, March 4, 2014 StoneScapes Design Build Maintain Date Please return one copy to StoneScapes k,\ ;\ �l City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Recognition of Service of Park Commissioner Bob Edmondson Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #6A MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Background: Bob Edmondson will be present this evening to receive recognition for his five years of service on the Park Commission, from March 2009 to March 2014. 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, APRIL 8, 2014 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Quinlan convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Mangold, Commissioners Citv Council Liaison Hotvet; C1 Absent: None B. Review Agenda Sawtell moved to approve the agenda as written. Dietz 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of March 11, #�a 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. Savaell, and Ische; motion. Motion carried. Con nussioner Sawtell moved to approve the minutes of the March 11, 2014 meeting as amended: Page 1, Item 2A, change 50 to 750;_Comnussioners discussed whether to change the discussion during the vote for Chair. Sawtell stated he raised the question of whether the vote should be delayed until Con nussioner Dietz could be present, Hartmann seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 -0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There Nvere,none. New Cornnussioner Ische introduced'himself and discussed his background which will be helpful in his new role as Park Commissioner. It was noted Ische would replace Bob Edmondson. 4. BADGER PARK UPDATE AND FOLLOW -UP ON COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mangold stated the meeting with the City Council was not held, and we are still waiting for financial updates on the park construction. Nielsen stated the two concepts were reviewed in detail. He noted there were flaws in both concepts. He noted everything gets real squeezed on the north end as one leaves the ball park. The original concept envisioned a pathway through the park to the Southshore Center. He stated concept 2 is more angular. On concept 1, the appearance is that of one large parking lot. Concept 1 is more of a tree - lined drive to the parking lot. The Council believed concept 2 tied the Center better to the park. The loop to the Center is under the canopy in concept 1 while the loop is further to the west on concept 2. He discussed field orientation and the advantages of having it north/south or east/west. He stated if concept 2 is more expensive with the change in field orientation, they may still go with concept 1. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 Nielsen stated it was felt that it would be more productive to have a work session when the financial information is available. Mangold agreed we are being held back by not having the numbers. Nielsen felt the information would be available for the next month's meeting. Nielsen stated the most expensive part of the element will be the picnic shelter. He stated as we progress, the elements are subject to change and relocation. Ische stated he liked concept I but believed the two play areas should be next to each other. Mangold agreed. He believed the play area is a lot of space. He stated concept,�Z lacks the green space that he thought was our overall goal. Ische also discussed the importance of having the picnic area near the play Hotvet asked where the Watershed District's collaboration falls. Nielsen stated once the design is selected, the Watershed District will be notified. Reusing the water and circulating it through will be possible issues of concern. Hotvet stated she didn't think'if would hurt to engage them before the concept is selected. Nielsen stated they have been contacted. Hartmann discussed areas where the Watershed could become involved. Nielsen stated the director is very creative when finding projects to partner. Ische stated it will be costly to redirect water to the pond. He stated the impact to wetlands might be a concern. Nielsen stated this is a constructed pond. Dietz asked what a "community display" would involve. "' Nielsen stated it is community artwork or sculptures. Dietz asked if there would be a clear count for parking spaces in each concept. Mangold noted it is on the site plans. _5. DISCUSS LANDSCAPE STANDARDS FOR CITY PARKS Con nussioners reviewed a packet from another community. Nielsen stated it lays out maintenance items for all city -awned property. He noted each piece of property would be categorized into levels of service. He reviewed examples from the packet which talks about how often areas are mowed, fertilized, or aerated: The next step would be to determine what the levels of service will be. He stated the list will be created for Shorewood and brought along on the park tours. Hotvet suggested replacement of equipment be added to the information. Mangold stated it would be nice to have inspection lists for each park as well. Hotvet stated she likes the idea of this and having it published on the website so people know. Con nussioners and staff discussed complaints regarding the tennis court net and the field at Badger Park. Nielsen stated another complaint is the equipment gate at the hockey rink is left open all the time. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 Mangold stated the levels of service might also be different from one park to another. Nielsen stated baselines can be set. Ische stated it would be helpful for residents to know when fields, for example, are scheduled to be maintained. Nielsen stated this item will be brought back to the next meeting after input from Public Works. He stated wood chip placement needs to be a regular maintenance item. He mentioned Public Works has been responsible for storm water pond inspections. He stated this task will be shifted to a consultant who does this on a regular basis. Nielsen stated a Shorewood resident will be attending the next Park Commission meeting to discuss the need for more flowers in the parks to attract bees and avoiding certain pesticides that are harmful to bee colonies. Dietz stated it would be important to know what Public Works is spraying now and when. Hartmann suggested Larry Brown also attend the meeting. 6. DETERMINE DATES FOR PARK TOURS Mangold stated park tour dates need to be deter, the park tours and they should be moved back. season is over. Mangold suggested the July and Glen from one list to the other. Ische believed v order to help Director BroN-,n develop his list of May. Hartmann suggested Cathcart also be me Mangold stated the Cour NNith the Council prior to on a different night.. Mangold suggested the V Freeman, Cathcart and 1\ stated he would send out on Wednesday. Mav 7 bf is in May He stated Brown has indicated May is too early for ated if parks are visited in July, Little League §ts be flipped. He also suggested moving Gideon I N`ant to visit the ball fields as soon as possible in rcijects. SaN�tell suggested Nve visit Freeman Park in May. ch is a conflict. Nielsen suggested getting together stated another option is to schedule the park tours i be the regular Park Commission night and have a park tour of on the'same night. Commissioners discuss possible nights. Nielsen tes to see what works best. Commissioners discussed having the tour 7 p.m. Commissioners continued discussion of other park tours and the parks that should be revieNved. Freeman, Cathcart, Badger, Gideon; Glen, and Crescent Neill be visited starting at 6:30 p.m. on May 7 given the amount of daylight. The remainder of the parks Neill be done on June 10. 7. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 14 Commssioners discussed who will be liaison for the City Council meeting on April 14. Sawtell volunteered. 8. NEW BUSINESS PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 Hartmann asked if there needs to be any discussions with the baseball organizations now that they have merged. Nielsen stated Twila holds an annual meeting to discuss field usage. He stated he would talk with her to see if she has heard anything about changes. Sawtell asked if there has been any discussion of the number of meetings one can miss. Nielsen stated the Planning Comnussion came up with four as their recommendation. There is always the possibility there would be extenuating circumstances, and the Council would be the final word. In response to a question from Ische, Nielsen stated he would check the ordinance to determine whether it is a calendar year or a "rolling" year. Sawtell moved, Ische seconded to recommend a Park Comnussion member cannot miss more than four meetings in a calendar year and more than two in a row barring any unforeseen circumstances. Motion carried 5 -0. 9. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS /UPDATES A. City Council B. Staff Nielsen stated an agenda item to recommend working N-, th a solar consultant to add solar panels to city buildings was on a recent agenda. Hotvet stated the Council 'i ould like to move slowly., Hotvet noted the resident concerned about bees would like a resolution adopted. Commissioners' and staff discussed this issue. 10. ADJOURN Hartmann moved, Sawtell seconded, to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of April 8, 2014 at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, APRIL 1, 2014 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Maddy and Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Labadie APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • March 4, 2014 Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Nyas a lot to transcribe. Davis moved, Maddy Minutes of March 4 20 1. MIN Applicant: Jani Location: 6135 Chair Geng noted that Janie 1 property and has submitted an makes a recommendation this c wing the Motion p; ON COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. and Planning Director 2014, as presented. Motion excellent job Nvith the minutes. It the Planning Commission Meeting 6135 Cathcart drive, proposes to subdivide her and her husband's ration to do so. Chair Geng noted that if the Planning Commission this item �yill go before the City Council on April 28, 2014. Director Nielsen explained the property is located in the R -IA, Single - Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately five acres. The applicant's house is located on the south side of the lot. The applicant proposes to divide the property into two lots. Both of the lots Nyould significantly exceed the minimum lot size (40,000 square feet) of the R -IA zoning district. The lot Nvith the house on it Nyould be 87,106 square feet. The vacant lot Nyould be 113,335 square feet Nvith a large amount of it being occupied by a Nyetland area. After revieNving the initial plan staff asked the applicant to move the proposed lot line farther to the south to alloNy some access from Cathcart Drive to the northerly lot and to increase the size of the buildable area on the northerly lot. The survey provides for dedication of an additional 33 feet of public right -of -N ay (ROW) along Cathcart Drive (a substandard roadNyay). The applicant's surveyor also included drainage CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 2 of 11 and utility easements and conservation easements as required by the Subdivision Code. The Nyetland delineation for the property Nyas done in 2004. The Minnehaha Creels Watershed District does not accept delineations older than five years. Therefore, the applicant has to do a verification of the delineation in May. The applicant Nyill have to pay a $5,000 park dedication fee and $1,200 local sanitary seNver access charge for the neNy lot. Nielsen noted that staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision contingent upon verification of the Nyetland delineation as shoNsn on the survey. In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen exp Nyould come in along the south edge of the Nyetland and noted that the c Nyetland buffer under the City Code. Davis noted that she saNy a for sale si Steve Korin, one of the oNsners of the property*, stated the size shoNsn on the graphic on the screen. He then stated the Nyetland noted the surveyor and the delineator are different people. Mr. Korin read a note from the delineator. "As noted in the repo towards the north and it appears that the area drains northward. A l recently built was observed along the northern edge of the parcel. It cut off'the normal drainage patterns that existed prior to the const more wetland is on the parcel now compared to before the driveway; is fined the access to the neNy lot veway can encroach into the for the existing house. is smaller than what is quarter of the lot. He the topography slopes , downward g driveway that appears relatively likely that this driveway may have ction of this road. It appears that is constructed. For this reason the basins identified were marked as questionable basins rather than wetland." He asked that be taken into the consideration. The Citv did alloNy that drivesyav to be built. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for Janie Korin, 6135 Cathcart Drive, subject to verification of the wetland delineation being made current per the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District's regulations, and the Resolution approving the division being recorded within 30 days of the date of certification. Motion passed 4/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARINI from March 4, 2014) Loc SUMMIT WOODS PUD — DEVELOPMENT STAGE (continued d Avenue the Public Nearing at 7:11 P.M. for the Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD) Development Stage plans and noted that it Nyas a continuation from March 4, 2014. He explained during that meeting the Planning Commission heard at great length from Director Nielsen and the developer. The Commission then took public testimony. Quite a feNy comments Nyere made. The Commissioners discussed the application and they decided they Nyanted to see more detail about the grading plan. The Commission voted to continue the public hearing of the Development Stage plans to this meeting to alloN-, the developer time to address some of the items in the grading plan. The intent this evening is for the Commission to conclude its consideration and hopefully make a recommendation to the Citv Council. Director Nielsen explained the Development Stage phase of the PUD approval process is the nuts and bolts phase. For the Final Plan Stage, which is yet to come, all of the conditions of approval are either incorporated into final construction draNvings in the final plans or things such as setbacks on lots get incorporated into a development agreement betNyeen the City and the developer. He noted that the developer has done all of the things staff has asked of them. They have elaborated on the grading plan Nyhich Nyas the reason for continuing the public hearing at the last meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 3 of 11 He then explained people Nvanted more specifics about how the Nvater Nvas going to be moved to the east. The revised preliminary grading and erosion control plan show that. He displayed a copy of that revised plan. All of the drainage from this project Nvill go to the east. It is taken to the front yards which are depressed. It then flows into the side yards and ultimately into the rain gardens that Nvill be located on the back of each of the proposed new lots. There is a small discharge pipe from each of the rain gardens Nvith a vegetated mat versus rip rap at the bottom of the pipe to avoid erosion that might occur. The grading plan Nvill be incorporated into the final construction drawings. The details about how the rain gardens Nvill be maintained Nvill be made an exhibit to the development agreement. The development agreement will be recorded against each lot so that each property oNsner knows it is a rain garden and it must be maintained as such. There Nvill be criteria for doing that. He stated that in his previous staff report he had noted that one of the lets Nvas a little less than 70 feet Nvide. That has been increased on both the preliminary site plan and the preliminary plat. The items in the City Engineer's report are to be incorporated into the final construction drawings. Chair Geng stated based on the revisions made to the Development Stage plans since the Planning Commission's March 4, 2014 meeting, he asked the Commissioners if they are comfortable Nvith the Development Stage plans. In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen explained that for the last meeting the easement Nvas titled Tree Conservation Easement and the City just calls it Conservation Easement. Staff had asked for that to be corrected. That document Nvill be an exhibit to the development agreement that goes Nvith the Final Plan Stage plans. In response to another question, Nielsen explained that the only thing that people can do Nvithin the conservation easement is remove dead or dying trees that are a hazard, and remove buckthorn. Chair Geng stated because revisions have been made to the grading plan he thought it Nvould be appropriate to take public comment specific to the grading plan. Chair Geng opened the Public 7 Alex Petrosian, 850 Saddlebroc Avenue Qv -hick is next to he P Director Nielsen stated it woul The front }.lards are depressed. grading plan did not shoe hou the arroNs s to the grading plan' asked if he could have a copy o underlying plan. portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M. 'ass, Chanhassen, stated he oNsns the property located at 23130 Summit site. He asked how a person can tell the drainage Nvill floes the Nti-ay )irector Nielsen explained the contours show that on the grading plan. the properties go back to the east the ground gets loNver. The previous contours Nvere changed to make that happen. He noted that he added make it simple to see how the Nvater Nvill leave the site. Mr. Petrosian e plan Nvith degrees on it. Nielsen stated he Nvould get him a copy of the Mr. Petrosian noted that during the March 4, 2014, meeting he asked a number of questions about topics other than Nvater drainage. For example, he asked about Nvater connectivity and where the sanitary seNver system Nvill located. He noted that he has a sanitary sewer line going through his property next to the subject site doNsn the hill. Director Nielsen stated based on the utility plan it appears that the sanitary sewer line for the PUD is an extension of the sewer line under Hummingbird Road. Mr. Petrosian stated it's his understanding that each property Nvill have its oNsn Nvell. Nielsen confirmed that. Mr. Petrosian asked about the soil test that Nvas to be done. Director Nielsen noted that Nvas discussed during the March 4 public hearing. A test Nvas done and there Nvas no perched Nvater table found. Pete Knaeble, Nvith Terra Engineering N -,hich is the engineer for the project, stated the sanitary seN er system exists under Summit Avenue and it flows to the north and down to the Nvest on the hill. There is CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 4 of 11 one existing service that serves the existing house that will be reused. Three additional sanitary* seNver services will have to be provided. Mr. Petrosian asked if a traffic study has been done. Director Nielsen responded no. Mr. Petrosian asked if there are plans to do that. Nielsen responded no and explained that the City Engineer looked at it and determined that the road was capable of handling the one additional lot. Mr. Petrosian indicated he was not satisfied that was the answer. Elizabeth Birkland Daub, 6180 Murrav Hill Road, Shorewood, read the following and submitted it. The t -bone intersection at the corner of Murrav Hill Road and Summit Avenue has a history of flooding. Our home is adjacent to the intersection at the lowest point in the neighborhood. In 2006 and 2007 stormNvater caused significant damage to electronics, carpet, slate floors, infloor heating system, furniture, irreplaceable family photos and personal treasures. The City of ShoreNvood's efforts to sand -bag the water entry* point and placement of a plastic barrier was ineffective. In May 2011 a portion of Murray Hill Road from Summit Avenue to Chaska Road was rebuilt. Storm drains were installed. The cost to the City of Shorewood was in excess of $250,000. I interviewed several long- standing residents of Murray Hill Road. They agree that the water troubles started when the area south of our home on Murray* Hill Road was developed. Too many hand surfaces destroyed the natural water drainage. Ms. Daub displayed a picture of a map. Ms. Daub stated she has a colleague and a friend who is an international architect. That person came and looked at the property and the development. She submitted a list of her friend's thoughts about the repercussions that could occur if the property above is developed. The list is as follows. Removal of existing vegetation: can cause unstable land above. The existing vegetation is the `glue' that is holding all of the land together above. Removal of existing vegetation can cause erosion and in the worst case landslides. An example is the recent landslide in Oso, Washington, where the forest above was most likely heavily harvested in past years. Construction should be carefully planned to avoid mass clearing of the site, clearing only areas of the site needed for construction. Unused areas of the site should remain with existing vegetation. Refer to USGBC (United States Green Building Council) reference standards for limits of construction around roadways and building, pads. Erosion control measures must be put in place and maintained throughout construction, and the site must be landscaped immediately upon completion of construction. Neely planted landscaping must be adequately sized and mature to address site 2. Increased eater speed due to hardscaped areas: rainwater and run off will flow faster on paved and hardscaped areas than on vegetated areas. This will increase the possibility of erosion and can overtax the absorption limit of surrounding landscaped areas. The design must prove that it has addressed rainwater and runoff issues within the limits of their own site boundary. Additional water should not be allowed to run onto adjacent properties. StormNvater quality and quantity. As stated above the hardscaped areas will reduce the amount of available area for stormvvater to be absorbed naturally into the site. The design must show that the quantity of water created by new hardscape will be addressed within the limits of the site. The water must be treated on site to predevelopment conditions prior to being released to any off site regional system. Silt and water pollution must not be released into any neighboring wetland, streams, lakes or adjacent properties. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 5 of 11 4. Maintenance of stormNvater systems: the development must ensure that any stormNvater system (rain gardens ?) is maintained throughout the life of the project. Individual ownership of properties does not ensure that a stormNvater system serving multiple properties will be maintained. The development should set up covenants to ensure resources are available for these systems. Ms. Daub noted her friend that wrote grew up on the Nvest coast across from Oso. She stated there is looming evidence about the tragic land slide. She thanked even-one for their patience about this PUD. She then stated people want responsible, rigorous, conscientious, long -term based development. She noted there was never stormNvater flowing down Murray Hill Road until the hard surfaces were put in above. She stated that as a very concerned person who has had a lot of hardship because of stormNvater issues she requested there be a site by site study done. With regard to the rain gardens she asked what that really means and what the developer's responsibility is. She stated the last time there was discussion about tying into the City of Chanhassen's drainage system and people were told the City of Shorewood did not have money to do that. She questioned if people have the conscience to move forward with the PUD without doing that. She asked if the developer can provide the money to do that. There are serious problems with eater. She commented that she was not going to rehash all of the things about safety and the absolutely inadequate as a community then are here to demand really rigorous developrr perspective the number of houses proposed in the PUD will df Avenue. She related that her friend asked about what will happej and erosion. She asked what happens to Galpp Lake Road becaus recommended there be a covenant for each of the properties in the Ms. Daub asked people to look at their own Chair Geng noted that the called Summit Avenue. She stated }tandards. She then stated from her y the natural drainage of Summit the wetland and to the oil and dirt the water flowing to the south. She considering this PUD. Daub will be made part of the record. Sondra Travlor, 23115 Summit Avenue, Shorewood, thanked the Planning Commission for continuing the public hearing. She asked what the arrows are on Hummingbird Road and Summit Avenue. Director Nielsen responded they are existing drainage lines. Ms. Traylor asked if a plan for traffic has been proposed. Chair Geng clarified that is not part of the Commission's consideration this evening. Ms. Traylor asked at what point it will be. Geng stated that is up to the City and noted Summit Avenue is clearly substandard. They City will need to address that roadway at some point. Ms. Traylor asked if residents would find out about the plans before any construction will start. Geng clarified there is no plan to address it at this time. Ms. Travlor stated it's her recollection that during the last hearing a comment was made about allowing the developer to work seven days a week. She asked if that had been approved. Director Nielsen clarified there was never a proposal to do that and it was never approved. Nielsen explained the City's construction hours are 7:00 A.M. — 7:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and 8:00 A.M. — 6:00 P.M. on Saturday. In certain instances construction on Sunday has been allowed but there is no mass grading that would necessitate that on this property. Construction on Sunday is not anticipated. Ms. Traylor expressed her desire for the City not to let that happen. Ms. Travlor stated she thought water and traffic safety are the residents biggest issues. She then stated she lives directly across from the site. Her mailbox and some of her neighbors are located across the road where Summit Avenue will be widened. The mail delivery person will not deliver the mail if there is snow in front of the mailboxes. She has observed that in both Shorewood and Chanhassen the snow plow drives only plow the width of the plow blade. If the roadway is widened 5 — 7 feet and the roadway is still only plowed the width of the plow blade it will not be possible to get to the mailboxes. Director Nielsen clarified the City plows the paved surface of the roadway. If the paved surface is widened the City plows CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 6 of 11 a wider area. Mail boxes will have the same proximity to the paved surface as they do today. Ms. Traylor asked that the City plow the entire paved surface after it is widened. Ms. Traylor noted she is still strongly against the driveways around the corner because she thinks they are unsafe. She hopes she will be able to convey that when these Development Stage plans are considered by Council. Mr. Knaeble stated he wants to address three issues of concern for Ms. Daub — the rain garden covenants, the comments about Chanhassen's drainage system, and the request for a rigorous study of the drainage system. He explained they are proposing covenants for the rain gardens that will be recorded against all of the properties. A draft of that restrictive covenant had been presented to City staff for review with the first submittal of information. Ongoing owners of the properties will be made aware of what the rain gardens are about and how to maintain them. The covenants will give the City a means to enforce maintenance of them. He clarified that Chanhassen does not have any stormwater system at the top of the hill near the PUD site. He explained that during the March 4 hearing a possible; connection to Chanhassen's municipal water system had been touched upon. It was not feasible to do that. With regard to the drainage system and issues, earlier on Knaeble stated the firm he works for has looked into scorn: of the project hired an outside stormwater consultant; CiN specializes in stormNvater modeling and stormNvater reports. modeling report. That was presented to staff for review. 'I designed around. He noted that is the most rigorous storrr heard that ite this small size in many years. They believe stormater has been have to comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Watershed District (MCWD) standards, and Shorewood an stormNvater modeling shows the design plan will exceed all star( Director Nielsen clarified drainage is reviewed for Ms. Traylor expressed co she finds that unaeceptabl slid on the ice from the N go to pick up the children Hill bluff onto Galpin L drainage. She then stated Road have concern that a the north side where Ma intersection of Mayflowej side there is not much sun She asked if the proposed flow onto the roadwav s. S an-,- adverse effects on trai an issue. Mr. ;ement. The owner and developer p from St. Louis Park. That firm sued about a 120 page stormNvater the grading and erosion plan was his firm has seen on a project of sly studied. He explained projects A) standards, Minnehaha Creek hassen standards. The project's site plans are done. When the City receives building permits the the overall site plan. rcern that trees will be planted in the drainage swales between the houses and She commented that last December a school bus loaded with school children urray Hill area and `slid on the ice on Galpin Lake Road. Other vehicles had to and bring them home. There is great concern about water flowing from Murray ike Road. She stated the trees look like they will get in the Nvay of proper that those who drive on Summit Avenue, Mayflower Road and Galpin Lake lditional water from the PUD site onto the roadways will make them icier. On floe er Road is vehicles have a hard time stopping at the stop sign at the Road and Galpin Lake Road because of significant ice buildup. On the north because of the bluff so there is a tendenev to have snow melt and then refreeze. contours are adequate enough to make sure that not another drop of water will he then asked for the Planning Commission's help in verifying there will not be frc because of the PUD. Mr. Knaeble noted they do intend on planting trees between the houses. He explained for projects like this the houses get built and the site grading is done after that to meet the contours shown on the grading plan. The surveyor shoots them to make sure they match the proposed grading plan. The City requires an as- built grading plan be done. After all of that is done and signed off on the trees are planted. The trees will not be an impediment to the drainage. The landscape plan was designed to help the drainage because tree roots tend to hold the drainage areas in place. They are an element of the drainage system and they are planted after the contours are done per the grading plan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 7 of 11 Mr. Petrosian asked if the MPCA and MCWD have signed off on the plans. Mr. Knaeble explained the permits from the MPCA, the MCWD, and the Cities of Chanhassen and Shorewood are obtained concurrently while the construction plans are being done. They are all done prior to getting a permit. Construction will not be started until the drainage permits are obtained. Jeff ShoenNvetter, with JMS Custom Homes and the builder for Homestead Partners, stated the mail boxes for their project will all match. Summit Avenue will be widened along the project area as part of the plan. The plowed surface will get widened as well. He explained that after the March 4 public hearing he became very concerned because residents had stated there is a blind corner and lack of safety there. He and his wife drove out to the area in their smaller car on a Sunday and they did not find it to be a blind corner. He has driven it in both directions and he knows staff has been out there as well as the developer's engineers. He believes it is a very safe corner. There is more visibility from a traffic and vehicular standpoint. From a safety standpoint the sight lines exceed any engineering requirements. There is more than 150 feet of visibility. He stated JMS has been building homes for 28 years. The houses JMS will build can the site will be wonderful, thoughtfully designed, and award winning. They hope the PUD will be considered a beautiful addition to Shorewood. That is why JMS works so hard with its engineers, site planners, architects and consulting engineers on things like drainage. They want it to be a great neighborhood when they are done. He then stated he is aware there were ice storms this past winter and there are many places where it has been icy. Once Summit Avenue is widened in the area abutting the project site there should be less water ponding and less ice. After careful examination of the grading plan it is probable that there will actually be less stormwater flow onto the paved roadway than there is today. He explained that portions of the PUD site are slightly higher than the roadway today. Rainwater naturally drains to the roadway; it follows gravity. The proposed grading plan depresses front yards and if gravity follows the rules of physics the water will no longer drain from the front yards to the Nvest naturally. The grading plan will establish a grading pattern so that the water drains to the east. He thanked the Planning Commission and staff for their consideration. He noted his staff has been Nvorking hard with City staff on this. Staff has been at City Hall on August 19, October 1, November 5, November 25, December 9, January 7, February 4, March 4 and tonight. Ms. Daub stated she hopes she has established credibility with the Planning Commission. She stated that although she does not want to do what she is going to do she challenged the credibility of the builder. There are several judgments. She asked how he has reconciled over $1 million in judgments. She noted her husband is an attorney and he called some of the people that have placed the judgments. Chair Geng told Ms. Daub that where she is going is not appropriate and it does not belong before the City and it is not part of the PUD, Ms. Daub stated it is a shame it is not about credibility. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Chair Geng stated based on the information provided by staff the Summit Woods PUD Development Stage plans are in compliance. Therefore, he suggested recommending approval of them. Commissioner Maddy stated based on a comment made in the audience he explained it has been his experience that leaves actually helps slow down the flow of organic material. He does not think that will be an issue. He then stated the list of four items submitted by Ms. Daub have been paid attention to. Removal of excess landscaping has already been addressed. Problems with previous developments and hardscapes are rampant. It is unfortunate the type of infrastructure being required for the PUD was not required for developments 20 — 30 years ago because it led to the excess flow down the roadways. He noted the grading plan had two sets of developer engineers approve it and the City Engineer agreed with CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 8 of 11 it. From his vantage point that satisfies him and he is confident the water NN-111 flow to the east if plans are adhered to and the outflows from the rain gardens Nvon't be a problem if the rain gardens are engineered appropriately. Increased water speed due to hardscaped areas will be avoided because of the rain garden on each property. There are a lot of houses on this one peals and it is a challenging site. He is comfortable that the covenants will go with the property. He noted that he thinks everything has been addressed although it may not be to even-one's liking. He is comfortable with what has been presented because the City Engineer is comfortable with it. Commissioner Davis stated the rain gardens are very large. They are almost like retention basins. People will have to take care of them. Commissioner Maddv stated the conservation easement creates a 160 foot buffer zone before the water gets down to the bottom of the hill. Hopefully there will be more roots and infiltration stopping any high rate of water flow. Chair Geng noted that Director Nielsen indicated in the plan for the rain garden the outlets will be buffered in a way that will disperse the water to inhibit erosion, Commissioner Davis stated she thought City Engineer Hornby is vc would keep his eye on the ball. She then stated the landscaping car each property. She encouraged people to pay attention to ensure that planted are good for the site. She assumes a registered landscapf positioned properly. Geng moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of Development - Development Stage plans. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted that this Chair Geng thanked Chair Geng closed the 3. There were no matters 4. DISCUSS A D,will go before the City Couw for coming. -Tearing at 8:02 P.M. ,HE FLOOR e floor presented" this evening. kNCE POLICY thorough and that she thought he of go in until the house is built on ie amount and type of trees that are architect will make sure they are 14, 2014. Woods Planned Unit Director Nielsen stated when the 'City Council decided to reduce the size of both the Planning and Park Commissions to five commissioners Council also asked the Commissions to assess the current attendance policy. The current policy may be too liberal. He thought the current policy allows a person to miss one - half of the meetings in a year and if a commissioner misses four in a row it could be grounds for removal. He stated he thought Council would like to reduce that. He noted that during the Commission's March 4, 2014, meeting Commissioner Labadie stated that people do have other things going on in their lives. And, that the policy should not be so restrictive that people would not want to apply to be on the Commissions. He commented that he cannot remember if someone had recommended missing no more than one third of meetings. He noted that Council is seeking input from the Commissioners. Commissioner Davis stated from her perspective missing four meetings is extremely generous. Commissioner Maddv stated no one volunteered to join the Commission and then skip meetings. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Muehlberg stated he thought having a maximum of four unexcused meetings Nvould be appropriate and noted that his situation changed drastically for a while and could again because of family matters. Director Nielsen stated there will alvmvs be circumstances like Commissioner Muehlberg's. Chair Geng clarified Nvhat is being talked about is unexcused absences. Commissioner Maddy stated he thought Council should make the call if a commissioner misses more than one third of the meetings. He does not Nvant to kick a valuable member off of the Commission. Chair Geng suggested the Planning Commission continue its current practice of letting Director Nielsen and the other Commissioners know in advance if they Nvill not be able to attend a meeting. He stated it's important to have a quorum when considering applications. He then stated when a Commissioner has an unavoidable conflict come up that is understandable. He noted that it's his recollection that the current attendance ordinance includes language about recognizing absences excused by the chair. There Nvas Planning Commission consensus to rec absences Council Nvill make the decision about Nvhat 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Davis stated she heard that sta American Legion. Director Nielsen stated he l refers them to representatives of the Legion. IC Nielsen noted he spoke Nvith two developers in senior housing. One of them v, orks Nvith a big d development. He Nvas encouraged by his conseri that if there are more ed a developer over to talk to Ken Dallman at the .,,en Nvith tN-, o or three ''developers and he usually ited the Legion plans to sell the vacant lot itself. t 30'— 45 days and both have been involved Nvith r who could potentially bring in some commercial In response to a comment from Director Nielsen, Commissioner Davis explained that the person who proposed the bicycle repair shop in the northNvest quadrant of the SmithtoN -,n Road and County Road 19 intersection is turning that over to someone else. Davis commented she thought that the original person only Nvanted to be able to have a sign for his vehicle repair business there. Nielsen stated the new person for the bicycle repair shop seems very serious about it. Davis stated she heard that the original car repair guy's business is strong enough that he does not need the headache of the bicycle repair business. Commissioner Davis stated she Forgot to bring the handout about a presentation on Earth Day about trails and Nvalubable cities that Neill be put on at the Southshore Community Center by the League of Women South Tonka. Director Nielsen stated he had been asked to speak at that but he Nvill be at a Planning Conference so he asked May or Zerby to speak in his place. Director Nielsen stated he is trying to get the City back into the Tree Program USA because it may open the door to grant opportunities Nvhen it comes to dealing Nvith emerald ash borer diseased trees. Chair Geng stated he had heard that the temperature around the metropolitan area Nvas not cold enough for long enough to have much impact on killing off emerald ash borer. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated he is not sure there are anv development applications for the May 6, 2014, meeting agenda. There may be some discussion about study items and housing for people over 55 years old. The Citv's density does not Nyork for that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 10 of 11 Commissioner Muehlberg stated that over the last fey months he has become aware of the lack of facilities for disabled people. Lack of accessibility is an issue. Commissioner Davis explained senior coops are like condominiums yet they are fully accessible. Commissioner Muehlberg stated even at a major clinic it was difficult to find a restroom that would work for a person in a wheel chair. Commissioner Davis stated the new coop in the City of PIN-mouth is high end,, well designed and barrier free. ON -hers have equity in coops and their units appreciate in value. It is very; affordable to buy into it and there are common area fees that are not insurmountable. There are also units to rent. Director Nielsen stated he would cook brats for the May meeting. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council No report was given. SLUC Commissioner Davis asked if Planning Coalition sessions again. Director Nielsen stated he Other Commissioner Davis Commissioner Midi about Boulder Cove. Director iNieisen gave a c highlighted some of the conveyed in a letter to Ch Peter Lehman, 21265 Rai He has spoken with Dire( if it is inappropriate for should be. the last are ever going to "go to Sensible Land Use be able to attend the June Planning Commission meeting. if anyone else received a very long email from an Eden Prairie resident ,knowledged they had. Jeseription about that proposed development in the City of Chanhassen. He ies Shorewood staff had with what was being proposed and they were ssen from Mavor Zerbv. n Road, stated he is considering doing a minor subdivision of his property. Jielsen briefly about the project recently and about ten Nears ago. He asked ents to contact Planning Commissioners. He is not sure what the process Chair Geng stated the best thing to do is work with staff. At some point that application would come before the Planning Commission and he would have an opportunity to speak with the Commission at that time. Geng noted one on one contacts are not encouraged because it goes against the policy of transparency. Mr. Lehman stated that once he gives staff his application and supporting documents he asked if there is a meeting before the Planning Commission meeting. Director Nielsen explained if he had submitted an application today and assuming the application is complete it would be on the first meeting in May; the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 1, 2014 Page 11 of 11 complete application has to be in by the first Tuesday of one month to be on the agenda the first Tuesday of the following month. Mr. Lehman asked if that is when the Planning Commission first sees the material. Nielsen responded that is correct. Director Nielsen explained staff is required to review the application and let the applicant know within ten days if there is something missing. Beyond that the City has 60 days to act on a request or it can be extended if there is additional information that is required by the Planning Commission. Chair Geng clarified that is a State Statute. Mr. Lehman stated if he had submitted an application today and there was an omission he asked if he would be contacted quickly and still have time to be on the May agenda. Director Nielsen stated if there is a major element probably not. Nielsen recommended coming in a week or two before the first Tuesday of the month to keep things on a shorter schedule. Mr. Lehman asked if there are any particular items the Commissioner Maddy responded the Zoning Code. Chair Genj that; he is very good at Nvorking with the residents. Mr. Lehman stated when he was looking at the City's Comprehens appears to be some things in there that are inconsistent with the euw to increase density in an area that is contradictory with how the lai is R -IA and the density is one house per acre, Yet the Comp Plan 1 Nielsen stated one unit per acre is consistent with the R -IA zonin east of Mr. Lehman that are smaller and they 'fit into the two units to R -1C from R -1A. Commissioner Muehlberg of Eureka Road and Smitl property because he sees ,, at that site. Director Niel: Commissioner Davis state She noted that a arevious r 8. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, Adj 8:39 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. Christine is interested in. en will help with (Comp) Plan updated in 2009 there rit City Ordinance. It includes a goal is zoned. Where he lives the zoning one to two homes per acre. Director listrict. Nielsen stated there are lots r acre category and the zoning goes g has been brought up about the property located at the corner thinks someone may be living in one of the fish houses on the e very early in the morning. There are more and more vehicles 11 have the Building Inspector go and do an inspection there. boat collapsed over the winter and it is just wreckage piled up. adieated a lot of the stuff is in the railroad easement. ling the Planning Commission Meeting of April 1, 2014, at CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 4, 2014 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Labadie, and Maddy; Council Liaison Sundberg; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Geng asked that Item 5.A Commissioner Attendance be added to the agenda. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for March 4, 2014, as amended. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 5, 2014 Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, approving the approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Henrik Nielsen Location: 4755 West Lane Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:10 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Henrik Nielsen, 4755 West Lane. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission's role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission's responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non - binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item Nvill go before the City Council on March 10, 2014. Director Nielsen explained that Mr. Henrik Nielsen is in the process of constructing a new home on the property located at 4755 West Lane. The proposed attached garage Nvill be greater than 1200 square feet in area. That requires a C.U.P. pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code Nvhich Mr. Nielsen has applied for. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 2 of 24 The property is zoned R -lA/S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland and contains approximately 56,650 square feet of area. The proposed garage is located on the north end of the new home and contains 1268 square feet of area. The proposed home contains 2474 square feet of area on the main level alone, Nvith additional space in a lower level. The proposed garage is at an approximate 45 degree angle to the house and to the street and it faces a northwesterly direction. With regard to the analysis of the C.U.P. request, Nielsen revievyed hoNy the applicant's request complies Nvith the four criteria listed in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City s Zoning Code for granting this type of C.U.P. 1. The total amount of accessory space (1,268 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade (2,474 square feet — main level) of the principal dNyelling. The small utility shed located to the south of the existing home on the site has been removed. 2. The total amount of accessory space cannot exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R- IA/S zoning district in Nyhich the propertv is located (10 x 40,000 = 4000). The proposed house and garage comply Nvith R -lA/S setback requirements. Hardcover on the site Nyill be 13.8 percent, Nyell Nvithin the 25 percent maximum requirement. The site is heavily Nyooded and the structure is Nyell screened from the street and adjoining properties. Since the neNy garage is an integral part of the proposed house, architectural compatibility is not considered to be an issue. The proposed angle of the garage actually diminishes the size of the garage. The relocation of the driveNyaN- from the south side of the lot to the north, moving it farther from the street corner, is also considered an improvement. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case staff recommends the C.U.P. be granted as requested Mr. Henrik Nielsen stated his intent is to build a house and garage that are aesthetically appealing. Not to make a big garage. The garage is a little larger because of the proposed angle relationship it Nyill have Nvith the house. He did Nyork Nvith an architect on different options for the location of the garage. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Gretchen Sebald, 20625 Garden Road, noted she lives just around the corner from Mr. Nielsen. She asked if the proposed building stays Nvithin the setback restrictions. Director Nielsen noted it complies Nvith all of the setback requirements. Linda Bean, 20620 Garden Road, stated she lives across the road from Ms. Sebald. Ms. Bean asked if the neNy house is going to be mainly in the same position as the existing house. Director Nielsen stated it Neill be located a little further to the north and the neNy house Nyill also face West Lane. Ms. Bean stated N-,-hat is being proposed is an attractive plan. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen explained the applicant plans to move the driveNyaN- from the current location to the north end of the lot. Nielsen noted that neNy location Nyill be an improvement because the current driveNyaN- Nyas close to the corner. Maddy asked if the existing driveNyaN- Nyill be demolished. Nielsen responded it Neill be. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 3 of 24 Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Henrik Nielsen, 4755 West Lane. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:23 P.M 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION Applicant: Keenen Dammen Location: 20435 Radisson Road, Outlots C & D, and 5590 Shore Road Chair Geng explained Keenen Dammen, 20435 Radisson Road, proposes to sell his Outlots C and D to Ian and Carol Friendly who oN -,n the property located at 5590 Shore Road. Director Nielsen explained Mr. Dammen Is property Nvas part of the former Larson Estates plat. When Larson Estates Nvas platted in 1997 the approval stipulated that Outlots C and D Nvould remain legally combined Nvith the 20435 Radisson Road property; the main homestead parcel. The exception to that restriction Nvas that the Outlots could be conveyed to abutting property owners on either side of the Outlots. Mr. Dammen now proposes to sell the property to Ian and Carol Friendly, who oN -,n the property at 5590 Shore Road. Nielsen noted this is a housekeeping matter. He stated that other than providing the Dammen property access to Christmas Lake the Outlots do not do any good from a zoning perspective. The Dammen property is Nvell oversized for the R -IA/S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland district which it is located in. The Outlots Nvill enhance the buildability of the Friendly property which is a little substandard for the zoning district it is in. This transaction Nvill bring the property into a classification of being buildable. It Nvould meet at least 70 percent of the lot area requirements for the R -IA district. The Dammen homestead parcel contains 1.87 acres of land. Outlot C, the northerly of the two Outlots, is undeveloped and contains 4729 square feet of area. Outlot D is occupied by a small deck and a dock and contains 5908 square feet of area. The Friendly property contains 20,819 square feet of area and is occupied by the Friendly's home. Once combined, it Nvill contain 31,456 square feet. He noted the right of N-,-a-,- (ROW) for Shore Road cuts between Outlots C and D. Staff has had some discussion Nvith a realtor about the possibility of vacating that small strip of ROW. That Nvould be dealt Nvith in the future if the property oN -,ners decide to do that. It Nvould help in the buildability of the Friendly property. Nielsen stated based on the preceding, staff recommends the applicant's request be approved subject to recording the Council resolution approving the division and combination Nvithin 30 days of their receipt of the resolution. Commissioner Maddy asked about Outlots A and B. Director Nielsen explained Outlot A is a Nvetland which is oN -,ned by the City. Outlot B is a small strip and it Nvas deeded over to the property to the east of it. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the minor subdivision for Keenen Dammen, 20435 Radisson Road, Outlots C and D, and the combination of Outlots C and D with the property located at 5590 Shore Road subject to the division /combination being recorded within 30 days of Council approval. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng noted that this item Nvill go before the City Council on March 10, 2014 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 4 of 24 3. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — SUMMIT WOODS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT — DEVELOPMENT STAGE Applicant: Homestead Partners Location: 23040 Summit Avenue Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M He explained that during December 2013 the Shorewood City Council approved the concept plan for the proposed Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD) for Homestead Partners LLC. That Concept Stage Nvas the first stage in the PUD process. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the PUD during its October 1, 2013, and November 5, 2013, meetings. Some concerns Nvere raised during the public hearings. The PUD process is in now in the Development Stage Nvhich deals N ith a lot of the details. The focus during this hearing Nvill be on the development plans. The developer is seeking approval of the Development Stage plans and preliminary plat. He noted the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He clarified that any recommendation the Planning Commission makes to the Council is advisory only. He stated he anticipates this item will go before the City Council on April 14, 2014. Director Nielsen affirmed that. Geng then stated that when he opens the Public Testimony portion of this hearing he Nvill call people Nvho have signed up to speak in the order they are listed on the sign -in sheet. People can either choose to speak or pass on the opportunity. He asked people to keep their comments to matters that are relevant to the development plans. He also asked people not to repeat in detail any points that have already been addressed by earlier speakers. Director Nielsen stated the staff report addresses the issues in each of the nine exhibits attached to the staff report. He stated the property is located at 23040 Summit Avenue between Summit Avenue and Galpin Lake Road and it is bordered by MayfloNver Road on its north edge. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained that a number of issues Nvere raised in staff reports pertaining to the concept plan and in the public hearing held by the Planning Commission. The issues Nvill be address during his discussion about each of the exhibits. A. Property Surrey The survey shows the boundaries of the property, the location of the street pavement in front of the property, the topography on the site, and trees in the area Nvhere the houses Nvill be located. A copy of the survey Nvas displayed. B. Preliminary Site Plan 1. Building setbacks shoN -,n are consistent Nvith those approved in the Concept Stage plan. a. Front Setbacks — Lot 1, 20 feet (in part due to the drop -off of that lot); Lot 2, 35 feet (the setback requirement for the R -1C zoning district); and, Lots 3 and 4, 40 feet. b. Side Setbacks — All lots have 10 -foot side yard setbacks as required by the R -1C zoning district. The developer originally proposed 7.5 -foot side setbacks. c. Rear Setbacks — Rear setbacks in the R -1C zoning district are 40 feet. The proposed conservation easement far exceeds the setback requirement. Half of each lot in the back Nvill be in the conservation easement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 5 of 24 2. Lots are shoN -,n as 70 feet in N idth, Nyith the exception of Lot 2, Nyhich is shoN -,n as 69 feet. That lot Nyill have to be adjusted to the 70 -foot minimum on the final plat. 3. Each lot has been shoN -,n Nyith a driveNyaN- pullout per staff's previous recommendations. Thee alloy a driver to back into the pullout and then drive front fonyard onto to the roadvmv. Thee are somevyhat schematic on this plan. These driveNvay pullouts must be located at least five feet from the side lot lines. 4. The developer shoNys Summit Avenue being N idened to 20 feet in front of the plat. That is the minimum fire code access requirement. City staff continues to explore alternatives for addressing issues raised by neighboring residents relative to the substandard condition of the road. The City Engineer has presented four alternatives for addressing Summit Avenue in ShoreNvood. TN-,-o of the alternatives involve making Summit Avenue a one -way roadvyay, one of them going doN -,n and one of them going up. That Nyas to address concerns about not being able to easily go past a vehicle going in the opposite direction. The possibility of a cul -de -sac Nyas also discussed for the north end basically in the bend of Summit Avenue. Staff does not like that idea primarily because it Nyould end up N ith Hummingbird Road being a very long dead -end roadvmv. The fourth alternative Nyas to upgrade the portion of Summit Avenue in ShoreNvood to ShoreNvood roadvmv standards. C. Preliminary Plat Drainage and utility easements are shoN -,n as being 10 feet Nyide, hovyever the side yard easements appear to measure less. The easements shoN -,n on the final plat should shovy easements 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 2. It is recommended that the conservation easement should be staked and clearly identified as such N ith identification markers. The City requires that for Nyetlands. 3. All lots must be at least 70 feet Nyide at their respective building lines. 4. Prior to release of a final plat (the next stage in the process), the developer must pay $5000 per lot for park dedication fees. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. 5. Prior to release of a final plat the developer must pay $1200 per lot for local sanitary seNver access charges. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. D. Grading and Erosion Control The City Engineer has addressed this item under separate cover. The adverse effect of drainage off of the site Nyas one of the more significant items brought up during the public hearing particularly on to Summit Avenue. The Concept Stage plan for the project had shoN -,n rain gardens in the front yards of the proposed lots. These have been moved to the rear yards so as to direct site drainage to the east versus toNvard Summit Avenue. The City Engineer has noted that additional detail is needed for rain gardens and that the grading plan needs to shovy hoNy stormNyater runoff Nyill be conducted to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 6 of 24 rain gardens. A more detailed grading plan needs to be submitted before the development plans go before Council on April 14. At minimum, the goal of the drainage plan is to not increase the rate or volume of runoff toNvard Summit Avenue. Ideally, the project will improve drainage toNvard the Nvest. Based on neighborhood concerns about a possible perched Nvater table on the site, the developer Nvas asked to provide soil tests for the area Nvhere buildings are proposed. In a 22 -page Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, the engineers found no evidence of a perched Nvater table or reason to suspect that the lots Nvere unbuildable. The engineers have indicated that if a problem is found later it could be rectified Nvith drain tiles. E. Tree Preservation and Reforestation The Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan on Exhibit E illustrates the construction area defined by tree protection fencing. The vast majoritN- of trees on the property are located in the proposed conservation easement and Nvill remain untouched. The City has not seen a project that protects as large a percentage of trees as this one does. Exhibit E -2 provides detail as to Nvhich trees Nvithin the construction area NN-111 be removed and Nvhich are to be saved. Exhibit E -3 provides a planting plan for replacement trees. ShoreNvood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy requires the developer to replace eight trees per acre — 26 trees in total. The plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, provides a variety of deciduous and coniferous replacement trees. The plant schedule on Exhibit E -3 specifies 2.5 -inch deciduous replacement trees. This should be corrected to indicate 3 -inch caliper trees. F. Conservation Easement The draft easement shoN -,n on Exhibit F, states "Tree Conservation Easement ". The final plan submitted Nvith the final plan stage should simply state "Conservation Easement ". G. Architectural Control Guidelines While the City does not dictate a certain size, price range or design for single - family residential projects, the developer has provided draft guidelines for the houses in order to show residents Nvhat type of houses are being proposed. H. Sample House Plans See comment in architectural control guidelines (Item G). L Construction Management Plan Based on neighborhood concerns, particularly Nvith respect to the use of the street during construction, the developer has provided a proposed construction management plan. Per staff's recommendation the plan stipulates construction vehicles Nvill have to park at least 10 feet of off of the roadvmv s paved surface. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 7 of 24 Item 2 near the top of page 3 in this Plan should be changed to reflect ShoreNvood's construction hours policy: 1) 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. weekdays, 2) 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturday, and, 3) no Nvork on Sundays except Nvith authorization from the City. The development agreement for the project Nvill include reference to televising the streets before project construction is done to record the condition of the roadvmy. After the project is done it has to be televised again. The developer is responsible for repairing any damage to public streets or adjacent properties done by construction activity. Nielsen stated that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends approval of the Development Stage plans. The plans are substantially consistent Nvith the approved Concept Stage plans. The items enumerated herein should be incorporated into the final plans for the project and into the development agreement between the developer and the City. He reiterated the City Engineer has some open ended items in his report, in particular the grading and erosion control. That needs to be resolved before this is considered by Council. Commissioner Labadie stated Exhibit D Grading and Erosion Control shows that on Lot 3 there is something called refuse. She asked Nvhat that is. Director Nielsen explained the property used to be a small horse farm and farms often had a refuse pile. That Nvould be cleaned up as part of this development. Chair Geng stated the overall grading plan is to grade the property in such a Nvav that stormwater runoff flows to the east away from Summit Avenue. He asked if that means the properties Nvill be higher on the east along Summit Avenue. Director Nielsen stated the properties Nvill be basically level Nvith the roadvmv and reiterated the goal is not to have any more stormwater flow doN -,n Summit Avenue than there is today. Commissioner Maddv asked if the conservation easement form included in the meeting packet is a City form or a developer form. Director Nielsen stated the developer drafted that one and noted the City has some others it has used. Staff Nvill compare the language. He commented that the one from the developer is quite Nvell N ritten regarding Nvhat can and cannot be done to the easement. Maddy asked if it Nvould be appropriate to make recommendations about how to modify it this evening. Nielsen noted it Nvould be. In response to a question from Commissioner Labadie, Director Nielsen explained the Tree Preservation and Reforestation Plan Exhibit E -2 shows Nvhich trees Neill be removed and Nvhich Nvill be protected. Labadie noted that Exhibit E -3 provides a planting plan for replacement trees. She asked if the planting plan is sufficient to meet the City s requirements. Nielsen noted it does meet the requirements. Nielsen stated per the City Code significant trees (i.e., trees Nvith a diameter of more than 8 inches at breast height; 54 inches high) have to be replaced. The formula states that any tree Nvith a diameter between 8 inches and 12 inches has to be replaced Nvith two 3 -inch caliber trees. Anv tree Nvith a diameter greater than or equal to 12 inches has to be replaced Nvith three 3 -inch caliber trees. The maximum exposure a developer has is 8 trees per acre. That is Nvhat the Plan shows. Jeff ShoenNvetter, Nvith JMS Custom Homes, noted he and his Nvife oN -,n JMS and that they Nvill be building the houses for Homestead Partners. He displayed a photograph of the existing site. He noted that the property had originally been platted as three lots and then combined into the existing single parcel for some reason. He stated the developer is Nvell aNvare that five lots could be platted instead of four Nvithout needing a variance. But he and the developer prefer four lots. They also prefer the PUD Nvith the preservation of a significant portion of the site. Approximately 5 percent of the trees Nvill be removed from the site. There Nvill be approximately 95 percent preservation of the site. To their knowledge there is no other development in Shorewood that has that. He noted that generally the side yard setbacks are conforming for the R -1C zoning district. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 8 of 24 He explained that although the front yard setbacks are staggered relative to the property line all of the lots Nyill have extremely long drivevyays. It Nyill be about 70 feet from the edge of the traveled roadwa -,T surface to the houses. The traveled surface is not necessarily in the center of the right- of -Nyav (ROW). The driveways are generally flat. The finished surface of the garages N ill be approximately tNyo feet above the corresponding traveled surface of the existing street. The rear yards on the properties Nsill be very ample; they are generous to a fault N ith regard to rear yard setbacks. The proposed 70 -foot Nyide lots are fairly typical for JMS in many other communities. The architectural homes they intend to build Nyill Nyork extremely Nyell on the lots. The actual lot sizes exceed the minimum size restriction in the City Ordinance by more than 50 percent. The units per acres are only 1.23; that is very loNy density. About 57 percent of the site is being conserved Nyith a conservation easement in perpetuity. That is the beaut -,T of building only four houses instead of five. The vieNys from the street Nyill not change much. A stormvyater management plan has been prepared by the engineers. There is not a lot of additional occupancy Nyith N-,-hat is being proposed; it is only three additional dNyelling units. They Nyill not result in anv significant increase in traffic trips per day on the existing public streets. He displayed a photo shoN ing the preservation area. He noted that one corner of the site is oNsned by Shorevyood and pointed out the area that Nsill be preserved. He stated there had been comments made in the past the inferred that the soils Nyould be challenging. A third party engineer Nyas hired to revieNy that and determined the soils Nyill be perfect for construction. The firm did not find any perched Nyater or high Nyater table. He noted that the additional PUD standards requested regarding construction management, restrictive covenants, rain gardens and rain garden maintenance have all been incorporated into the PUD application. He displayed an artistic rendering in a three dimensional format. He noted the conforming plat is their fallback position. They think that N-,-hat is being considered this evening is a far superior plan relative to the site. He commented that his customers like to live next to a park or conservation area or something like that. He explained ShoreNvood's Comprehensive (Comp) Plan Nyhich Nyas updated in 2008 talks about natural resources and land use objectives. The 2008 update encourages developers and builders to come to the City Nyith "... Creative development design to ensure the protection and enhancement of those portions of the community containing unique physical features (e.g., topography, woodlands, etc.). Additionally " Shorewood's trees and vegetation are valuable assets and consideration should be given to their preservation and protection. ". And "... Where feasible, natural open space areas shall be obtained through conservation easements, acquisition or development regulation." He thought those Nyill be achieved Nsith the PUD that is being proposed. The Natural Resources and Land Use Policies in the Comp Plan state the use of planned unit development concepts shall be considered N-,-here the protection of natural resources is important. That greatly influenced hoNy they approached the site. It also states that the conservation easements and similar methods of preserving open space shall be pursued such that the areas remain undisturbed indefinitely. The documents submitted by Homestead Partners does that; it protects the 80,000 plus square feet of the site. He noted the reason the PUD zoning tool is suitable for this site is it encourages preservation of natural features. That is N-,-hat is being proposed. He stated that during October 2013 the City staff s initial revieNv of the project in concept stated they thought " ... Summit Woods is exactly the type PUD project for which the PUD tool was intended. And, that it must be remembered that the property owner has a right to develop the property under the rules established by the City. However, in this instance the PUD approach is considered to be./br superior to traditional platting." CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 9 of 24 Mr. ShoenNvetter stated they are here tonight to ask for permission to build the homes in the configuration that has been submitted. He then stated there has been a lot of input from City staff and other professionals over the last several months. He Nvent on to state as the snow melts they Nvant to be in a position to build. Chair Geng asked if Mr. ShoenNvetter has had an opportunity to review the staff report and the City Engineer's report. Mr. ShoenNvetter responded he has. Geng noted that a number of details Nvere flagged and he asked Mr. Shoenwetter if anv of them Nvere of concern to him. Mr. Shoenwetter noted not that he is aNvare of and stated that most of them are normal housekeeping that Nvould be dealt Nvith during the final platting process. For example, the one lot that is 69 feet Nvide Neill be adjusted because another is 74 feet Nvide. The mathematical calculations Neill be corrected properly. Geng asked that all of the flagged items be addressed before this goes before the City Council. He then asked if that Nvould be doable before April 14. Mr. ShoenNvetter stated he thought it Nvas the intent to make all of the revisions required at this time by staff over the next three Nveeks Nvell in advance of the City Council meeting. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. Krisan Osterbv, 6271 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated she lives just south of the PUD site on the same side of Hummingbird Road. She noted there is still the potential for an additional house north of the PUD site. There are two lots directIv south in Chanhassen that are also being considered for development. Therefore, there could potentially be the impact of seven houses; not just the four in the PUD. She stated she appreciates having the driveNvay pull -outs. But, it appears they Nvill go into the setbacks and almost touch the property line. The pull -outs Nvould also be over the easements between the houses for the rain gardens. She asked that pull-outs be clearly considered and integrated into the pull-out plan and documented as to how they Nvill Nvork With side yard setbacks for each of the properties. She expressed concern about the location of the drivewav on the northerly lot [Lot 1] and she asked that consideration be given to shifting it off of the corner. She noted she Nvould like to have signage demarcating the conservation area because that is the value of the PUD. She stated she has read about homeovriers who have cut down trees in conservation areas because the areas Nvere not properly marked. She encouraged there be a covenant put in place so there is a large gap between Nvhere the graded area ends and Nvhere the conservation easement begins. Without it there Nvould be nothing that Nvould prevent property owners from cutting doN -,n trees on their properties close to the conservation area. She asked if there is a public value to the conservation such as a trail or public access along Galpin Lake Road or above, below or in the middle of the slope. She thought it prudent to clarify that. She stated she Nvould like to extend the park dedication fee to the existing house because that house is going to be destroyed. She noted that she agrees that all of the grading and erosion control concerns should be addressed before Council considers the Development Stage plans; particularly Nvhere Nvalls are required to make the grading Nvork. She stated if there ends up being a covenant she suggested it require the Nvalls be of natural material. She explained when she hears riprap she interprets it to mean that the Nvalls could be different from property to property and that they could be a concrete material rather than a boulder material. She asked that specifics about the Nvalls, including their maintainability, be provided before the City Council meeting when this is considered. She stated she is pleased to hear there are not problems Nth the soils on the site. There have been problems Nvith the soils along the Chanhassen border. She then stated if drain tile Nvill be used proactively CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 10 of 24 it should be very clear in the grading plan that it is tied to the rain gardens. She suggested the City, if possible, ask that chain -link fencing be used for tree protection during construction. She asked that the rain gardens and their grading be overlaid Nvith the Tree Preservation Plan to ensure consistency. She suggested the landscaping plan specify a clear preference to plant trees that NN-ill be full - canopy, large shade trees to respect the character of the neighborhood. Maple, oak. or basswood trees Nvould be more valuable to the neighborhood over time than coniferous trees Nvould be. She clarified the trees she is talking about Nvould be adjacent to the conservation area or the street. She then stated she has not seen anything shoN ing the potential home elevations in a true elevation along the street. She Nvould like to see something, other than in a plan view, that shows the true relation of the home elevations are to the changing grade on the street especially as the grade goes doN -,n to the north. She noted children Nvalk on Hummingbird Road to the bus stop for the elementary school. And, in that neighborhood all of the children Nvalk to Minnetonka Middle School because there is no bus for them. She asked that there be some consideration given to having truck access times be later on Monday through Friday. She then noted that Nvhile it is a fine idea to increase Summit Avenue to 20 feet Nvide in front of the plat that does not adequately address the issue of access to that neighborhood unless Summit Avenue is N idened all the Nvav up or Hummingbird Road is Nvidened. Access to the neighborhood Nvill not meet fire code requirements. She stated when she lost her home to fire Summit Avenue could not be used for a second point of access. Ms. Osterbv thanked the Planning Commission for alloNving her extra time to make her comments. Marilyn Zupnik, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that she lives across the roadwav from the Rix property in Chanhassen and across from the PUD site. She stated that although the PUD is on1v for four houses she understands that ultimately seven Nvill be built in the neighborhood. She commented the most northerIv lot is marked for future development. There is a blind curve there coming from both directions. She expressed concern that in the proposed PUD you cannot see the drivevmy for the most northerly lot [Lot 1] when coming up the hill. She then expressed concern about the increase in traffic Nvhich she thinks Neill be almost 50 percent; there are 14 houses now and there Nvould be six more houses added [four in Shorewood and two in Chanhassen]. She stated because the area is small where the proposed houses are to be located the houses Nvill be very close together. That is different than for the other houses in the neighborhood. She questioned whN- the character needs to change. She stated if there Nvere one or two feNver houses it could still be a beautiful setting. She clarified she is not opposed to building there. She has ahvays knoN -,n there Nvould be some building there; she has lived in the neighborhood since 1990. She stated she is not in favor of building so mariv more houses so close to the roadvmv. She thought if they Nvere built back further from the roadvmy it Nvould help. She Nvants things to remain consistent Nvith Nvhat is already in the neighborhood regarding space around the houses. Ms. Zupnik thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak on this and she asked that her concerns be taken into consideration. Lea Foli, 6200 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. He noted that Mr. ShoenNvetter had earlier pointed out that the original plat for the property Nvas for three lots. He asked how and when it changed to four. Director Nielsen explained at one time the property Nvas platted as three lots and they Nvere eventually combined into one parcel of land which is Nvhat exists today. Homestead Partners is proposing a plat of four lots on that one parcel. He asked if the developer and builder Nvould consider three houses instead of four houses for the PUD. He stated he thought doing CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 11 of 24 that Nvould alleviate many of the problems. He commented that he thought that more problems have come to light as people have become more familiar N ith Nvhat is being proposed. He stated if the northern most house Nvere not built leaving only three houses all of the problems at the curve in Summit Avenue Nvould be eliminated. For example, there Nvould be more space for the other three lots and there Nvould not be concerns about turn -outs being close to the property line. And, it could be possible to have one common drivewav off of Summit Avenue instead of four. He stated people have sat through long PoNverPoint presentations dealing Nvith densities and acreages and so forth. In spite of that when the Concept Stage plan Nvas consider by the City Council for second time the Concept Stage plan Nvas approved. He asked whN- three houses is not viable option to replace the four - lot PUD that is proposed. Vicki Franzen, 6260 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, expressed her appreciation for the Nvork that has been done to date to address many of the residents' concerns. She noted she shares manv of the concerns that have already been stated. She stated from her perspective sufficient attention has not been given to the safety issues of Summit Avenue and Hummingbird Road. She noted that earlier in the meeting Mr. ShoenNvetter had indicated the additional four houses Nvill not result in a significant increase to traffic. The addition of seven houses Neill significantly increase the traffic from her perspective because that Nvill be nearly a 50 percent increase. She stated even-one agrees that Summit Avenue is substandard. She suggested a traffic study be done to address the impact of the additional traffic on Summit Avenue given its current condition. She stated if the roadvmv needs to be improved then that should be included in this plan. She stated the study needs to happen before the development begins. She noted she believes safety is a paramount issue on Summit Avenue. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Alex Petrosian, 850 Saddlebrook Pass, Chanhassen, stated he oN -,ns the property located at 23130 Summit Avenue Nvhich is next to the PUD site. He stated his number one concern is the roadvmv. He asked how that is going to be addressed. He stated this evening Director Nielsen listed off the four options staff has discussed for improving the roadvmv. He did not think any of them are viable. One of the options Nvas to make the portion of Summit Avenue in ShoreNvood Nvider. He then stated he agrees there needs to be a traffic study done about the impact of seven additional houses; it should be ordered by the City. He stated from a fire access perspective on substandard roads he suggested that sprinkler systems be installed in the new houses. He commented that the fire department in Excelsior recommended he sprinkle the home he intends to build on his Summit Avenue property because there is not enough access to it. He then stated that in previous discussions about this PUD he heard the Chanhassen Nvatermain Nvould be extended to the PUD site. Yet, during discussions about the two sites in Chanhassen he heard that Nvells Nvill be drilled for each of the PUD houses. He thought it Nvould be Nvorthwhile for those four houses to be connected to municipal Nvater. He noted that he did not see in the plans how the seNver system Nvill be handled. He Nvould like to know how the extension Nvill be done — though his property or under /along Summit Avenue. He noted he Nvould like to see all the plans finalized before they come to the Planning Commission. He would like to know Nvhat the rain gardens Nvill look like. If they are real they should be approved by the City Engineer and the Planning Department. Then residents could comment on them. He stated Mr. ShoenNvetter had indicated that the four -house PUD is much superior when compared to the five houses that could be built on the site. From his perspective he did not think five houses could be built CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 12 of 24 until the property is subdivided. Therefore, he did not think that Nvas a true representation of the facts because the property has not been subdivided into five lots. Mr. Petrosian thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Laura Liedtke, 6231 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, noted that she lives adjacent to the Rix property in Chanhassen that Nvill be developed. She stated from her perspective the Planning Commission and the City Council are charged Nvith making a decision about protecting people's public safety as Nvell as development decisions. She recommended public safety be taken into consideration. She stated that Nvas not talked about during the Planning Director's presentation and the builder's presentation; it Nvas blatantIv absent. Safety is truly a big issue and it is troubling to her that it has not been talked about. She then stated she has seen numerous cars slide back doN -,n Summit Avenue. She saw two teenagers and another car almost go over the edge this Nvinter when going doN -,n Hummingbird Road. From her vantage point to add more residential traffic Nvould be irresponsible. She expressed concern that the safety of Shorewood residents Nvould be compromised by this proposed development. If it Nvas justifiable to hire a third party to investigate the soils, it should be justifiable to hire a third party to investigate the traffic and safety of the roadvmv. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Sondra Travlor, 23115 Summit Avenue, ShoreNvood, noted she lives across from the proposed development at the blind curve. She stated she applauds what her neighbors have already said about safety. She then stated recentIv the one of Chanhassen's plow trucks Nvas being driven down Hummingbird Road and stopped and started to back up into her small parking area. She Nvent out to speak Nvith him. The driver Nvas speaking Nvith his supervisor and explaining that the curve Nvas unsafe and he thought he might slide off into the trees. The driver asked for permission to back up Hummingbird Road in order to avoid getting into an accident going around the curve of Summit Avenue. People know that going doN -,nhill on Summit Avenue around the curve when the roadway is slippery is a challenge. From her perspective it would not be a good idea to make it one -Nvay going doom. To make it one -N-my going up is not feasible because it is hard for drivers to drive up. Putting in a cul -de -sac Nvould make it unsafe because of fire service access needs. She expressed concern that the driveNvays for Lot 1 and Lot 2 are in the blind line of sight at the curve in Summit Avenue. She stated that children in the neighborhood play on the streets; it is a low traffic area. Children living in the new houses Nvill probably play in their front yards. She expressed concern about Nvhat could happen if a child's ball accidently goes onto the street at the blind curve and they go to retrieve it. And, concern for their pets and the people who drive on Summit Avenue. The safety issue is paramount. She stated if someone Nvere to build even just three new houses on the site having an access as far avmy as possible from the curve nearly on the Chanhassen/County line for one drivevmy that Nvould access any homes built in that area Nvould be preferable for safety reasons. Drainage for that one driveNvay needs to be to the east. It should not flow doN -,n Summit Avenue because when it is cold and freezes it creates a hazard. Because the curve is tree lined it takes longer for ice on the roadvmv to melt. The curve is banked outward. She explained she Nvas recently driving dov'n Summit Avenue when it Nvas slippery and she applied her brakes at the blind curve and the back end of her car slid to the right and she ended up facing her property. Fortunately, there Nvere no cars approaching the curve. She stated that safety has to be addressed. Ms.Travlor thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 13 of 24 Elizabeth Birldand Daub, 6180 Murrav Hill Road, ShoreNvood, stated the commonsense and reasonableness that has been conveyed this evening by members of the community about issues such as safety and fire has impressed her. She expressed concern about stormwater runoff floNving doN -,n Summit Avenue because she lives at the intersection of Summit Avenue and Murrav Hill Road. She noted that her property has been flooded tv, ce. She lost all of her pictures of her family both times. She questioned if anyone can guarantee that the rain gardens Nyill adequately handle the stormNyater. She stated it is disturbing to her that things have gone to this level. She noted that the City has gone to great lengths to repair Murray Hill Road and to put storm seNver in. She stated from her perspective the stormwater management issue is not being adequately discussed. She thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Jason Mills, 6281 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, asked if the City or JMS has had a detailed, professional traffic study done about the roadvmv. Chair Geng responded no. Mr. Mills specifically asked that the City or JMS to have a detailed, professional traffic study done that Nyill look at the traffic and include the four proposed houses in Shorevyood and the tNyo proposed houses in Chanhassen. He stated unfortunately he and the other members of that neighborhood are dealing Nyith a development that spans two cities. Based on his observations of Nyhat has occurred regarding the tNyo proposed developments he draNys the conclusion that the tNyo cities do not like to Nyork together that Nyell. He stated that a number of questions have been asked by the residents but no one is ansvyering them on the spot. From his vantage point the residents have not gotten answers about this PUD in the past. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Nate Schimiechen, 22785 Murrav Street, ShoreNvood, noted the back of his home overlooks the hill. He stated that he does not think it is appropriate to include the proposed conservation easement in density discussions. He commented Summit Avenue is his favorite spot to go for a Nyalk Nyith his Nyife. They like to go up Summit Avenue and doN -,n Hummingbird Road. He stated there is a lot of Nyildlife that comes doN -,n that hill. He then stated there Nyill be a lot of hard surface both for the drivevyays and roof tops that Nyill result in stormwater runoff going doN -,n Summit Avenue and dov'n the hill side. He expressed concern about the environmental impact. He noted he agrees completely Nyith having a covenant to protect the area betvyeen the houses and the conservation easement so that the trees are not taken doom. He commented that two ovmers of his property prior to him brought in 27 trucks loads of dirt. He stated they moved to Nyhere they live because of the beauty in the area and the logy density of homes. He thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to speak. Mr. ShoenNyetter stated at times it is difficult to be the builder. You often feel you're misunderstood and the neighbors Nyant to demonize the change and tonight he is the villain. He noted that his company JMS has been successful enough to survive three recessions. JMS has been building great homes in great communities for 28 Nears. One of JMS' very early plats Nyas in ShoreNvood on Galpin Lake. That Nyas 27 Nears ago. He then stated he thought all of the points made are thoughtful but they are somevyhat misunderstood. He explained the Rix family selected his company because the family knevy JMS Nyould do a good job. Original1v the Rix family asked him to pursue five conforming lots on the site. The family thought they Nyere entitled to secure that. He talked the family into the PUD in order to preserve the bluff From his perspective what is being proposed is a better plan. He explained based on Nyhere the existing driveway to the Rix home is he has shifted the proposed drivevyays to the south. Although Summit Avenue curves he has found the site lines to be safe, better than mariv other areas in ShoreNvood. He noted that a traffic study is not required for a plat of this size and requiring one Nyould be unprecedented. He explained per industry standards there are about seven trips per CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 14 of 24 day per single - family home. But, a stay -at -home mom Nvith six children that goes to and from sports might make more than seven trips a day. An empty nester, a single professional, a N -, dow and Nvidower might make one trip a day. Therefore, four houses Nvould result in about 28 trips per day. He then explained the City Nvas provided an engineered grading plan that Neill route stormwater to the east. There should not be anv more Nvater flowing to the property that has flooded twice. That property is to the Nvest of the proposed project. He noted that JMS is concerned Nvith public safety as Nvell. It is also concerned Nvith creating good homes for good neighbors. He stated it is his belief that the houses Nvill be beautiful. And, he assumes the people N-,-ho purchase those properties Neill be good neighbors. He explained that all of the houses Nvill be connected to ShoreNvood's sanitary seNver system. There Nvill either be four Nvater Nvells for the four houses or there may be one Nvell that is shared by the four houses. Either Nvav the sanitary Nvater supply to the four houses Nvill be consistent Nvith the requirements of the Minnesota Department of Health and the requirements of the City of ShoreNvood. He noted there Nvill be other redevelopment in Chanhassen and ShoreNvood in the future on areas that flank the PUD site. JMS has been approached during this process by other property ovmers Nvith properties less than a few 100 feet avmv Nvhere the lots could easily be changed into more than one dwelling. JMS has no interest in pursuing single lot splits on those streets at this time. He stated the request for planting oak, basswood and maple trees can be accommodated if it pleases the City. He noted that he has built a home Nvithout drain tile. He explained the drain tile systems on four lots Will largely be passive. When there is a poNver outage the drain tile systems Neill still Nvork. He stated he Nvill ask his engineers to overlay the Tree Preservation Plan, grading plan and rain garden. Although it is not required, it Neill likely enhance people's understanding of how much thought has gone into this. He then stated there Nvas discussion about additional tree preservation. He expressed concern about putting too onerous of a requirement on those who purchase the properties. Those people Nvill have uses for their back yards just like the people present this evening. He stated everyone has a right to private, peaceful enjoyment of their back yard. The proposed back yards are not excessively large, but the space between the back of the houses and the conservation easement is exceptionally larger than most conforming plats. He Nvent on to state that a comment Nvas made about the lots to the south in Chanhassen are even smaller and tighter. He clarified that is not true. The lots in Chanhassen are 90 feet Nvide. The side yard setbacks Nvill be the same as in ShoreNvood and that is 10 feet. He stated JMS Nvill design the conservation easement signage and have it logoed and it Nvill be put in at the required increments. That is the right thing to do. The conservation easement is part of the proposition to its future customers that nothing Neill be built behind their houses. And, that the Nvooded hillside Neill remain in perpetuity. Mr. ShoenNvetter reiterated JMS Neill do its very best to build very good homes. He noted that construction traffic Nvill be minimized to Nvhatever extend possible. And, JMS Nvill follow the City s ordinances. JMS Nvants to have a safe community as Nvell. He asked the neighbors to trust that he is not the demon developer. He thanked even-one for the opportunity to share his thoughts about the very thoughtful comments made this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 15 of 24 Heidi Welbig, 6291 Hummingbird Road, Chanhassen, stated if you Nvant to build a good neighborhood Nvith good houses in a safe environment she asked N-,hN- you Nvouldn't build nicer houses and feNver of them Nvhich Nvould be more consistent Nvith the existing neighborhood. She then stated there would not be all of the issues there are Nvith the PUD if feNver houses Nvere built. She asked if building one more house is Nvorth that much more money. Ms. Franzen stated she understood Mr. ShoenNvetter to sav JMS has never had anv issues Nvith anv of JMS' customers. She stated it's her understanding there are have been a number of issues Nvith other cities. She asked him to address that. Ms. Osterbv stated she does not think 95 percent of tree preservation can be used if 95 percent of the trees are in the conservation area. Credit cannot be given to that. She then stated in Chanhassen those trees Nvould be preserved by Chanhassen. She questioned the statement that it is not reasonable to have a covenant to protect additional trees in the back yards since that is a standard the rest of the neighborhood embraces. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:14 P.M Commissioner Davis stated she agrees that the grading plan is totally inadequate. She noted she Nvorks for an engineering firm but she is not an engineer. She stated the firm she Nvorks for Nvould never present Nvhat the applicant's engineer has presented for a preliminary plat. She has drav'n drainage arrows on the plan and they are not going to the rain gardens; they are going doN -,n the hill. She asked Director Nielsen if a better grading plan Nvould have to be produced for the final plat. Nielsen clarified that has to be done before the Development Stage plan goes to Council. Davis then stated the schematics on the grading plan are different than those on the landscaping plan. Things are different from page to page. She noted she is not in support of Nvhat is being proposed and never has been. She stated from her perspective four houses are too many for the bluff; she prefers three. She then stated the grading plan shows drain tile going out to the middle of the hill Nvith the riprap. If that really happens the stormNvater Nvould go out to the middle of the hill and then doN -,n the hill. From her perspective the grading plan needs a lot more thought. She asked Nvhere the nearest fire hydrant is. She explained the City is redoing the roadvmy Nvhere she lives. There is a cul -de -sac that has to be Nvidened as part of the project for fire access reasons. The Nvidth of Summit Avenue that is being asked for in front of the plat is not close to the Nvidth being asked for Nvhere she lives for a reconstruct. She stated she has a hard time understanding the need to build four more large houses that Neill results in drivers making an additional 28 vehicle trips per day on the roadvmv. She asked how deep the Nvells Nvill have to be drilled. Commissioner Maddv noted that someone in the audience indicated Nvells on the adjacent properties are 200 — 300 feet deep. Commissioner Labadie stated if the PUD Nvas to be approved as submitted she asked Nvhat the construction time frame Nvould be from start to finish. Mr. ShoenNvetter stated he expects all four houses to be built Nvithin a one Near period. For the time from permit to certificate of occupancy JMS runs a 105 day construction schedule. Labadie clarified the Summit Woods PUD that is being discussed is for four houses not seven. She explained it is the Planning Commission's responsibility is to make a recommendation on the Development Stage plans or request additional information. She noted she has concerns about the grading CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 16 of 24 plan. She also has concerns about the construction traffic which is going to occur around school times. The construction hours identified are consistent Nvith the City Code. The proposed setbacks comply Nvith the Zoning Ordinance Nvith the exception of one Nvhich has to be adjusted. The project has to be considered as a Nvhole. At this time she has concerns about what is being proposed as a whole. She noted she is confused about where the stormNvater runoff is going to go. She stated that from her perspective the Planning Commission needs more information before it can make a recommendation. She clarified she is not taring to continualIv kick this back to the builder and developer. She stated that Nvhat is being considered is a big deal to the City and to the neighborhood. She reiterated that to make the best informed decision she needs more information. Pete Knaeble, Nvith Terra Engineering N hich is the engineer for the project, stated they have been N orking Nvith the City Engineer about the grading plan. An outside stormNvater management consult has been hired and that person developed the hydrology modeling for the area. That individual has a lot of experience Nvith rain garden design and came up Nvith the sizes for the rain gardens, the drainage areas and the drainage patterns for the site. He clarified the plan is in the preliminary design stage. They are not construction grade draNvings; they are preliminary grading draNvings. He explained the design that shoNved up in the stormwater report Nvas revieNved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer thought that based on the study the rate and volume of stormNvater runoff Nvill be reduced off of the site. The intent of the grading plan and the stormwater management plan is to direct the majority of the stormNvater that hits the site to the rain gardens prior to discharge. The intent is to have the stormwater infiltrate and not run doN -,n the hill. He noted it is not possible for this proposed development or any other development to keep all Nvater from floNving on to the street. He also noted they are not claiming to solve the drainage problems in the neighborhood. The drainage coming off of the site Nvill be improved. The PUD Nvill be a four lot development in a neighborhood of many lots. Mr. Knaeble stated that they Nvill provide additional detail before this is considered by Council. He clarified that usually happens at the construction design phase. He noted they have been Nvorking Nvith the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) engineer, the City Engineer and their stormwater management consultant on this. He believes a plan has been developed that Neill meet the MCWD's and the City's requirements. Commissioner Davis asked who the consultant is. Mr. Knaeble responded the stormwater management modeling is being done through the Civil Site Group. Commissioner Maddy stated during the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing there Nvere comments made about public access to the conservation area. He clarified the Nvay the easement is written is it is still private property, it is not public property. Trees cannot be taken doN -,n on it. It cannot be disturbed or changed in other Nvays. Non - native invasive vegetation and dead vegetation and debris can be removed from the site. The property oN -,ner that purchases a lot Nvill oN -,n part of the area but they cannot do an -ahing to it other than Nvhat is alloNved in the easement. Maddv then stated the comments about wanting just three lots and not four has already been put to rest. The Concept Stage plan approved by City Council Nvas for four lots. He does not think the number of lots is germane to this conversation. He asked Director Nielsen if staff has had conversation Nth representatives from Chanhassen about it extending its Nvatermain and putting fire hydrants up there. Nielsen explained staff did meet Nth Chanhassen staff and Chanhassen's original desire Nvas to extend its Nvatermain across the plat and doN -,n the hill and loop the Nvatermain. But, once they found out it Nvould not be looped Chanhassen lost interest in extending it. Nielsen noted the City does not have any plans to extend Nvater doN -,n Summit Avenue. He explained there Nvould not be enough users there to pay for it and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 17 of 24 it Nvould oniv serve two more houses. Therefore, the developer is proposing the PUD be serviced by a Nvell(s). He stated if the ultimate goal is for Chanhassen to loop its Nvatermain then doing 300 feet now Nvould mean that 300 feet Nvould not have to be done later. Maddv noted he Nvas taring to come up Nvith a motion to put forth. But, he came up Nvith a list of 30 some things that need to be resolved. The City Engineer identified a long list of items that needs to be resolved. Most of them Nvould normalIv be dealt Nvith in the Final Plan Stage of the PUD process. Chair Geng stated he does not think that is a fair characterization to say there are 30 some holes. He explained a lot of the matters flagged by staff are relatively minor and they can be addressed in fairy* short order. Others may take some additional engineering Nvork. He suggested a motion refer satisfactorily addressing the group of items listed in Director Nielsen's staff report and in the City Engineer's memorandum subject to their satisfaction before this matter goes to the City Council. And, if that cannot be accomplished by April 14 so be it. Or, the Planning Commission could delay making a recommendation until the applicant comes back Nvith information shoNving the items have been addressed or there is a plan to address them. He noted that earlier he had asked Mr. Shoenvvetter if he thought any of the items Nvould be problematic and the answer Nvas no. He clarified he Nvould like them addressed before this goes to City Council. He noted it is the Council's decision that counts. He suggested the developer resubmit the plans to address the items identified by Nielsen and the City Engineer to their satisfaction before sending it to Council. Commissioner Maddy stated he agrees Nvith Chair Geng's concept. He asked if any concerns the Planning Commission talked about this evening are not in Director Nielsen's report or in the City Engineer's memorandum. For example, is easement demarcation included? If not it needs to be added. Othenvise all of his concerns Nvere identified by Director Nielsen or the City Engineer. Ms. Liedtke stated during the Council meeting when this Nvas last considered Mayor Zerby noted that Council Nvas just considering approval of the Concept Stage plan. It is her understanding that during the Development Stage the Planning Commission and Council can help guide Nvhat the PUD Nvould be like. She asked Nvhat the process is because she does not think the all of the residents in the neighborhood understand Nvhat the Commission's role is and Nvhat their role is Nvith regard to influencing Nvhat happens Nvith the PUD. She stated the train may have left the station regarding the number of houses but it has not left the station for a number of other things. She asked Nvhere the influence happens and Nvhen. Chair Geng clarified concerns about the Concept Stage plan have left the station. The City Council approved that in December 2013. What is being discussed this evening is the Development Stage plan. And the next stage is the Final Plan Stage and that comes before any construction begins. Even before any permits are issued. If the City Council approves the final plat the properties are then marketed and houses can be built. Geng explained the members of the Planning Commission are residents of Shorewood and their job is in part to help develop a record of facts as they pertain to planning and development. The Commission's recommendations are not binding; they are purely recommendations. At least as important to the Commission's recommendation is Nvhat gets the Commission to its recommendation. That is the process the Commission is going through now. The City is required by State law to hold public hearings on items like the PUD to give residents an opportunity to be heard. The Commission has definitely provided that opportunity. He clarified that hearing residents' concerns is an important part of the informative process. He noted that Council does read Nvhat is included in the record — the minutes, the staff reports and the information provided as part of the application. He stated everyone exerts influence to the extent they are involved in the process. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 18 of 24 Ms. Liedtke stated that ma-,-be influence Nvas not the right choice of Nvord. She then stated it Nvas her understanding that the PUD Nvas considered to be a good option because it allowed for the City Council to have greater influence over what happens Nvith the development. Chair Geng explained that a PUD is a zoning tool and it is used Nvidely by municipalities all over the country. One of the advantages of a PUD is that a PUD project can be influenced in Nvays that you can't With a standard conforming plat. There is generally some give and take in that process. In this case there Nvill be a conservation easement in perpetuity over 57 percent of the entire parcel. That is significant and a benefit to all of Shorewood. Director Nielsen stated Nvith regard to the staff reports and the City Engineer's reports they are the purpose of the Development Stage plans. He explained that in the Final Plan Stage the developer takes whatever is approved by Council in the Development Stage and puts that into construction draN ings and a development agreement for the project. A lot of the 17 items, along Nvith some sub items, listed in the City Engineer's report are just statements. The biggest issue is the City Engineer does not think the grading plan is adequate. Being grading is such a significant issue staff does not think it is unreasonable to ask for a more thorough grading plan in this stage of the PUD process. Nielsen stated he thinks it Nvould be reasonable to continue this hearing to the Planning Commission's April 1 meeting. That Nvould give the developer's engineers adequate time to refine the grading plan so that it satisfies the City Engineer's recommendations and concerns. The Development Stage plans Nvould then be considered bV Council during its April 14 meeting. He noted a lot of items identified Neill be addressed in the construction drawings and maybe that can be noted on the Development Stage plans. Nielsen Nvent on to state staff will continue to Nvork Nvith Chanhassen staff about possibly extending its Nvatermain 300 feet but the Citv cannot force that issue. Staff continues to discuss the four alternatives for improving Summit Avenue. If this project never happened the City Nvould still be assessing how to improve Summit Avenue based on what residents have said. He noted Council is not taking the issues Nvith Summit Avenue lightly. He stated roadwa -,T issues and drainage have been influenced by residents in the neighborhood. The drainage Nvill be routed to the east; not doN -,n Summit Avenue. The grading plan needs to be enhanced so that people are convinced of that and somehow flag items that Nvill be addressed in the construction plans. Commissioner Davis noted that several people mentioned the possibility of a shared drivewaN- for the four houses. She asked Mr. Shoenwetter if JMS and Homestead Partners have thought about that. Director Nielsen explained that has been considered and that Nvould basically amount to a parallel road. Staff does not recommend doing that. Director Nielsen stated a lot of what the PUD is trying to do is stay awa -,T from the Nvooded hillside. He then stated he Nvill ask the City Engineer to be at the April 1 Planning Commission meeting. He noted the Engineer had offered to be here this evening. But, he thought the Engineer's memorandum spoke for itself. Chair Geng stated he thought it Nvould be prudent to continue this Public Hearing to the Planning Commission's April 1. He noted he Nvould like to be provided Nvith a more detailed grading plan. That Nvould be of benefit to all involved. Commissioner Maddv asked if it Nvould be reasonable to sav there is a list of mostIv small things that need to be addressed because the City Engineer and Planning Director think they can be overcome and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 19 of 24 then move this along. He stated if those items can be adequately addressed then the Planning Commission can recommend approval. Commissioner Davis stated the Development Stage plans Nvere not ready for the Planning Commission's February 5 meeting. An extra month Nvas needed to get them done. Commissioner Maddv noted the City Engineer's memo is dated February 26, 2014. He stated he does not know how much Nvork has been done on addressing the Engineer's concerns and recommendations, which are mostIv minor, since then. In a comment made by Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen clarified the structure schematics on the grading plan are illustrative oniv and they are just the building pad. Commissioner Davis asked that things be made consistent among all of the Development Stage plans. Commissioner Labadie stated she does not think it is unreasonable to request more information and discuss this again. Commissioner Maddv stated the City Nvould never issue a building permit for the level of plans submitted for the Development Stage. He asked if the level of detail required for construction plans is needed for this stage. Chair Geng noted the final plat which is during the Final Plan Stage of the PUD process does not go before the Planning Commission. It goes directly to the City Council. Mr. Shoenwetter stated the Development Stage plans have just been discussed for the last 2.5 hours and there has been some spirited conversation. He commented that he is thinking about what he is going to tell the Rix family tomorrow morning about tonight's proceedings. He explained that it is his understanding that the level of detail, which is significantly more than conceptual at this point, that has been submitted and reviewed by various experts Nvould comply Nvith all of the requirements of a developer's application at this stage. The fixes, repairs, corrections and edits are part of the traditional process. After the City Council takes action on the information in front of the Planning Commission that repair list Nvill be handled administratively and critiqued by City staff. During his 28 Nears in this business he does not think he has ever had less than twelve ticks on a list of fixes. Sometimes there have been significantIv more based on the size of the development Mr. Shoenwetter stated to continue this just to get a more detailed grading plan when their engineer has given testimony that the Nvater Nvill drain to the east seems unnecessary. Their experts have concluded that as Nvell. He noted the first meeting they had Nvith City staff Nvas in July or August of 2013. He asked that all of the requirements of all of the experts that are included in the meeting packet be requisite. And that the standards of development be adhered to as far as what his engineers and the City s engineers collaborate on in an orderIv, normal course of business. He stated he understands they are being asked to bring the plans to the final stage so everyone can agree they are finalized. But, he does not have a final plan from City Council yet. The Planning Commission is asking him and the Rix family to do all of this extra homeNvork under the assumption that something Nvon't change later. He then stated he thinks that the application and the comments that people have requested be incorporated have been agreed to. The question is when should that homeNvork be submitted and to whom. Their engineer has stated his homeNvork Nvill be updated based on the comments from the City Engineer, which are less than five business days old, before it goes to City Council on April 14. He thinks it is appropriate to instruct their engineer to get his homeNvork done in the normal course of business just like for any plat. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 20 of 24 Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen if he is satisfied that Development Stage plans are what they should be at this stage in the PUD process. Nielsen stated in his report staff's recommendation is to recommend approval of the Development Stage plans subject to incorporating the items identified in the memorandums from him and the City Engineer both dated February 26, 2014, into the final plans. Nielsen then stated the Commission could make a recommendation about approval of the plans subject to conditions. Or, if the Commission Nvants to see a more detailed grading plan before making a recommendation it can do that also. Chair Geng noted he is not an engineer and does not have any engineering training. Therefore, he does not know whN- he needs to see the grading plan again. He noted he Nvould be comfortable making a recommendation subject to the items identified in the memorandums being addressed to Director Nielsen's and the City Engineer's satisfaction prior to Council considering the Development Stage plans on April 14. He stated City Engineer Hornby is a lot more qualified than he is to evaluate if a plan is adequate for the Development Stage of PUD process. He stated he Nvould support a motion to recommend approval of the Development Stage plans subject to the items identified by Nielsen and Hornby being addressed to their satisfaction for this stage in the PUD process. Maddy moved, Geng seconded, recommending approval of the Summit Woods Planned Unit Development - Development Stage plans subject to the Planning Director's and the City Engineer's recommendations being addressed to their satisfaction and to adding a requirement for conservation easement boundary markers that will be visible in snow and brush. Motion failed 2/2 with Davis and Labadie dissenting. Commissioner Davis stated she believes that it is the Planning Commission's job to do the homeNvork for members of the Council because they have enough meetings to attend and things to do. Commissioner Labadie stated no one on the Planning Commission is an engineer. Yet the Planning Commission Nvants the developer /builder to submit a detailed grading plan prior to sending the Development Stage plans to Council for consideration. Commissioner Davis stated that Nvould leave it up to Council to do the homeNvork. Commissioner Maddy clarified that leaves it up to the Planning Director and the City Engineer to do the homeNvork. Chair Geng noted the City Council has to take all of the information gathered into consideration. Director Nielsen stated it appears a continuation of the Public Hearing is in order. Davis moved, Maddy seconded, continuing the Public Hearing for the Summit Woods Planned Unit Development - Development Stage plans to the Planning Commission's April 1, 2014, meeting and submitting the revised grading plan and other plans for review. Council Liaison Sundberg asked if doing that Neill keep things on track for the April 14, 2014, Council meeting. Director Nielsen responded it Nvould. Commissioner Labadie stated if Council is not going to consider the Development Stage plans until April 14, 2014, an-,-N-,-a-,- continuing the hearing Nvill not delay things. Director Nielsen clarified the expectation is that the engineer Nvill be able to tell the Planning Commission about the revised grading plan. He Neill confirm that the stormwater Nvill flow to the east and into the rain gardens and overflows to the east. Commissioner Davis added and that the rain gardens are appropriately placed and the planting list revised. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 21 of 24 In response to a comment from the audience, it Nyas noted that the updated materials Nyill be available on the Citv's Nyebsite no later than March 28, 2014. In response to a comment from the audience, Chair Geng explained the Public Testimony portion of this Public Hearing has been closed. It Nyill be up to the Commission if it Nyill take public input on April 1. He clarified that he is not saying that Neill happen. Motion passed 4/0. Chair Geng thanked even-one for coming. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 10:05 P.M. Chair Geng recessed the meeting at 10:05 P.M. Chair Geng reconvened the meeting at 10:18 P.M. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There Nyere no matters from the floor presented this evening. _5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS A. Commissioner Attendance Director Nielsen explained that Chair Geng sent out an email informing the Planning Commissioners that the City Council has reduced the size of both the Planning Commission and Park Commission to five members. Part of the reason is due to the lack of applicants. There had been one applicant for the Planning Commission and former Commissioner Garelick Nyas Nyilling to serve again. There Nyas a shortage of applicants for the Park Commission. The reduction in size has been discussed before. A number of Nears ago the size of the Planning Commission had been five. He noted that the Commissioners found a copy of the ordinance regarding the Planning Commission at the dais this evening. He then explained that the Council has been concerned about the attendance requirement for both Commissions. The Ordinance currently states that basically a Commissioner could miss half of the meetings. He thought people believe that is too liberal. He asked the Commission to give some thought to Nvhat a reasonable number of missed meetings Nyould be for a Near. Commissioner Davis stated people Nyere talking about that before the meeting started. She commented that she thought it Nyould be interesting to see Nvhat people's attendance has been over the last tNyo Nears. She stated there are personal and business things that do come up that result in people missing meetings. Commissioner Labadie cautioned against making the attendance requirement too strict because it is alreadv difficult to find applicants. She noted that she Neill miss the April 1, 2014, meeting because her family Nyill be out of the State on vacation. And, she Nyill also miss the May 6, 2014, meeting because her daughter has an orchestra concert. She stated she has been on the Commission for more than a Near and to date she has oniv missed the JuIv 2013 meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 22 of 24 Commissioner Davis stated the Commissioners have been foreNyarned N-,-hen there is likely to be a very controversial topic on the agenda. Commissioner Labadie stated Commissioner Muehlberg needs to attend to the family matter that requires his attention. Commissioner Davis stated Commissioner Muehlberg also drives the school bus on Tuesdays. She then stated her husband has the same job and he Nyorks at the food shelve on Wednesdays and her husband lets people knovy that he cannot drive bus on Wednesdays. She thought people can let others knovy they cannot Nyork on the first Tuesdav of the month because that is N-,-hen the Planning Commission meetings are generally held. Commissioner Maddy suggested requiring Commissioners to attend two- thirds of the meetings. And, if something comes up Nyhere a person misses one -third of the meetings then Council should make a judgment call. It should not result in an automatic removal. Chair Geng states the Ordinance also states that failure to attend four consecutive regular meetings Nyithout excuse of the Chair shall be considered formal notice of resignation. He suggested tying all absences to Nvithout adequate excuse and those Nyith adequate excuse Nyill not be counted. Commissioner Labadie stated it makes it more difficult Nyith only five members. She indicated she Nyished Council Nyould have consulted Nyith the Commission. Especially knoNying that former Commissioner Garelick Nyas Nyilling to do it and that there Nyas a qualified candidate. Commissioner Maddv stated that doesn't change the policy part because 50 percent of seven is still not a quorum. Director Nielsen reiterated that there is the provision about excused by the Chair. Chair Geng stated if there is not a quorum he asked if that could potentially cause problems because of the 60 -dav rule. Director Nielsen stated that can be Nyorked around. Director Nielsen again asked the Commissioners to give attendance some thought before the April meeting. He noted he Nyill check and see hoNy some other cities handle absences. Commissioner Davis asked N-,-hen other terms are up. [Commissioners Labadie's and Muehlberg's' terms are up in 2015. Chair Geng and Commissioners Davis' and Maddy s terms are up in 2016.] She stated to become familiar Nth the zoning regulations takes at least one term. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the continuation of tonight's public hearing on the Summit Woods Development Stage plans is slated for the April 1, 2014, meeting agenda. There Neill also be some study session items and the Commissioners attendance discussion on the agenda. There Nyas consensus that the public has had sufficient opportunities to voice their concerns about the Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD). The continuation of the public hearing is for the Planning Commission to finish its discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 23 of 24 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council Chair Geng reported on the February 24, 2014, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted that Councilmember Siakel suggested the Planning Commission do some training on zoning and permitting. Director Nielsen stated there is no joint training effort being done among the South Lake cities this Near. He then stated there are government training sessions that can be made available to the Commissioners. He noted he Nvill provide the Commission Nvith information. Chair Geng noted that during that meeting Mayor Zerby stated that some communities are looking at their zoning regulations so that they basically prohibit the McMansion situation. Commissioner Davis asked if that is about teardoN -,ns. Director Nielsen explained that issue Nvas discussed 4 — 5 Nears ago. In the zoning district where there are quarter acre lots the Zoning Code prohibits people from making the lots more than 1.5 times the size of the minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet for redevelopment. It still ends up Nvith there being larger homes on smaller lots in an area that doesn't have large lots. Davis asked what the City of Tonka Bav ended up Nvith for regulations. Commissioner Davis stated her mantra is the Planning Commission does the hard Nvork so Council does not have to do it. She commented that she could not have imagined sitting through the discussion about Summit Woods this evening. Director Nielsen noted Council did have to sit through a similar discussion about the Summit Woods concept plan. SLUC Commissioner Davis asked what the state of the Sensible Land Use Coalition budget is. Director Nielsen stated he forgot to register the City for this Near. Davis stated she heard the last session Nvas very good. She commented she cannot afford to pav to attend a session herself. She noted that the next session is about condos and tovmhomes. She stated baby boomers Nvant condos and tovmhomes; not senior housing. She asked if people could know what the topics of the next three, for example, sessions Neill be. Other Commissioner Davis stated she fonvarded the email that Nvas sent out from a resident in the Citv of Chanhassen about the proposed Boulder Cove development to the Council and Planning Commission to Pat Arnst and asked her what she knew about it. She noted that she Nvill fonvard Ms. Arnst's response to the Planning Commissioners. Director Nielsen noted that staff had made a list of concerns that it thought the City should convey to Chanhassen. That Neill be put in a letter format, signed by Mayor Zerby and sent to Chanhassen. He explained one concern Nvas density. The proposal shows 31 single - family units. The dwellings are being referred to as the developer's NexGen style and they are similar to Shorewood's accessory apartment situation. The dwelling is nothing more than a duplex. That Nvould bring it up to 62 units. He noted that staff met Nvith representatives from Chanhassen about that proposed development earlier in the day. The representatives indicated that all 31 units Neill not be that duplex style. He stated he gave the resident who sent the email credit for his attention to detail. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 4, 2014 Page 24 of 24 Commissioner Labadie asked Commissioner Maddv if they could switch the months they are scheduled to be the liaison to Council meetings. She stated it does not make any sense for her to be the liaison about the Planning Commission's April 1, 2014, meeting because she cannot attend it. Maddy stated he Nvould do that. Commissioner Davis offered to be the liaison for Council's May meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 4, 2014, at 10:37 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder � #sB MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title / Subject: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat Meeting Date: 14 April 2014 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Nelgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum City Engineer's Memoranda Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for Summit Woods P.U.D.? Background: The Planning Commission held another public hearing, this time to consider the Development Stage Plans and Preliminary Plat for the Summit Woods P.U.D. The hearing was continued from the March meeting to the April meeting in order for the developer to provide more detailed information on certain items, the most significant of which was the grading /drainage plan. The staff reports attached provide additional background and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat, subject to the staff's recommendations being incorporated into final plans and the development agreement for the project. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application itself is covered by application fees. The project will generate $15,000 in park dedication fees and $3600 in local sanitary sewer access charges. No estimate has been made of the tax implications of four new homes. Options: Approve the draft resolution; modify the resolution; or deny the Development Stage Plans and Preliminary Plat. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the draft resolution. Next Steps and Timelines: Upon the Council's approval of the Development Stage Plans and Preliminary Plat, the developer has six months to file a final plat for the project. Construction of improvements is anticipated to begin during this upcoming construction season. Connection to Vision / Mission: 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 Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage /Preliminary Plat 26 February 2014 A. Property Survey. Questions were raised about a previous platting of the subject property. Once platted as three lots, the property was legally combined into the existing single parcel several years ago. The survey also illustrates the location of the existing street pavement relative to the property as well as site topography and the location of trees that are potentially affected by construction. B. Preliminary Site Plan. This exhibit addresses a number of items: 1. Building setbacks shown are as recommended in the Concept Plan review: a. Front Setbacks — Lot 1, 20 feet; Lot 2, 35 feet; and Lots 3 and 4, 40 feet. b. Side Setbacks — All lots have 10 -foot side yard setbacks, as opposed to the originally proposed 7.5 -foot side setbacks. c. Rear Setbacks —Rear setbacks in the R -1 C district are 40 feet. The proposed conservation easement far exceeds the setback requirement. 2. Lots are shown at 70 feet in width, with the exception of Lot 2, which is shown as 69 feet. That lot should be adjusted to the 70 -foot minimum. 3. Each lot has been shown with a driveway pullout per staff's previous recommendations. These driveway pullouts must be located at least five feet from the side lot lines. 4. The developer shows Summit Avenue being widened to 20 feet in front of the plat. City staff continues to explore alternative measures for addressing issues raised by neighboring residents relative to the substandard condition of the road. C. Preliminary 1. Drainage and utility easements are shown as being 10 feet wide, however the side yard easements appear to measure less. The easements shown on the final plat should show easements 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 2. It is recommended that the conservation easement should be staked and clearly identified as such. 3. As mentioned in B.2., above, all lots must be at least 70 feet wide at their respective building lines. 4. Prior to release of a final plat, the developer must pay $5000 per lot for park dedication fees. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. -2- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage /Preliminary Plat 26 February 2014 5. Prior to release of a final plat the developer must pay $1200 per lot for local sanitary sewer access charges. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. D. Grading and Erosion Control. The City Engineer addresses this item under separate cover. It is worth noting that, based on neighborhood concerns about a possible perched water table on the site, staff asked the developer to provide soil tests for the area where buildings are proposed. In a 22 -page Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, the engineers found no evidence of a perched water table or reason to suspect that the lots were unbuildable. The Concept Plan for the project had shown rain gardens in the front yards of the proposed lots. These have been moved to the rear yards so as to direct site drainage to the east versus toward Summit Avenue. At minimum, the goal of the drainage plan is to not increase the rate or volume of runoff toward Summit Avenue. Ideally, the project will improve drainage toward the west. E. Tree Preservation and Reforestation. Exhibit E illustrates the construction area defined by tree protection fencing, while E -2 provides detail as to which trees within the construction area will be removed and which are to be saved. The vast majority of trees on the property are located in the proposed conservation easement and will remain untouched. Exhibit E -3 provides a planting plan for replacement trees. Consistent with Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy, the developer must replace eight trees per acre — 26 trees in total. The plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, provides a variety of deciduous and coniferous replacement trees. The plant schedule on Exhibit E -3 specifies 2.5 -inch deciduous replacement trees. This should be corrected to indicate 3 -inch caliper trees. F. Conservation Easement. The draft easement shown on Exhibit F, states "Tree Conservation Easement ". The final draft submitted with the final plans should simply state "Conservation Easement ". G. Architectural Control Guidelines. While the City does not dictate a certain size, price range or design for single - family residential projects, the developer has provided draft guidelines for the homes in order to show residents what type of homes are being proposed. H. Sample House Plans. See comment in G., above. I. Construction Management Plan. Based on neighborhood concerns, particularly with respect to the use of the street during construction, the developer has -3- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage /Preliminary Plat 26 February 2014 provided a proposed construction management plan. Item number 2. near the top of page 3, should be changed to reflect Shorewood construction hours policy: 1) 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. weekdays; 2) 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; and 3) no work on Sundays except with authorization from the City. The development agreement for the project will include reference to televising the streets so as to ascertain any damage done to the pavement by construction activity. As stated in 7. on page 4, the developer will be responsible for repairing any damage done to public streets or adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION The development stage plans are substantially consistent with the approved concept stage plans. The items enumerated herein should be incorporated into the final plans for the project and into the development agreement between the developer and the City. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Tom Strohm Steve Bona H O U Z O U (6 Q C O N N w O U N lL a Q �ibit A E SURVEY #6085 #23130 O n N A n� ^ SUMMIT AVE. SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN, CO.) HASSEN (CARVER CO.) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 #6075 #6070 W MAYF WE 3 #6090 LO R 4v ROAD 37j v 252.4 93 Qti� 1�s- Pfn �Qy 80' I Row A C✓_ 0 O L7 E 2 1 166 7 AC. ,F 16' 41 ^3.69 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIED \ LIEDTKE \/ \ 252850010 STORM #22885 #6140 70 / 6160 MURRAY CT. / 66' R V REAGAN / 3411723430029 WETLAND o n,\ IPOND 6180 MURRAY CT, BATESON ° 341172 430030 D ti CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC & PARKING: - -1056- - C, o CONSTRUCTI ❑N TRAFFIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE 0 v ti EITHER SUMMIT AVE, (SHOREW ❑OD) OR HUMMINGBIRD H z m ROAD (CHANHASSEN) FOR PROJECT ACCESS, THIS USE IS o ° N� 141,493 SF � RESTRICTIONS OF THE TWO CITIES' ENGINEERING 3.248 AC, ,D•a DEPARTMENTS, 3 1 TREE CON N Cl) RVA IT M EASE, ]Block 1 O 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 EITHER SUMMIT AVE, OR HUMMINGBIRD RD, PAVEMENT OR o O'CDNNER RIGHT OF WAY, CONSTRUCTION PARKING IS ONLY •'d 12 20 51,738 SF N 0S / I gs DAILY AS NECESSARY, ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION w c ' ROW ,4 umE1 °N6 CITIES WILL APPLY, _ . • I + 1I BUILDING DATA 2V N IA m L ESTIMATED FINISHED SF /HOME 4000 SF /HOME �• 36,622 SF ESTIMATED TOTAL FINISHED SF 16,000 SF IZ ESTIMATED BEDROOMS /HOME 4 BEDROOMS /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL BEDROOMS 16 BEDROOMS m � m IA ti 16' !(] n Y m 3 w j N n' ILI 26,227 SF > _.._.._.10_SSB_.._. < - - - '.80 =— -�---- - - - -- PROJECT DATA TOTAL SITE 3,248 AC, (141,493 SF) 80 RO 15' n vl ^ I 26,906 SF 225 10' SSB .3 1 64.00 389.34 80' I Row A C✓_ 0 O L7 E 2 1 166 7 AC. ,F 16' 41 ^3.69 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIED \ LIEDTKE \/ \ 252850010 STORM #22885 #6140 70 / 6160 MURRAY CT. / 66' R V REAGAN / 3411723430029 WETLAND o n,\ IPOND 6180 MURRAY CT, BATESON ° 341172 430030 o D ti CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC & PARKING: - -1056- - C, o CONSTRUCTI ❑N TRAFFIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS v ti EITHER SUMMIT AVE, (SHOREW ❑OD) OR HUMMINGBIRD H z m ROAD (CHANHASSEN) FOR PROJECT ACCESS, THIS USE IS o ° SUBJECT TO THE STREET LOAD LIMITS AND ANY OTHER � RESTRICTIONS OF THE TWO CITIES' ENGINEERING ,D•a DEPARTMENTS, 3 N N Cl) NO CONSTRUCTI ❑N PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON O 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 EITHER SUMMIT AVE, OR HUMMINGBIRD RD, PAVEMENT OR o O'CDNNER RIGHT OF WAY, CONSTRUCTION PARKING IS ONLY 250031500 ALLOWED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. 20 d \ PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND SWEPT gs DAILY AS NECESSARY, ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION c ' ROW TRAFFIC AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE TW❑ 7a CITIES WILL APPLY, BUILDING DATA TOTAL NUMBER OF SF HOMES 4 HOMES ESTIMATED FINISHED SF /HOME 4000 SF /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL FINISHED SF 16,000 SF ESTIMATED BEDROOMS /HOME 4 BEDROOMS /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL BEDROOMS 16 BEDROOMS ESTIMATED PEOPLE /HOME 4 PEOPLE /HOME 11 ESTIMATED TOTAL PEOPLE 16 PEOPLE PROJECT DATA TOTAL SITE 3,248 AC, (141,493 SF) NO, OF LOTS 4 LOTS W DENSITY 1,23 UNITS /AC, MIN, LOT SIZE 26,227 SF AVG. LOT SIZE 35,373 SF CONSERV, EASE. 1,85 AC, (57% OF SITE) ,rte P.r DISTURBED AREA 0,9 AC, W4VN HA+• TREE LOSS 9 TREES (5% TREE LOSS) °END P-X o D \ DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - z -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS – "— "- � H z X \ � N ,D•a xd 1x N O 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 O'CDNNER 250031500 � 0 20 d \ c ' ROW SHOREW ❑OD ZONED R -1C 20,000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE ; �g t 100' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB) o ° ° • 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH °E 35' FRONT SETBACK 40' REAR SETBACK o o 10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER) v ° v °°TELf Yn e, °3 PROPOSED PUD STANDARDS; a s 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE L e ` = =wm a° 0° 70' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT FSB) 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH VARIABLE FRONT SETBACK (SEE PLAN) 40' REAR SETBACK % 10' SIDE SETBACK / Z a N a V) 0 W E 0O Ifl Z 33 H S 40 0 40 80 W = _ SCALE IN FEET a 0 0 LEGMD* B -5 - DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS – "— "- Exhibit B – 81056.231— PRELIMINARY X 1056.0 EOF401059.0 1 1/7/14 1 >IT'E PLAIN #6085 #23130 O t\ �t N #6075 A 72p'0S VIDE' ea z \ o SUMMIT AVE. _,>I 61 16' SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN. CO,) CHA HASSEN (CARVER CO.) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 Li Q F- s= 80' la �l [e L7 m E 16' 15' #6070 MAYFLDWE R A� D 377 93 252 4 #6090 Ft —125_5 _ m '0 STORM Nab 1248 AC, , TREE C❑NSERVATI ❑N EAS�, /3,248 _ 80,532 SF (1,85 AC,) reef CQN 'JON EASE. 57% OF SITE Block 1 \� / / I 51,738 SF C I � F- 2 I Im l0 36,622 SF .o z Ir1 L -- _ - - -_— -- I SO' DB,U EASE, _ _ _ 0 — — — — — — — -- ----- - - - - -- - 01 I z l9 I° �I 3 I N y l n I 26,227 SF I w1_ --- — — _ — — �, — =10= D6U EASE_ — — — — 0 'r----- - - - - -- - -_ - -_- R �I I 4 Z3 I I 26,906 SF " � I TAPER _ j 225.34 1 64.00 389.34 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIEDTKE 252850010 413.69 72,609 SF 1,667 AC, P VPv #22885 #6140 6180 MURRAY CT. BATESON 3411723430030 o 3> � d D / F 6160 MURRAY CT, X 6' R W REAGAN 0 a y 3411723430029 / W WETLAND r 6180 MURRAY CT. BATESON 3411723430030 o 3> D Z F Q IL X 9 Z 0 a y r \ a W DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT r 1/7/14 � DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS T—E F N z 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 s m O'CONNER CD W 250031500 OD — 5 -�5Y� = SCALE IN FEET d \ J 0 C,4 N 4 c o ti d W aC C � IA o N N (n 0 a 10 A &a d e o �? DRAW HAL ❑ECXED P..UG 0, 5 6 0 o °pEn ° C z Snz�# 1 ¢ T� n Ca'v °� °o E�� Yn os°Ec �a9e�o �m N Q IL 9 IL 0 A4TE W DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 0 � 1/7/14 � DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS T—E 300 DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS z �3 s m 40 0 40 80 W m 0 — 5 -�5Y� = SCALE IN FEET d 0 En X 1056.0 DENOTES PRI EOF4010M.0 DENOTES EMI 9 13-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING A4TE - - -- - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 1/7/14 - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Azn.Frr M — » — »- DENOTES SIC —� >— DENOTES SAI Exhibit C — 5 -�5Y� DENOTES WA PRELIMINARY PLAT xloss.2a DENOTES EXI X 1056.0 DENOTES PRI EOF4010M.0 DENOTES EMI m lm 5 SUMMIT AVE, 2 430015 . L- -f V mil—, O 05 ELE O R.G. WT BE-tOW 10 ST1 ❑U i BS 10 S T ' 10 8 SUBCU 4' T \ y ROCK , WT 03 8 d ��,,WEL 2 n ❑ ❑K ❑UT FROM r 16' TAN EA NAL INGARDEN G ADES, ❑CATI ❑N, PL NTING AN BY BUI DER <TY .), z `<OD� � O a I I cy o E , OK❑UT W Qm �\1 Qp Y I / AR 1066,0 f' Z F- s 057, P -- i<3,5% LtJ z. � Vi (1) _ - - -- --- ' CPU �LEV, 1061.6 � B - _r 5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 3 ' SUBCUT 2 -7' Q i ' STrb TO 1059.5 -1 .2 (� WT BELOW 1a4 .6 GRADING AND EROSI ®N CONTR ®L, '57 I i (016 ` c R G, 2: I ,p LOOKOUT I ( GAR 1067,0 801I ROW BSM 1058,0 15' 11 TAPER - �i- P�.---- - - - - -- - 16' TAN EA NAL INGARDEN G ADES, ❑CATI ❑N, PL NTING AN BY BUI DER <TY .), w 'Claw O N C ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. THIS PROJECT IS IN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL DESIGN AND PERMIT STANDARDS OF THE DISTRICT. NO CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED UNTIL THE MCWD PERMIT IS APPROVED. ti ti 0 ol m � � � o r c m W X C � a � � o _ N N m O = (m0 as Ali U r 'SIG'ED P..GC 'AVN HA!_ Ea'ED p1jr a z° E oao C °° rc �i Yn 3Eoo C 5 :5 a o° z `<OD� N a I I cy o E , Z� W Qm �\1 Qp Y E U �V �p w 'Claw O N C ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. THIS PROJECT IS IN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL DESIGN AND PERMIT STANDARDS OF THE DISTRICT. NO CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED UNTIL THE MCWD PERMIT IS APPROVED. ti ti 0 ol m � � � o r c m W X C � a � � o _ N N m O = (m0 as Ali U r 'SIG'ED P..GC 'AVN HA!_ Ea'ED p1jr a z° E oao C °° rc �i Yn 3Eoo C 5 :5 a o° z a N a J Z� W Qm E Qp Op �V �p Z F- s 20 0 20 40 :3N UJ O M O SCALE IN FEET a W Vi (1) Lll i � B - _r 5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT PAM 1/7/14 - -M56- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -7056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS�.r ra Exhibit D GRADING AND EROSI ®N CONTR ®L, 0 lop- S_ 23115 SUMMIT AVE. EE 411723430015 SHOREWOOD (HENN. CO,) HASSEN CARVER CO,) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL SITE 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF) CONSERV, EASE. 1.85 AC. (57% OF SITE) EXISTING TREES ON -SITE 185 TREES TREE LOSS 13 TREES (7% TREE LOSS) TREES WITHIN C❑NSERV. AREA 140 TREES (76% OF ON -SITE TREES) TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SHOREW❑OD'S 'TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY,' PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY WORK STARTING, TREE FENCING SHALL BE PLACED AT THE GRADING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND CONSIST OF 4' HIGH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING, THE TREE FENCING SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS INSTALLED 6' ON CENTER, WITH CITY APPROVED SIGNS, ALL EXISTING TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS ARE ASSUMED TO BE REMOVED, FINAL HOME DESIGN AND CUSTOM LOT GRADING MAY SAVE SOME OF THESE TREES. �-Q� B�-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS O O p 0 0 O —>—>— DENO — B•—I,— ° o 0 DENO X 1056.0 g� g�� DE�NO ORIESTAT EOF 40 1089.0 i` ° ° 0 ° 0 0 0 O o O ° O 0 p o O ° O o O O p p 141,493 SF p O p O 0 ° p ° 00 3.248 AC, o 0 ° 0 0 ° p125' TREE � S�SERVq o O p0 0 ° ° 0 o °IT N BASE ° Q i� O 1 O O 0 O O O ° ° O O o0 O p I ELEV. 10 SUBCUT 1055.0 \ fo I Q 0 WT6C15W � 10 .9 / �S TI Rp V p 3 � (:'V4 ° O :� `, W DENINGET ° 00 _ O I 17 Zg0 n' p118 O h5 O 0 O o O ° 1 ELEV. 1q609 'p SUBCUT��K' T 6.T 9 I WT BEJ 39, 6 \-A O O p p I T2 p2� \705, V006 ° 185 TREES Ia Vr, o IN ON -SITE O 20' i %� S O de 0 3 < 8 0 00 Tn 10 rT o X12 ` o 010 n 0 N O o 1- 21 - 1- 1019 ° i z 'o y z 16�I O 22 I N !� 0 OO W > w 3 I I I ELEV. 1061.6 I „ SUBCUT 2 -7' �a$23 ° ( 0 I 0 p 0 C ° ° — TO 1059.5- 1054.2 p T3 WT BELOW 1040.6 I O ° of I 95 p ° I p O 40 0 0 80 RO I 260P 0 O 0 ° O O O 15' 2° 0 p ° 0 0 1 TAP X20 P °27 ° 0 0 0 p -- ----- - - - - - --- O O Q3o0 ,o�� 16 I ROWi ptia� p tiAp do X80' I p�c�o2o�G, p 001, � "�- c0l $ 0 �p �� W3 P � i a� 2+ ST4� O $ TO 1068 k�� W�LOW 1049.3 0,, O ' ^� \Yl 72,609 SF _ R �$�o \OO 1.667 AC. ,po '� 0�,0�k 04 �N O 2�� ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL SITE 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF) CONSERV, EASE. 1.85 AC. (57% OF SITE) EXISTING TREES ON -SITE 185 TREES TREE LOSS 13 TREES (7% TREE LOSS) TREES WITHIN C❑NSERV. AREA 140 TREES (76% OF ON -SITE TREES) TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SHOREW❑OD'S 'TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY,' PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY WORK STARTING, TREE FENCING SHALL BE PLACED AT THE GRADING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND CONSIST OF 4' HIGH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING, THE TREE FENCING SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS INSTALLED 6' ON CENTER, WITH CITY APPROVED SIGNS, ALL EXISTING TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS ARE ASSUMED TO BE REMOVED, FINAL HOME DESIGN AND CUSTOM LOT GRADING MAY SAVE SOME OF THESE TREES. �-Q� B�-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS — »� »- DENO' Exhibit E —>—>— DENO — B•—I,— DENO TREE PRESEP X1056.23 DENO X 1056.0 g� g�� DE�NO ORIESTAT EOF 40 1089.0 i` u n o(D 0 z�� cn z O U Of W D_ d O dU) P..m PUX `o Coo 3 Z aEom� Sazmo 0 Sou�,'E ao<� 0 o E a.3 000 Y Duo —A U `o_oco °co tiS _e�i3m a o° Z J z O V) om a O O0 3 w �3 � Ir fi J N N W a 1/ TE 7/14 VATION/ [ON PLAN ._ /'.__� _ --- - - - -Q_ _ _ _ _ �. \�\ \ ,` , `•; EXTEND FENCE 25 )--._/ _ _ _ \ \ ` •` \ \ BEYOND DRIPLI —_O _ �,Q. __ ` `\ \ \ \ ,\ \, \� YdHERE POSSIBLE -- - __--- ._-- ------ -- - - - -`` - -- -_ __ _ -� ``O` TREE DRIPLNE, OR CONSTRUCTION LIWTS - _-- _-- --------- ___-- - , ` , \ \ \ , .` , TREEPROTECTIDN SIGN.TYP. -- - -_ - - -.rte -i J- `1�- --_-- - -'- -- -_�� ��� _ _ - -____ _ `-,�\ \\ ` `\ \ `\ I I I POSTS AND FENCING --- - --- -- -- - - - - -- - -_ - _-a - -- ----- - - - - -- - _ - -- - -- - -- __ - 17;43 -F_ -- _.'g.:Q �T - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -'- - -- - - - -- -- 3,48 -A _ DL ^I \J' \ . , \ \ \ \ v., \ ` ` \`\ `• \\ DRNUNE WIDTH -_ _�- \3,--- -- -- /- _ -_ - -- _ - 'Q -__ ' `' ' \' '\ \\ \ ��,\ \ \\ \ `, \ \ \\ +� FURNISH AAND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE ATTHETREE'S DRIP UNE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS - - %'' -•\Z tiZ / \ ` \ \ \• \ \ \ ` ` \ \ \\ \ \''• \ \_ \� \ SHOWN ON PLAN, PRIORTO ANY CONSTRUCTION. YMERE POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25 BEYOND DRIP -' /'� , ` LINE PLACE-ME PROTECTIGNSIGN ON POST S, ONE PER NOMDUAL TREE (FACLYG CONSTRUCTION ,1X11---------- __.- -_ - - -_ - ' LJ - -- _ - -_ -_ \ `\ •` • v, ..'\ \'.0 •.� \ \ , \`. \ I ACTMTY!, OR ONE EVERY 100'LF ALONG A GROVE OR MULTFTREE PROTECTION AREk _— - - - -- - -- _ ��� --- -'�1C7 "— Q�� —Lt °= \ ` \ \`,, Q , O \ ` \ ``\``.' \ \\ } \ \\ ,5 'I` tt %1 TREE PROTECTION — _ Q - - -BOO_ _ \ `\ `Q I NTS ' 9 3 \ \ '� ^r�. ,t \ \\ \ , } 1 ? ? ? ! ! l I I SUMMITWOODS, SHOREWOOD, MN 112312014. Q TIxEEPRESERVanoltus _. _... _... .... T O ... ` SIiORE5Y000 TREE POLICY' � . .. _. _.. _... _- Cam. Q I \ , ', i 1 - 0 , _ R�4/ \ \ 0__ 4 1 4 _ _... Herdxoad Oemduous 8" and xr ' • . / i' - - - `\ ?Q } tl ?! s i�Tl( ^ Sartwod Deciduous 12' and ow - `- - O O Coniferous 8' high and taller \ I ?I 1 ! cant Tree ! _. .. .. I, i j? 1 ! 1 i I i �? Q ! � ! I , ? 1 Sh> (Box Elder Cattomvoadand Wilow are not •slgnllcanClrees ' ) / \ J Q i' -Tree �t \i - -� - / �? -. -- �J,%" \ \ \\ `I \ / !• t` ' I I 1 ! I lul t ! I ! ! 1 1 I I ?, `. 1I Replacement ntdeciduous free(B- •12')rema,:d teptace With two T deeldums -6 Ikmustree , Q_. -... - -- -- \ — — S: _ \ \ Y t 1 ce xilh n5o6c us toes. t� ! � I ! �t !! (;O!• ! ! tl I I I I I I 1 I ! ! I ! ! ! III I?'!+ 111 SMakaceetreplk� �,hlele` ���eal.ai !I I QA' :' \ !I i tts t I j I }� \•})? !! }i�! rep Th Nre 3 old s N replace wdh one B' canikmus trea repla cndem •� } \ ' ! ! �� I ! 1 I If ! I i i 7}) ! i�V! } ? l\ NUMBER OF TYPE OF - \ 0\3-, 'Q i • I I I ! ! ! I j } I ! J I I ', {"'? ? .' ?� ` ? j(- �rT -.! i TREE REPLACEMEN EPLACEIAEN ? , i j � ' O ECI DIA ( I OND REi10 E TREES YE D7 1 \ Q `• _ 11 O I I I I ! ! 0 ! j } Q i 1 \ \ i ,,y(! ! i ! N7. SPOak ES 44 Chir SAVE.., R m . .....�3ES 3'd cdu usa8'c Ik s ?\ I : I I i � , \\ , } ' 2 oak 36 fair Remoe 3 9''d c:ducus of 6' cmikmus , : ,', 3 hackberry.. 10 _ good Sate _ ....., _ t , \ ? , I •I I I 1 ! iy '+ ` \ 1 ,, \ \ + \ \ t ,' ! 1 : 4 oak 24 hl, Sate . O I 1 i I I ! ! \ � , ; t ., \ i ' \ ? 6. oak _ 34 _yo- sate , -.lI �, 8 elm 10 good Sam L» I �Y I i ?I�� 4 `{ t ' ' } I i.'; I i ! 7, .maple ID good Sate T ` _ I` E 1 ,I I, I i '. ' 1 e dm tt cod saw ! ! I I O ! I I I I ' 1 I 'i II I 1 ! ! 1 Vl II i' i 9 oak 30 good Remove 3 3' tleclduaus or 6' canikras ` r 7 ,1 — 1' :, iU apla _.. ,2 Poor gate _.... .__ _._. lY T ' N ' t 1 i 1 I I f I I •1 ! it. k _ 26 and Sate \ !! 12 cedar _..- 12 9Fair .. Remove 2 8'c 11 u _.. 13- oak 40 good - Remme 3 3' d dpaus or 6',omkims fair R- - O d / 7, ;'O' i /III It it /r if 1 'I II 1 � i5 elm -- ID good Remrne 2 �3'daciduoua or 6'conikrms� 1 t / I '' i6 oak 20 hir Remo. 3 3' ec!duaus or 6'conikras ft ! I i 17 oaK 28 hlr Remo. 3 3'deciduaus or 6'<onikrms jQ' I ( / t 1 I [ 18 oak 30 good Remote 3 o deaiduaus or 6' conikrma Q ` O i' ! ' !' ' I ! ! ! t I I I ig maple 40 Pal, Remo. 3 3' deeiduoua or fi'conikrms \ ; 4 I I ' `t \ I ! I I r �; �• 1 ! ' ! j i ! I 1 7 ! ? 20 epmce 20 poor Remora 2 6'conikmus /,I, p t I •% (�iry C.I -L \\ \ j I ! tr] ! I �( ! t ! Ire iI 7 I ! I 1 ! I ( I? 1 i Ilj : _.__ 21� smuce _.. a2 good .._ Remaw .. 2 6' canikmua..... _ _ ..... _ \ > I ` } \ \ i zz em, z0 fair saw i,, t I ! 23 h sstwod 18 \`�? ice` 1 r ? \ \ ` \\ glad Saw r t p4, F % 0 ? I . I, ' I t \ }\ \ \ ,, \ `, } ,, ; \ \ }\ ,, \ ? -z3 cassxeoa 7B hQ sore 1 ( t \ \\ •, r N4? 26 ash 20 hid 5� _ a �� f 4 \1 / 27 10 ;i ,t - ` \\ -\ ,; -\ - }:�—i `= -i i ! TOTAL. 35 I' I 19 21 2 - - - - -- r }\ ? \ ='' 1•Qj2'�, ,1 }, . +, } •t t\ \ \ \` \\ } ?! !, l \ Taut II -bero( acres 3.25 acres 11 I ��' `%� `'� '; ' \ \ �\ L'20 �\ ,\ •'} ? �' �`\ `\ '� \i 1 ,! 1 t � ?! I II? Max. replacemmtlreeslacre reed. Btreesracra .._ ._.. _ ._. _.,._.._ Lit O`' I O� " `sl rn© \; t \ I'• ? , I i Max. rapfacementtreas re9d. 26 roes i O�.J 1 :\ 1� �;} i ? I , '} It\ \ , , i t I i + I I ! ; 'i _. .... ..... __.., ... ...._... __._ ....._. _.__ .. ... ._,. .,.... = I b 1! ?; i +�2� ? 1't Q i TREE REMOVAL NOTES: } !,.� rT TREES NOT SHOWN TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PROTECTED AND ARE TO REMAIN UNTOUCHED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. W -I _`7 ! ?i ', 1 '`J ? 1 i .,Er U "�F' �'? O\ i QI 11 CONDITION CATEGORIES ! I I 1 TREES AS LISTED IN THE ABOVETABLE WERE EXAMINED AND THEIR CONDITION RATED ON A GENERAL HEALTH SCALE. THIS } I I ` I ,j ! ! i ! ! O I I INFORMATIONISDEEMEDRELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED. OBSERVATION DATE: 02!03/14 'Q' Q' !jl • GOOD -PLANT MATERIAL FGUNDTOBE N PROPERFORM FORAGE AND SPECIES, MINORNATURAL BRANCH BREAKAGE MAYBE !jl 1 1 V ! ,\ '\ `\ \ \ } \ ., \ \ \ PRESENT. FORM IS BALANCED AND HEALTHY. 1! ^� - - - - -1 ' .- c--- 1:;L��1_ 1= _.. _ 4 ' �_ ,`' 'lit` `", } \ \ ' } ` , \ • FAIR - PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE GENERAL IN PROPER FORM FOR THEAGE AND SPECIES, BREAKAGE AND SOME TRUNK I I, 'I r.� ti V 1� �` \ - \I \, ' } SCARRING MAYBE BE PRESENT BEYOND NOR0.W, NATURAL OCCURRENCES, FORM IS GENERALLY BALANCED TO MODERATELY I w, I It11 i , I Y ? ? 1! `? •`'t Q i r '`! l 1 1 ? 1 I '? '? 1 ! 1? ! UNBALANCED. t? ? ,IIQ1 i L t V ? ' i ? C ,' 1! Q ! I j-, tl O 5 ! 1 ? ! 1 1 ! ? 1 ?� • POOR -PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE NOT IN PROPER FORM FOR THE AGE AND SPECIES, MAJOR TRUNK AND/OR BRANCH f I ! tl O 1 •j 11 ? '"?' j I I ! I I i ! I ! Y� BREAKAGE IS PRESENT, MAIOR SCARRING MAY BE PRESENT. FORM IS UNf1AU+NCED ANO MAY CONSTITUTE A SAFETY HAZARD. - \ 2 Ov�P? O� ?i ti I 1 ! I I I f I i I fiI 1 I{ L LEGEND: r)� (¢ 1 \ \ \• 'Q P `' G 1, 1; , i; Q: 0 i �: I R LJ ip! �.\ . J r / 1 - \ \\ ,� _ ) 26(, i ,� i 11 ' ','; t,l 'O ,i '1 1 I i I i<T ! fr�.` I I I ! / ' PROTECT EXISTING TREE TO REP,9AIN I II' f-t l /" - _ - \ TiJ�) \ ! QL�. ti I? I ,j ' I. (� ;C I ! i �' t �!�` ,) ;. n� :� \ `? rL 1 ZQO'`? !II'? t OIL\ } Q ti ,1i? OI `�- - - - -- r J I X51 APER I I O ` ! '• O• RER40VEEXISTING REE, INCLUDING ALSNMPBANDROOTS t-� ,,\ Q W2 0 2 , Q'' '� O`�2 ,? ', 'I ;01! !! !1 1}` ? \ '1 tt t1 ? ' it '�Ii,\ OO': ,`\ \ \ \ , ♦ i —2 3• �\ GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ©-^ - - - % T L 4 - - -\ ` �� W+MN.C-0PHERSTATEONECPLLORG ` 2 \1\ t \ ii } }? 1 1 1 �j •? 1 , '•t `\ \ ` ,\ \ \ -� ..` (8 00) 252-1166 TOLL FREE Q ^' i ' O I +} 1 ,1 ? ? 't 7 t \ `+ \ ., . \ \' \ �' \ \ \ `\ (6 51) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 V I 3 i :I i \\ 4 ? 1�i V ,I �, ? t .:.? i 1 ?\ \ \, ' ` ` \\ 1 20rX ' , , - 1. ib ,1 G R O U P 4931 W. 3sTH ST, sunE2W ST. LOUIS PARK 0.W 55116 rJviSieG,.W_ Naa Pavek Pat Sarcer ]512134934 452- 250.20IXi Terra a 6901 G{annood Ave,ere Miv:eapo4s 55422 Pk ]6]5939]25 FA FA %7635I2 -071] u, w I IffREB1' CERTIFY THATTNS RAN, SPECIFIO T!Oty OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY —T SUPERVISIONAtm THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLAhD EARCFeTECTIRVER TIg LAWS OF T1E STATE OF MINAESOTA, Patrick J. Server ..213114 uco 24904 ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY TREE REMOVAL E-2 M V u7 O GO w D o w Z z Z LU Z a Z 02 I" O O W Z: CG C WC O O0 '^�'^ O G W U) 0 Q F- tcNj u, w I IffREB1' CERTIFY THATTNS RAN, SPECIFIO T!Oty OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY —T SUPERVISIONAtm THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLAhD EARCFeTECTIRVER TIg LAWS OF T1E STATE OF MINAESOTA, Patrick J. Server ..213114 uco 24904 ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY TREE REMOVAL E-2 ------------------------ "_------ - - - - -- - - _'---------- /_ - - -_�- f- -Il.'- -- --- - - -- `O \' `\ \\ \i\'\ i \ \'\ \ \\ \ +i \O,, `0 G., \ d ' +\ `\• \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \d, it t 't-��- - --- -- % �_��___- ''(� ,\ •..\ \\ \ \ \� \ \ 1 ` \ \ t ! III I Eq O 2-B _I -ARM iL '•\ \ \\ \ \ \�J\ `\ \ ` \�\ } + \ „-!� \} }! I `1 i'1' it f I !,/'i O l 1 7 I i 1 '`f / _ O \\ t 1 rl LQO / _ _” + \ \ '' \ i r tr i i / f' i' ' ----- - - - - -- - -_ -_- c� - !- - - -- \ .�i \\ '\ \\ 4 li i %r ot 7• ! l 1 I f - - - - -Z -51,x- /• i ��. - j � -- - -- ,, \ \ `0.0 } � l 1 I i ! I ! i ! I ! ' iLl , `I 'r ! 1 ,� �. \ ? '1:� -'} 1 O _ I ! O ' ( i i I ! O ! ! ; 0\ WID 2 -88 ! } C i �i C ! \ •`Oi '\ ` {,r i.0 {5 ,O`, 185 THE `I��'! !'!' 10 \, \ \\ .� i ,.�j N II `i\ \ •`I ! f' \� ?(� : I 1 ''' \ i ! I � I I I 1 I I I I ' 1 i� ! 11 ( /' © 1r I i i' '• j! 7 1 I t '. ! 1. �1 LL!LLllJJ 1 -ARM - -- �- -- -- � I /! t / tr r' t j f /• j i ©/ , r ! ' ' ``\ \i 1 ! 1 l7 1 11 /r N I QJ'� 1 1 '•�1 i I - ARM ! i r,• +,-A L- 2 1 (i"i r ! r I t 1 i (� � \ ALA � � I r-� 11 I 1• N I j lI ! 1 1 ! I I I I I' 7 !! ! I ) y SH ! ! ! , 5 ! `} '•` i 1 , 1 1 I ! j CID i ?� 3' -BHS \ �\ \ �� t'} '! I + I C_;7 I } ; +• t\ ! '\ \, 1 , \\ .\ \\ \ , \i \ \ t, \ •�, I\ / ! •1 O! ��'i Q •! ', I 11,E r� �, \. m i ! ' i \ +! \ \ } \ \ 1 \\ \I ; li�i i i% I 't - ' \\ '\ •� i- } - -T -t! 'i 1L�',-`J• t t +- l \ `\ ' - ', \ \ ' 1 l 1 \ t I \! { 'i \ 1= 1 I } Y� ,`\ i'\ ', •} '-' i `,! ��`,, ';1 ' '`'} `\ ?\ �`} �`\� `,{ .•L �� ?' . t �'! i'\ 1 , \\\ ` •i t `� 1� L '', ?i ��lyr! I ; I '! � ' � � ! ,`! ``' (d}F. i \ `mss ,''; � Q '•i ,!+ 1 ! 't }t { �,! `i • \ \ , \I ii ; II I I ! I j i ! 1 I; , t 1 - sW0 `\ I ! ! 2"1} ,-i.' `!t ;: i l s'I' 1 ,1 `! `! '! t \, i ', +' \ ` ©, ,._'1 '! O .I �\ ` 1 •! !\ } \' } } `I /'\ r' LA I P }', `•', ,'Lt ii ,i 11 � ((���2 ,'' •}1 t`1 `! ? O1 // 2 -SH I ! ; �' :�� ',`} F`E %j U, 0 1(`Y i 1, } t'!O3 ! ( r ( i 1 17 , ,i ,l ;' 1 ; i 1 1 1 1 1 '`i 't 1 `4 �`-!, if 1 ! i Q! i 1 l \i }t ' ' 1 I f 7/ 1 ! I I t I W I -} BHS }' I ! } !\ \ \ _\ I lJ i 1 I t I 1 i I 1 01 BE �'', 1, i '',Q! 'i ! ! L,, ! i 1 ! ! i I ! J { \ \1 \\i tQt 0. •' '!L } it '•! '{ O r -� , \T -\ �.! } \I \, i !�--�� 0 1 I I — swo \ ,0�� , '! ' ; O i ! I 4l I ! ! i 1 p! \ f! I!. 1 1 ` -; r ;,� r1 —r' \ 2P'' 'O'1 i \' ------ - -=L +- z BE \ O It �0! i 1� �HS s``; •; 2 • 1`} �� ' 't 1` ' ', O` ' 1 ; k I �i L I ! I ' , I - ARM C, I 1 •' `'1 1 t ! ,.20� i } ', , I /511 TAPER I Q I , 1 ! SRO O `! O ``rL 1 ,` ';i O\ O =1V,,t -- - \rte - - -�' -- ,} �- -�. �' g ' �- ` --! ! ,`'-- `�S\ \'i ,`• + \ \ \ \`', \ \ \ \\ I I i `3t C>> I /�,oI -�Q�rl '! '! ,I '� � '. Lr I ,I `! .t. •'+ ', .\ \ \ \ \. \. \, . PLANT SCHEDULE SYM QUANT. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT COMMENTS DECIDUOUS TREES ARM 4 AUTUMN RADIANCE REDMAPLE Acermbrum'AutumRRacna ' 25' 368 STRAT. LEADER FULL FORM SH 4 SUNBURST HONEY LOCUST G'SRMsia[&=L16s•SKmag& 25' • BAR STRAT. LEADER. FULL FORM SWO 3 SWAMP WHITE OAK Querns b'.c61ar 2.5" BAB STRAT. LEADER FULL FORM O EVERGREEN TREES W w o Z z BHS 7 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea gloom De ter 6* HT. B&B SINGLE LEADER BE B BALSAM FIR Ab'es balsams 6ITT. S&B SINGLE LEADER PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY TIE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN NORMAL TREE SHAPE) STAKING OPIIONALSEE SPECIFICATIONS THREE274W WWOEN STAKES, STAINED BROr,N WITH TWO STRANDS OF\YRETWISTED TOGETHER. STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120'70 ONE ANOTHER WARE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBER HOSE COLLARS TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1'-7 ABOVE EXISTING HARD'YMOD CYPRESS OR CEDAR (MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER KEEP MULCH 2' FROM TRUNK COLOR TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING. EXISTINGGRADE CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 17J OF ROOT BALL. IF RONBIODEGRAMABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELY SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE I ! ! I I BACHFI LAS SPECIFIED THREE TIMES YAOTH OD NOT EXCAVATE OF ROOTBALL BELOW ROOTBALL DECIDUOUS TREE JUTS ARCHITECT W TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (REFA NORMAL TREESHAPE) $TAKING OPTKI'MSEE SPECIFICATIONS THREE 2x47%$• WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BRONN WITH TWO STRANDS OF WRETYISTED TOGETHER STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120' TO ONE ANOTHER WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBER HOSE COLLARS TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE V-Z ABOVE EXISTING GRADE HARDWOQO CYPRESS OR CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER KEEP MULCH 7 FROM TRUNK COLOR TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING. EXISTING GRADE CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1A OF ROOT BALL IF NONebOEGRAOABLE , REMOVE COMPLETELY I �— SLOPE BIDER OF HOLE ELOPE IDES F HO ED THREE O TH DO NW EXCAVATE BELOW RWTBALL OF TBALL ESALL OF ROO Z EVERGREEN TREE JUTS LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4'DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S REP SHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL 2. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMBNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURING OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. 3. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 4. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (I) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE, S. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHAT RECEIVE 4' LAYER LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHE AMSE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 6. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND (MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE B. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIMES. 9. SWEEP AND6IANTAN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. 2 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WAANGOPHERSTATEONECALLORG (800)252-1 166 TOLL FREE (651) 4540002 LOCAL Cti. • A, 1616 -0® G R O U P 4s]1 W.15TH ST. SURE 200 6T.LO1115P -KEW 55416 CNdSaeG,wp.mm Flan PaSek Pat saner Tfil- ztaasu ssz- 2sa2DG1 Terra 5a Lad �Ptrrig �g 6001 Gkexwd .1. aPafa, FA 55422 PFL ]c15939325 FAX ]61512 -0]t] I FEREBY CERnFY THATTFAS PLAIy sPECID BY MZ OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDICNEORKAT IADIRECT sNSERVISKON ANDTM A.1A MU LICENSED LAt95CAPE ARCWTECTIR,OER T/iE LAWS OFTFE STATE OF MNT•ESOTA Pamck J. saner —q 21X14 NCtI.•S<rw. 24904 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY GATE DE6CWPROV REVISION SUMMARY DATE OESCRIPRON LANDS E -3 A 10 uD F- O W w o Z z Z Ow z a Z 1C� Q Q O O W H- CG 0O O ^G W J//� = (n cc uj / V/ G uj Q 1n I FEREBY CERnFY THATTFAS PLAIy sPECID BY MZ OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDICNEORKAT IADIRECT sNSERVISKON ANDTM A.1A MU LICENSED LAt95CAPE ARCWTECTIR,OER T/iE LAWS OFTFE STATE OF MNT•ESOTA Pamck J. saner —q 21X14 NCtI.•S<rw. 24904 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY GATE DE6CWPROV REVISION SUMMARY DATE OESCRIPRON LANDS E -3 DRAFT 1/21114 SUMMIT WOODS, SHOREWOOD TREE CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, is made XXX, 2014 by XXX, a Minnesota Corporation ( "Grantor "), for the benefit of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Grantee "). A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Block 1 Summit Woods (the "Property "). B. On XXX, the City Council of the Grantee granted Grantor's application for Subdivision for the Property. C. As a condition of the approval, the Grantee required Grantor to dedicate a tree conservation easement ( "Easement ") over a portion of the Property, legally described as XXX (the "Easement Property ") and depicted on attached Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City's approval and in satisfaction of the condition imposed, Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee a tree conservation easement over, under and across the Easement Property. The terms of this Easement are as follows: 1. Except as permitted by this paragraph, no action of any kind may be undertaken to change or disturb the landscaping, open spaces, wetlands, and vegetation existing as of this date. No structures may be built, no grading may be done, no improvements of any kind may be made, and no earthen material may be removed from or placed on the Easement Property. The Easement Property must remain in all respects undisturbed, except that Grantor may clear any debris including dead vegetation from the Easement Property, may remove invasive non - native vegetation such as European buckthorn, may mow existing Exhibit F CONSERVATION EASEMENT Conservation Easement Page 2 turf grass, and may engage in other environmental management practices approved by Grantee. 2. 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 its undisturbed nature. Grantee may assess the reasonable costs of this restoration against the Property, and Grantor waives all rights to contest those costs. Further, Grantee may enforce the terms of this Easement by any proceeding in law or in equity to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, including attorneys' fees and costs of the enforcement actions. Grantor is not liable for the actions of any third party, other than its employees, agents or contractors, which may violate the terms of this Easement, unless Grantor, its employees, agents or contractors had actual knowledge of the violation and failed to take reasonable action to stop the violation. 3. Failure to enforce any provision of this Easement upon a violation of it cannot be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. 4. Invalidation of any of the terms of this Easement will in no way affect any of the other terms, which will remain in full force and effect. 5. 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 is limited to access necessary for purposes of inspection and enforcement as specified in paragraph 2 above. Grantee is 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 of eminent domain. Grantee hereby waives any right it may have to such an award or compensation. 6. Acceptance of this Easement by the Grantee and the recording of this document constitutes the Grantee's consent to be bound by its terms. 7. This Easement runs with the Easement Property and be binding on the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and inures to the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns. Conservation Easement Page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this indenture on the date first written above. By: XXX Its: XXX STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of by , the of _ , a Minnesota , on behalf of the _ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: XXX XXX XXX The undersigned Mortgagee of the real estate described in the attached instrument pursuant to the Mortgage recorded as Document No. in the office of the Hennepin County - -- , hereby joins in and consents to all of the terms and provisions contained in the attached Easement. The undersigned Mortgagee further agrees that its interest in the property covered by the Mortgage is subject to this Easement and to all of the terms and provisions contained in it and agrees that if the Mortgagee forecloses its mortgage(s) on the property, or takes a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Mortgagee will take title subject to the Easement. By Its STATE OF COUNTY OF SS The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of by , the of on behalf of the corporation . Notary Public VHOMESTEAD PARTNERS February 4, 2014 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES SUMMIT WOODS - SHOREWOOD 1. General Requirements — Minimum Size: • Two Story: Not less than 2,400 finished square feet, excluding basement • One Story Rambler: Ground floor area of not less than 1,650 finished square feet • Declarant at its sole discretion may provide area credit for two story space 2. Elevations: Stone, brick, primed wood product, stucco, LP board or similar are all permitted; steel and vinyl siding, or similar product, are prohibited, except that steel or aluminum soffit and fascia are permitted. 3. Required Design Features: - Accent Windows - Arches - Arched or Transom Windows - Balconies - Bay or bow window options - Columns - Copper accents - Cupolas - Decorative brackets - Designer garage doors - Dormer on front elevation - Dormer on rear elevation - Eave returns - Engraved address labels - Flower boxes 4. Garages: 5. Roofing Materials: All plans must have at least 8 of the following Design Features. The features included must be noted on the Architectural Review Application. All windows must be wrapped. - Masonry Accents - Multiple siding patterns, materials, colors - Multi- textured drive or walkway treatment - Multiple gables - Nostalgic Lamp Posts - Ornamental louvers or vents - Pediments - Ornamental shutters - Quoin corners - Solider coursing - Stone & Brick Mixed together - Variety of roof pitches or styles - Window grids 3 Car minimum. 30 year laminated architectural shingles or greater are all permitted Exhibit G ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES PA TN �RS� 6. Roofs: Forward facing gables to be a minimum of 9/12. Front porch roofs and saddles are excluded. Lesser pitch is acceptable for certain designs (such as in prairie style home) with ACC approval. The main roof to be a minimum of 8/12. 7. Colors: Earth tone schemes and other current popular - home colors maybe used but must be based upon compatibility with the neighborhood. No florescent or pastel color schemes shall be allowed. 8. Trim Colors: Trim to be detailed in complimentary, accent colors. Monotone schemes are discouraged. 9. Retaining Walls: Side and rear walls over 4' -0" must be terraced. Front walls over 3' -0" must be terraced. 10. Driveways: Driveways must be constructed of concrete or pavers, or combination thereof, unless otherwise approved by the ACC. No asphalt driveways. Driveways must be installed within six months of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. INO NNI ��! ®rl�1111!I 11 HIM 1 sr� wdit twwitw - � .. ♦ A...• _ �� 4 r F �- f Exhibit H SAlVIIPLE HOUSE PLANS ;1 Neip 71-f NA N, ■ f A .2,-5 w /�: t iJ 2- / - DRAFT 1/21/14 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: SUMMIT WOODS, SHOREWOOD, MN The following Construction Management Plan regulates all construction activities at Summit Woods, Shorewood, MN. In addition to this plan, construction activities are subject to all applicable city ordinances and the conditions of approval adopted by the City Council on , 20_. It is the General Contractor's responsibility to make subcontractors and other persons involved in the construction process aware of this plan, conditions of approval, and applicable regulations, as well as obtain any required permits from the city or outside agencies. On -site Contact Information Provide the contact information for the on -site Site Supervisor. Please note that this information may be used by the city or the public if questions or issues arise regarding the work being performed on the site. Name of Site Supervisor Company Name: Company Address: Cell Phone: Office Phone: E -mail: Date of Construction 1. The General Contractor will schedule a pre- construction meeting with engineering, planning and natural resources staff. 2. No site work or construction will begin until after completion of the pre - construction meeting and issuance of all required grading and /or building permits. 3. The exterior of structures will be completed with 180 days of issuance of the building permit associated with that structure. Erosion Control and Tree Protection 1. Erosion control measures, including silt fence and inlet protection, will be installed in the locations required by city staff. 2. A rock entrance pad, or similar surface, will be installed at each location where vehicles enter or exit the construction site. Exhibit I CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3. Tree protection fencing will be installed outside of the critical root zone of all trees to be saved, as reviewed and approved by the city. 4. All erosion control measures and tree protection fencing will be inspected by city staff prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits and periodically throughout the course of construction. .. -.._- ..._. . 5. The General Contractor will inspect and maintain all erosion control measures and tree protection fencing on a continual basis to contain sediment within the grading and construction limits and to protect on and off -site vegetation until permanent ground cover is established. Control measures and fencing will be adjusted as needed to respond to conditions during the construction process. 6. Where the amount of disturbance is % acre or greater, the contractor agrees to the following inspection requirements: • Perform routine inspections of the construction site once every seven days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours; • Record in writing all inspections and maintenance conducted during construction. These records must be made available at the city's request within 24 hours. Records should include the following information: (1) Date and time of inspections; (2) Name of person conducting the inspections; (3) Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions; (4) Corrective actions taken (including dates, times and party completing maintenance activities); and (5) Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. 7. Soil stockpiles and 3:1 slopes that will not be worked for over 14 days must be stabilized with vegetation, mulch, tarps or other means unless no run -off from them is directed toward a watercourse, tree protection area, or the site perimeter. Construction Activities Page 2 1. Construction will follow city- accepted construction methods and industry standards. 2. Construction activities, including "start -up" of vehicles and /or construction equipment, will be limited to the hours of to . No construction activity or noise will be permitted before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. 3.- All earthwork activities, including piling, will be monitored by on -site testing and soil engineers, hired by the General Contractor, to insure the work conforms to the project specifications. 4. Pile driving activities WILL /WILL NOT occur. (Indicate if piles will be screw - driven only). Construction Parking 1. Construction and contractor vehicles will only enter and exit the site from Summit Ave. (Shorewood) or Hummingbird Rd. (Chanhassen). 2. Contractor vehicles will not be parked on any public street or right of way. 3. All construction equipment will be located /parked on the site. 4. Prior to beginning any site work, the General Contractor shall notify all subcontractors and workers of the designated haul routes and parking areas. Overall Site Conditions 1. All discarded construction materials, debris, and other litter will be placed in an adequate waste container. The General Contractor will execute a service agreement with a licensed trash hauler for regularly - scheduled trash removal. 2. Construction materials will be delivered to the site on an as- needed basis; large material stockpiles will be minimized. 3. The General Contractor will institute a program for on -site dust control. 4. All haul routes will be kept clean of dirt and debris. As required by city staff, the General Contractor will execute a service agreement with a street sweeping contractor for regularly - scheduled sweeping. 5. All construction materials will be removed from the site within 60 days of completion of construction or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Page 3 whichever occurs first. 6. All property will be seeded, sodded, or otherwise planted with a ground cover within 240 days of issuance of the grading or building permit. If the 240 days expires between November 1 and May 15, ground cover must be established by the following July 15. Escrow may by city staff to ensure maintenance of erosion control measures until permanent groundcover is fully established. 7. The General Contractor is responsible for repairing any damage to public streets or adjacent properties. Non - Compliance 1. Non - compliance with any of provision of this construction management plan may result in: • issuance of a stop work order; • issuance of citations; and /or • the city's use of escrow dollars to bring the site into compliance. 2. Non - compliance with any provision of the Public Nuisance Ordinance is a misdemeanor and is subject to the penalties contained in the City Code. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsible for complying with the above conditions. Signature of Developer (if applicable) Date Signature of General Contractor Date Page 4 WSB Associates, /ire. engineering -planning • environmental • construction 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651 - 286 -8450 Fax: 651- 286 -8488 Memorandum To: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, City of Shorewood From: Paul Hornby, P.E. Date: February 26, 2014 Re: Summit Woods Development Project — Development Stage Plan Review WSB Project No. 01459 -83 The following comments are with regard to engineering review for the Summit Woods PUD Development Stage Plan submitted by Homestead Partners. The project plans were prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. , dated January 7, 2014 and February 3, 2014. The plans contain the existing conditions, existing topography and soil conditions, preliminary site plan, preliminary plat, preliminary utility plan, preliminary grading /erosion control plan, preliminary tree preservation plan, erosion control details and grading notes, details, tree removals, and preliminary landscape plan. General Items: The well for the existing home will need to be abandoned or utilized for one of the new homes if it is in a condition that meets current MnDOH requirements. 2. The extension of the Chanhassen water system is currently not proposed with the development. The new lots are proposed to be served by private wells. The preliminary site plans indicate that Summit Avenue varies in width from 15 to 20 feet. Widening of the roadway will need to be performed in a manner that provides a consistent bituminous seam outside of the vehicle wheel line. The center of the newly established northbound lane would accomplish this requirement. 4. The limit of the street pavement widening of the northbound lane is to extend south to the Shorewood corporate boundary with Chanhassen. This will result in a "boxed or squared" end of the pavement that should not create a traffic issue, and will reduce Shorewood impacts if Hummingbird Road is widened to the south. The alignment of the sanitary sewer services for lots 3 and 4 need to be spaced to provide sufficient width for future excavation and maintenance without crossing the common property line. St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com \\g,xifs0l\p,.j.tm \0( 459- 830\Admin\D-.\Dewlopment Smge Plan Rmicw %MWMO- PTH_BNielsen- 022614 -DR lopment Phase Plan Re�iew.do Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood Summit Woods Development Plan Review February 26, 2014 Page 2 6. Existing utilities (public and private) need to be shown on the construction plans. 7. The location of the proposed wells is to be shown on the plans for reference to the sanitary sewer and sewer services. The sanitary sewer service wye saddle /sleeve is to be of the same pressure class as the service pipe. The "Tree Conservation Easement" should be indicated as "Conservation Easement" to restrict activities within the easement areas. 10. The lowest floor and lowest opening need to be identified on each building pad. 11. The street typical section needs to be modified to a rural section roadway with the existing and proposed conditions shown. The proposed width is 20 feet with about one - half of the northbound lane widened. The depth of the section is to be generally consistent with the geotechnical report. Since the roadway is to be widened to accommodate the width for emergency apparatus, and not reconstructed, the minimum recommended roadway section is 1.5- inches of MnDOT 2360 bituminous Wearing Course, 2.5- inches of MnDOT 2360 bituminous Non - wearing Course, 8- inches of aggregate base class 5 (100% crushed limestone) on approved subgrade. The street is to include a two foot wide aggregate base (class 2) shoulder. 12. The street grading /subgrade notes shall indicate that the work is subject to approval of the City Engineer, not only the Soils Engineer. 13. The general details of the filtration basins are not legible. The details are to be modified to direct the contractor to construct to the specified depth zones. The notes stating "suggested" will not be allowed. 14. Grading Plan Items: a. The grading plan does not provide sufficient grading information to illustrate the manner in which the storm water runoff pattern from the street, homes and driveways will get to the proposed rain garden areas. b. The grading plan should illustrate that the roadway is rural and will need a ditch to convey runoff into swales between the units and to the rain gardens. c. The rain gardens are shown as schematic areas on the grading plan. The grading plan needs to show the detailed grading of each rain garden, including bottom elevations and overflow elevations. d. Details of the rain garden overflow weir need to be provided. e. The developer may want to consider a rain garden that is a long swale located strategically across the rear yards of the lots to intercept runoff. A number of controlled overflows from the garden swale should be utilized to reduce potential for erosion on the steep slope in the conservation easement. Rg,cifs01\p,j,ct\ 01459.830Wdmin\Doc\Daralopment Stage Plan Reie WEMO -PYH ➢Nielsen- 022614 -Da 1.pm,ntPhasePlanRe,iewA- Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood Summit Woods Development Plan Review February 26, 2014 Page 3 f. The filtration draintile outlet of the type of rain garden designed should include an outlet manifold with several 4 -ich outlets to reduce erosion potential spreading the flow over a wide area. Otherwise, a larger outlet and overflow as proposed may require rip rap and an erosion reinforcement mat to control erosion from the outlet and overflow. g. Rain garden plants are to be specified. h. Drainage and utility easements that provide access to and around the rain gardens is recommended to provide access for City inspection and observation to ensure they are managed, functioning, and maintained. i. The items identified in the attached storm water management review letter need to be addressed. 15. The rain garden features need to include a maintenance agreement with a home owners association or individual property owners, recorded with the property to ensure the basins are managed, maintained and function as intended. 16. The City Council may consider reviewing alternatives for improvements to Summit Avenue as part of this project and /or as a capital improvement project. 17. Additional comments may be necessary on subsequent development plan submittals. \lgwif 01\pr j.tsW 1454- 830\Admin\D.s\Dxwlop.,nt Swp Plan Rm, i —\MEMO -PLFi ➢Nielsen - 022614- Aselopment Phase Plop Re,ie�.d-. City of Shorewood Stormwater Management Review CITY OF SHOREWOOD Review Date: February 26, 2014 Reviewer: Jesse Carlson Signature: — �— JD- Z' Project Description: Single Family Homes Date Received: 2/3/14 -- Site Size (acres): 4.91 Area of Disturbance(acres): 4.91 Existing Impervious (acres): 0 Proposed Impervious (acres): 0.09 Cuhmitt.lc Rnrnivnrl Date Document Author 2/3/14 Site Plans Terra Engineering, Inc. 2/3/14 Stormwater Management Plan Civil Site Group Note: If a box is checked the criteria is satisfied. A comment is provided for each unchecked box. These comments are specific to the stormwater management requirements of the City of Shorewood. General Site Plan © Scale of Survey. Minimum scale 1 " =50'. Maximum size plan sheet 24 "X36" © Survey signed by a registered survey with elevations in NGVD -1929 datum for the following locations: © Each lot corner. • Grade elevation at the foundation and elevation of top of foundation of structures on adjacent lots. • Grade elevation at the foundation, elevation of top of foundation and garage floor of proposed new construction. • Lowest point of entry (i.e. doorsill or top of window well) of proposed and existing construction. • Lowest floor of proposed and existing construction. © Easements are clear of any encroachments? ❑ Proposed stormwater management BMPs meet City standards or design criteria of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual? Comments: 1. Filtration Basins: The proposed planting media for the filtration basin shall meet the specifications of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for Mix A or Mix B Bioretention Mix. 2. Filtration Basins: Details shall be provided that are legible and project specific to match the proposed designs for the filtration basins as shown on the grading plan and include a planting plan. 3. Filtration Basins: Provide a detail for the EOF of each filtration basin, including how erosion will be prevented. Erosion Control Plan ❑ SWPPP notes provided on the plan. ❑ Temporary stabilization measures provided. ® Erosion control blankets provided on all slopes greater than 3:1. ❑X Perimeter Control i.e., Silt Fence, Filter Log, etc. © Phasing for sites that are >_ 1 acre. ❑X CB Inlet Protection ❑ Dewatering ® Sediment control ❑ Waste control ❑ Concrete washout ❑X Rock entrance © Street sweeping schedule ❑ Permanent restoration plan. ❑ SWPPP includes an erosion and sediment control inspection schedule and person responsible for maintenance. Comments: 1. SWPPP: Project disturbs 1 acre or greater therefore a SWPPP shall be provided. 2. Temporary Stabilization: Provide temporary stabilization measures on the plans. 3. SWPPP shall include a schedule for inspection of BMPs and identify the responsible party. 4. Measures for waste and control, concrete washout, and dewatering of sediment laden water need to be specified. 5. Provide a permanent restoration plan. 6. Provide methods for how the filtration systems are going to be protected until the vegetation is established and all constructed has completed. Stormwater Management Plan ® Delineation map ❑ Modeling calculations for existing and proposed conditions ® 1, 10, and 100 - yr 24 - hr storm events ® Modeled directly connected impervious separate ❑ Peak Discharge Rates < Existing ® Off -site drainage included ® Wetlands shown on plans and wetland permitting completed ® Pretreatment © Skimmer structures provided on the outlets of all ponds. Soil borings ® Design Infiltration Rate Determination ® Seasonal High Water Elevation Comments: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed discharge rates will be less than existing; however, their grading plan does not show how the areas as delineated in their stormwater management plan will flow into the filtration basins. The applicant shall provide a grading plan that demonstrates how water will flow to the proposed filtration basins as proposed in the plans. 2. Revise the elevations used in the HvdrCAD model to reflect the elevations as shown in the proposed grading plans. Water Quality ❑ Volume control provided as per the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ® Sequencing provided for alternatives where infiltration is infeasible. Required Water Quality Volume: 335 cubic feet per lot @ 4 lots = 1,350 cubic feet Provided Water Quality Volume: 335 cubic feet per lot but as per the MCWD filtration credit schedule only partial credit is given (Appendix A, MCWD Rules). Comments: MCWD Water Quality Volume: For the filtration volume calculation credit as given as per the schedule in their rules (Appendix A, MCWD Rules). Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Freeboard Building Opening: ® 3' above the critical 100 -yr HWL of local basins, wetlands, & infiltration basins ® 3' above EOF of local basins, wetlands, & infiltration basins ® 3' above the 100 -yr flow elevation of a swale or channel at the point where the swale channel is closest to the building Low Floor Elevation: © 2' above the critical 100 -yr HWL of major basins © 2' above EOF of major basins © For landlocked basins: 2' above the HWL from back to back 100 -yr rainfalls or 2' above the HWL from the 100 -yr 10 -day snowmelt, whichever is higher. Starting elevation of the basin /waterbody prior to runoff is one of the following: 1) Existing Ordinary High Water level established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2) Annual water balance calculation approved by the City 3) Local observation well records, as approved by the City 4) Mottled soil Comments: Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. I& WSB & Associates, Inc, engineering • planning • environmental- construction Memorandum To: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, City of Shorewood From: Paul Hornby, P.E. Date: March 25, 2014 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651 - 286 -8450 Fax: 651- 286 -8488 Re: Summit Woods Development Project — Development Stage Plan Review WSB Project No. 01459 -83 The following comments are with regard to engineering review for the Summit Woods PUD Development Stage Plan submitted by Homestead Partners. The project plans were prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc., dated January 7, 2014, with revisions dated March 7, 2014. The plans contain the existing conditions, existing topography and soil conditions, preliminary site plan, preliminary plat, preliminary utility plan, preliminary grading /erosion control plan, preliminary tree preservation plan, erosion control details and grading notes, details, tree removals, and preliminary landscape plan. General Items: 1. The well for the existing home will need to be abandoned or utilized for one of the new homes if it is in a condition that meets current MnDOH requirements. Two wells on the existing site to be abandoned. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 2. The extension of the Chanhassen water system is currently not proposed with the development. The new lots are proposed to be served by private wells. Private wells will be identified in the Development Agreement. 3. The preliminary site plans indicate that Summit Avenue varies in width from 15 to 20 feet. Widening of the roadway will need to be performed in a manner that provides a consistent bituminous seam outside of the vehicle wheel line. The center of the newly established not lane would accomplish this requirement. Minor revisions required. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 4. The limit of the street pavement widening of the northbound lane is to extend south to the Shorewood corporate boundary with Chanhassen. This will result in a "boxed or squared" end of the pavement that should not create a traffic issue, and will reduce Shorewood impacts if Hummingbird Road is widened to the south. Add a 5:1 taper St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com KID 1459- 830WdminlDo \D— lopment Smge Plan ResieaWMO- PTH_BNl1l 031814 -DRAFT Dm lopment Phase Plan Reii_2nd Submiltal rm5mw Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood Summit Woods Development Plan Review March 25, 2014 Page 2 northbound approach south of City boundary with Chanhassen. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 5. The alignment of the sanitary sewer services for lots 3 and 4 need to be spaced to provide sufficient width for future excavation and maintenance without crossing the common property line. Plan has been revised. 6. Existing utilities (public and private) need to be shown on the construction plans. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 7. The location of the proposed wells is to be shown on the plans for reference to the sanitary sewer and sewer services. Proposed wells are to be outside of drainage & utility easements. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 8. The sanitary sewer service wye saddle /sleeve is to be of the same pressure class as the service pipe. Item will be included in the final construction plans. The "Tree Conservation Easement" should be indicated as "Conservation Easement" to restrict activities within the easement areas. Plan has been revised. 10. The lowest floor and lowest opening need to be identified on each building pad. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 11. The street typical section needs to be modified to a rural section roadway with the existing and proposed conditions shown. The proposed width is 20 feet with about one - half of the northbound lane widened. The depth of the section is to be generally consistent with the geotechnical report. Since the roadway is to be widened to accommodate the width for emergency apparatus, and not reconstructed, the minimum recommended roadway section is 1.5- inches of MnDOT 2360 bituminous Wearing Course, 2.5- inches of MnDOT 2360 bituminous Non - wearing Course, 8- inches of aggregate base class 5 (100% crushed limestone) on approved subgrade. The street is to include a two foot wide aggregate base (class 2) shoulder. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 12. The street grading /subgrade notes shall indicate that the work is subject to approval of the City Engineer, not only the Soils Engineer. Item will be included in the final construction plans. 13. The general details of the filtration basins are not legible. The details are to be modified to direct the contractor to construct to the specified depth zones. The notes stating "suggested" will not be allowed. Item will be included in the final construction plans. R :101459- 830VAdmin\D s\Dmelopment Stage Plan Ra i-W EMO - PTH_BNiel— .031814- DRAFT Development Phase Plan Re�iew_2nd Submittal —i—, Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood Summit Woods Development Plan Review March 25, 2014 Page 3 14. Grading Plan Items: a. The grading plan does not provide sufficient grading information to illustrate the manner in which the storm water runoff pattern from the street, homes and driveways will get to the proposed rain garden areas. Revised. b. The grading plan should illustrate that the roadway is rural and will need a ditch to convey runoff into swales between the units and to the rain gardens. Needs minor revisions to be completed on construction plans. c. The rain gardens are shown as schematic areas on the grading plan. The grading plan needs to show the detailed grading of each rain garden, including bottom elevations and overflow elevations. Revised. d. Details of the rain garden overflow weir need to be provided. Revised. e. The developer may want to consider a rain garden that is a long swale located strategically across the rear yards of the lots to intercept runoff. A number of controlled overflows from the garden swale should be utilized to reduce potential for erosion on the steep slope in the conservation easement. Individual Rain Gardens on each parcel. Will require builder record plan /designer certification constructed garden meets plan. f. The filtration draintile outlet of the type of rain garden designed should include an outlet manifold with several 4 -ich outlets to reduce erosion potential spreading the flow over a wide area. Otherwise, a larger outlet and overflow as proposed may require rip rap and an erosion reinforcement mat to control erosion from the outlet and overflow. Item will be included in the final construction plans. g. Rain garden plants are to be specified. Item will be included in the final construction plans. h. Drainage and utility easements that provide access to and around the rain gardens is recommended to provide access for City inspection and observation to ensure they are managed, functioning, and maintained. Rain gardens will be observable from platted drainage and utility easements. i. The items identified in the attached storm water management review letter need to be addressed. Item will be included in the final construction plans. See attached 15. The rain garden features need to include a maintenance agreement with a home owners association or individual property owners, recorded with the property to ensure the basins are managed, maintained and function as intended. Development Agreement Item. 16. The City Council may consider reviewing alternatives for improvements to Summit Avenue as part of this project and /or as a capital improvement project. City will be reviewing alternatives for SummitAvenue. 17. Additional comments may be necessary on subsequent plan submittals for the final construction plans K:\0 1459- 830VAdminU)o slDacelopment Smge Plan Re \iepAWMO - PTH_BNielsen -031814 -DRAFT De%xlopment Phase Plnn Re%i— 2nd Submitml m%ie- Q- S�P GAP #6085 #23130 O #6075 INV. 964. EX. 27' STORM #6070 0 IM 968.75 SHOT N o ° 0 0 MAYFE[WE R READ m 252,4 3j7.93 %o N78 38'07W 0 125,0p O ° 0 ° O �- THEODORE RIX PIN n SHOREWO D,2MN (HENN. CO.) 0.930 AC. (40,532 SF) N n• SUMMIT AVE. SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN, CO,) It CHAVASSEN (CAi,OVER CO,) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 W E- E � 80' PP, 80' p A H L7 z f f S Q� dT1 0 . 1(i O (0D N °t4 0 3 EX stV4 ,191 �O' I 0 O 0 ,O —O DL LS #6090 Q O, v y EX MH ° O 0 O RIM 967.00 SHOT 0 - - - - - - - 00 00 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— 0 O a� N N Z N�o O 0 0 O 0 0\AN 0 x1056.23 O /POp ° ° 00 0 O 00 •STORM EOF4010S9,0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION y'vry(ij 141,493 SF 0 0 0 A W E 0 00 3.248 AC. 0 0 0 ° o o 300 0 0 0 � 6 s 0 0 LOT 90 MURRAY HILOL o° 0 40 0 40 80 0 p O 0 0 SCALE IN FEET W O 0 0 0 O O o O O O ° 0 O 00 O i ° O O 0 / ip O 1p 0' ,fob 02 �� / 0 0 98 0 I- ®i's "o 0 Ho 16 / ° ° z 0 ° OLOT 8 MURRAY HILL F a 4 *0s 185 TREES 0 a EXISTING 0 ❑N -SITE O 8 O 00 70 C 11 O °DONALD RIX �� 0a yaL pia 0To 0 O 0 PIN 34- 117 -23 -43 -0013 X�040 SUMMIT AVE. SROREWOOD, MN (HENN. CO,) 66' R W 9py6 07 0 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF> 0 O O EXISTTNG O �— O GARAGE ° O O O o 0 0 o p ti0oa p o ° LOT OW 8 0U sTb v o ° 7 MURR�' HILL EXISTING OUTBUILDING 2Q,0� o of 944 O 0 O f %0 p O GARDEN 0 O 0 O 0 ° ° 0 00 O ° 0 S89 -L5 -1 E pr 225 3 1 e7 O 0 0 589- 15 -51E ° O ° O O RIM M 6 00 O'� p1 389.34 0 0 I r ° wD�Y v p H 0 ow O sr Ip I N W 0 ° 72,609 SF a 0 �\1OO 1.667 AC. Ll ty 0° 0' DONALD RIX I PIN 255450020 m r 6221 HUMMINGBIRD RD, r ,�J�� �� I CHANHASSEN, MN (CARVER CO.) v 6 ' ROW 414.67 'T g°g; #22885 #6140 6160 MURRAY CT. / REAGAN / 3411723430029 WETLAND 6180 MURRAY CT. BATESON 3411723430030 SHOT EX. HYD \ ZTNH 97200 SHOT m 6261 GALPIN BLVD. O'CONNER 250031500 h h N O 04 C-4 10 in M � o h N Q O LL C_ O to cLo rn a co G7 m rn O M 0 to u � 5 W :] DSSIOT[D A.M. MON HA, Q*MkID Rix `o s �`o `o ra° aEcy� Z o W rc S� a�by EN o Y EYo -cQ `0 0 LElELl L _. B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT g DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— a N N Z DENOTES SANITARY SEWER — 8'�-W— 0 x1056.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EOF4010S9,0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 0 0 2 W E 0 0C o 300 0 Z � 6 s 40 0 40 80 (n 2 SCALE IN FEET W _ VI in LElELl L _. B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT — —1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS DENOTES STORM SEWER > —>— DENOTES SANITARY SEWER — 8'�-W— DENOTES WATERMAIN x1056.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EOF4010S9,0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 1/7/14 7"T M 13 -115 `FT In 2 N � #6075 cq <t ,Ni co m d fD c #6070 c N x W O 2 N M C -6 d) a co MAYF�pWER RpgD #6090 o co ti Q — — \ b d ♦ 'i,' � g 8 �.Qv #22885 02 STORM , L, 12 X 1130 i O SM �5 #6140 yr s 9 trsmeo P✓�e p3 ai L41CR WA kW HAL I K jJ Y ❑ LEX r- oearen v.✓rc YDRO. S IL U dj 'fT TO \ 1 e EXISTING � eESSa z 9 1 $as s 1 a Lj 6160 MURRAY CT. REAGAN ga 34023430029 >S a a ¢ WETLAND #23115 SUMMIT AVE. 6' GA E I U 411723430015 W L3 B POND I elev. �o6u i AN US LO M, RAINIC I sro 105 1 10 HY RO. SO G OUP 'B' ST a�ov 1 I ING EXST OUTBUILDING x I I 6180 MURRAY CT, 80' GW BATESDN } H� E ` /�� W (n Iy I 3411723430030 N Q w HE ,) z AS EN o VE CO.) h R E a ° 80' o7 ♦ X \ °X ° cn o � 00 HUMMINGBIRD ZU , ` \ O 3. 255450030 A < S Z Z W �Ce K F F - L L fi S d 40 0 40 80 (p (n m O 15 Y❑ s a c SCALE IN FEET x � W VI VI a 8E1-13V I 9.N 6261 GALPIN BLVD, O'CONNER 250031500 ♦ iEgR� �/y�� ILL KB KILKENNY -LESTE LOA S ♦ lo� B -5 - - - - -- DENOTES SOIL BORING DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT anE /7/14• 6 2 HUMMINGBIRD HYDRO. SOIL GRO P C D' % `� RD 0 — —1056— DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS H SE ` p —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS plea"r An 2660010 16' DENOTES STM SEWER ; DENOTES SAN ARY SEWER 13-115 (�6s6 0660 —8. W— DENOTES WATERMAIN I x1056.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION srT ha X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EOF4MjoW.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 3 #6085 #23130 O / PJ�• lO_ r7 N SUMMIT AVE, SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN, CO,) Gwil HASSEN (CARVER CO,) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 #6075 #6070 MAYFQO�RRO�4D 377 93 252 4 N78- -07W 725.0c) C❑NSTRUCTI ❑N TRAFFIC & PARKING CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE v ti EITHER SUMMIT AVE. (SHOREWOOD) OR HUMMINGBIRD U) M ROAD (CHANHASSEN) FOR PROJECT ACCESS. THIS USE IS o ;° SUBJECT TO THE STREET LOAD LIMITS AND ANY OTHER RESTRICTI ❑NS OF THE TWO CITIES' ENGINEERING Z q DEPARTMENTS, a N to #6090 3 0 m P1' NO CONSTRUCTI ❑N PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON to v EITHER SUMMIT AVE. OR HUMMINGBIRD RD. PAVEMENT, o C r✓ Q� PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND SWEPT �Qv DAILY AS NECESSARY, ALL OTHER C❑NSTRUCTI ❑N g s TRAFFIC AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE TWO ms °Ilk CITIES WILL APPLY, #2288555 \ O 414.67 NESS-00-31W 18.3 7 HUMMINGBIRD LIED LIEDTKE \/ 252B5ooio BUILDING DATAI DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT TOTAL NUMBER OF SF HOMES 4 HOMES 2� FINISHED SF/HOME 4000 SF /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL FINISHED SF 16,000 SF ESTIMATED no 4 BEDROOMS/HOME �A TOTAL BEDROOMS 16 BEDROOMS ESTIMATED PEOPLE /HOME 4 PEOPLE /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL PEOPLE 16 PEOPLE N� i1,yo �0 A� STORM y"�ryh 141,493 SF 3,246 AC. 12s' CONS � CRVATt-EAS� / Block 1 0 / I 51,738 SF N O0,5 ot` / e I _ #6140 _ lu N • • __ CuaERVAttw SIGN FER CITY SM aV. 6) + Z , 1p SS9 _ IN 7K m ly 2 m' 36,622 SF a 66' R W R AGAN MURRAY CT. 3411723430029 / $ a� IO N01 y J WETLAND S 4 I o y �' O N n v WA rna I �+ 26,227 SF 0 POND n _ _ _ 10' SSB 0m -- In F¢- .._.._.._.._.. _ y- 4 I 4 6180 MURRAY CT. 80' OW T BATESON 26,906 SF 3411723430030 13' n b: I 5896- 15 -51E 389.34 0 In \ so, Row 3 K r a Z A N 16 H bi P�1 x G d y L, 0 , In f N11 n 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 72,609 SF ool 250031500 = 1,667 AC. d m \ 6 R W 16' O 414.67 NESS-00-31W 18.3 7 HUMMINGBIRD LIED LIEDTKE \/ 252B5ooio BUILDING DATAI DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT TOTAL NUMBER OF SF HOMES 4 HOMES ESTIMATED FINISHED SF/HOME 4000 SF /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL FINISHED SF 16,000 SF ESTIMATED BEDROOMS /HOME 4 BEDROOMS/HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL BEDROOMS 16 BEDROOMS ESTIMATED PEOPLE /HOME 4 PEOPLE /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL PEOPLE 16 PEOPLE PROJECT DATAi TOTAL SITE N❑, OF LOTS DENSITY MIN, LOT SIZE AVG. LOT SIZE C❑NSERV, EASE, DISTURBED AREA TREE LOSS 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF) 4 LOTS 1.23 UNITS /AC. 26,227 SF 35,373 SF 1,85 AC. (57% OF SITE) 0,9 AC, 9 TREES (5% TREE LOSS) SHREW ❑OD ZONED R -1C 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE 100' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB) 120' MIN. LOT DEPTH 35' FRONT SETBACK 40' REAR SETBACK 10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER) PROPOSED PUD STANDARDSI 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE 70' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT FSB) 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH VARIABLE FRONT SETBACK (SEE PLAN) 40' REAR SETBACK 10' SIDE SETBACK N W E S 40 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET MEWL B-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING OMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS —>>-0> DENOTES STORM SEWER — >— DENOTES SANITARY SEWER — B'—iV— DENOTES WATERMAIN x1056.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EW-4010N.() DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION E ,;I? ID P...UL WYN HAL. 0*MkED P.JIL X60 $ aE o .6 C = Sb2 1Wz 8 SiEo8 �- `eNs15 a. W z w a 3° z 2 ~ W Ce a - N (U) 1/7/14 13 -115 4 #6065 #23130 O / PJE• M N 0 N SUMMIT AVE._,>l iu-tR 16' SHOREWOOD (HENN, CO,) CHIA HASSEN (CARVER CO,) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 Q H � 80' In 80' a Q' Q oa L7 z w 16' #6075 #6070 414.67 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIED LIEDTKE 252850010 Ei ti N N (V V .-1 � M C y, Q C Li Lo u M 0 r, m O M 0 N u I V9 P.JX. MI, P..Ak a �o $ Z° �o g W golzb4 q, 0- a_ or Y ;Eon .•- Yo_g N _. DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT #6090 MA (,,,,,R DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— g R DAD DENOTES STORM SEWER a �� 377.93 DENOTES WATERMAIN x1056.23 252.4 b } �v Q~ EOF401059,0 N78_38_07w z 1_g =0 d ~ W 2 S 40 0 40 BO W 50 #22885 SCALE IN FEET 14 d (/) (/I 6jA\ N \ Z 00 N� A4 STORM y�ryh 141,493 SF /3,248 AC. C ❑NSERVATI ❑N EASE, \° 25-NSERV 80,532 SF (1.85 AC.) \ j �rrD�ASE 57% OF SITE \ Block 1 \ / I 51,736 SF JN / w I 20�g,U �A_ - _ #6140 cul CQSQtVA Im sm PER I �I �• '� CITY STA fTYP. 6> # Z D I �_ N to fTl I m. Fn' v L 36,622 SF y �o a 1n L �L_, —.— _�0' SSB 20' D6U EASE_ I 66' R W 6160 MURRAY CT. / REAGAN _�— — — — _ .J — 3411723430029 I r - -- --'m -- - - - - -- 0 yr — �m I WETLAND oN �I �i 3 I o u1a : I 0 26,227 SF SSB w P ❑ND .__._.10' _ 20' im €ASS — — — — — --, Om Ul --- - - - - -- 0 4� I 4 ~I °� 26,906 SF I° 6180 MURRAY CT. BATESON 34 1723430030 L__L. 225 3 369.34 0 \ a m A r c \ z 1 r cq I00 N C bi G rAi y \ 0) N tj 1 00 N l,t � x 6261 GALPIN BLVD, 1 72,609 SF 03 j 250031500 1,667 AC. m V to r v ' ROW 414.67 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIED LIEDTKE 252850010 Ei ti N N (V V .-1 � M C y, Q C Li Lo u M 0 r, m O M 0 N u I V9 P.JX. MI, P..Ak a �o $ Z° �o g W golzb4 q, 0- a_ or Y ;Eon .•- Yo_g N _. DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— g — »- DENOTES STORM SEWER a o� —e'—W— DENOTES WATERMAIN x1056.23 W E } O p" EOF401059,0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION z goo ~ W 2 S 40 0 40 BO W 50 SCALE IN FEET 14 d (/) (/I iElllfi&l B -5 _. DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS — »- DENOTES STORM SEWER DENOTES SANITARY SEWER —e'—W— DENOTES WATERMAIN x1056.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVA7ON EOF401059,0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION 1/7/14 1 13 -115 5 G #23130 O so"`��� lO- SUMMIT AVE. SHOREWOOD (HENN, CO,) mo HASSEN (CA VER CO,) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 4 o MH 43 -15 F >U�` Q I- 7-) 80' 0 4 PPo RIM SHOT 150 80' A ry A PCI H L'7 z 2 20, PROP. GV EX. S&W EX. RAIN GARDEN. LOT 1 Lai -a Lai -a LOT 4 BOTTOM ELEV. 1048.5 1054.5 1058.5 1056.5 MIN. BTM. AREA 224 SF 224 SF 224 SF 224 SF TOP EOF ELEV. 1050.0 1056.0 1060.0 1060.0 4' DRAINTILE INV.1046A 1052.0 1056.0 1056.0 /�4 ,493 SF (W1 RIPRAP OUTLET) 48 AC. MIN. RG VOLUME 335 CF 335 CF 335 CF 335 CF ONS E T70 -ASE. Block 1 I 1 FINAL RAINGARDEN G ADES, LOCATION, PLANTING LAN BY BUILDER (TYP.). DIREi T ALL — ROOF DOWNSPOUTS T RAIN GARDEN. — O I CITY 8TDA (TYP SIGN PER PRO EX. WELL IJ � CJI 4' DTI CT �m 2 EX, WELL IG (CA P) 0 PROP. WELL O lz PROP. WEOLL I b'� 4' DT I m I 3 R-4 ' 4 I I OPROP. WELL 6231 HUMMINGBIRD 72,609 SF 1.667 AC, STORM EW LOTS WILL USE IDIVIDUAL ON -SITE rl D 7K rri d 6160 MURRA 66' R W REAGAN 34117234300 WET, 6180 MURRA' BATESON 34117234300; EX. M RIM 9 0.4 SHOT zz DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - EX. HYD - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS m TNH 972.00 DENOTES STORM SEWER DENOTES SANITARY SEWER W— Z Z x N 70 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EOF40IN9.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION N td m v r d 3 E n o s i 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET LEA B -5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING UMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS DENOTES STORM SEWER DENOTES SANITARY SEWER W— DENOTES WATERMAIN x1056.23 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X 1056.0 DENOTES PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION EOF40IN9.0 DENOTES EMERGENCY OVERFLOW ELEVATION ti r N cl d -ii U) Lo � M � o � c Q= IL c o to 3 N M co N In o co Rif Alm 88 q LIES13" AUK A7AVN HAL C7Ecm Rix °o • Z aE9$� ae s o" € U Y � E ug e,=o -mo�o L2N d`Di a A g a- :3 W w a 11/7/14 z O 3 w Ir 0 N 13 -115 rm 6 EXTEND FENCE 2' DRIP �tla M wW Is PH A RSK BEYOND LINE _ - - WHERE sO NN R 5u ° 4s O O PLI OR CONSTRUCTION C rSlG P - - - - -- "'ITS TREE PROTECTION SIGN, TYP. 76s21as E5 sa3s w 1z8 P. za sn zroa POSTS AND FENCING Terra -- _ - -- --- - -.__/ - 0- -___ - -Q. \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ neering,Inc. - - -- - - -- -- _ \ - -- - - -- - -- _ - -- - - -141,49 �E___ _ _ _ _ °... \ (1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ F—DL I Son, cke rooaavenw �C \ \O \\� \ ` \ DRIPLINEW[DTH M ,MN 554n ------ - - -___ - - -�{\- - --� `` _� - 'O_- - \ \ •\ �\ •\ \� \ \ ` \ \ •\ \ \ \ PH. ]6359}9328 FAX ]63512 -0]1] - - -- ° \`, \ \ \• \ FURNISH AAND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE AT THE TREES DRIP LINE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITSAS n--9- - -- _ - - - _�' �' _ - _ _ - -- - - - - \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \O \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \`\ \b \\ \ \ SHOIYN ON PLAtJ,PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. YVHERE POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25'BEYOND DRIP ' -- ° ° _ - \\ \\ \ \\ \ \ `\ \ \ \\ O \. \ \\ \ \ \ ���\ \ ! \ LINE. PLACETREE PROTECTION SIGN ON POSTS, ONE PER INDNIDUALTREE (FACING CONSTRUCTION L7 _ - - - -- - - -- - ACTIVITY), OR ONE EVERY 100'LF ALONG A GROVE OR MULTI-TREE PROTECTION AREA TN T R S E E PROTECTION SI O. Ov R P v O ` SUMMIT WOODS SHOREWOO_D, MN -_ -- ,/23'2614 O �Z \ Vv�V AV A \V A \ v,� \V A v\ \ V 1 1 A,. -TREE PRESERVATION LIST I- p \111 11'11 11111111 11 , - -. ' 1 -C��i Ro4i - ��� - ° \ SHOREWOOD TREE POLIM V A v A I 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .�\° 11 1 111 1 I 1 11 I 1 I I \- 'Sl9m8cantTme Hardwood Deciduous8 nd _Dyer __ - -- . - - ° I - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I III _ - - - _ Softwood Deciduous 12' nE mer - _- - -- _ - _ -._ -� \.`\ \ 11 Conkmus Thlhand(ile_r 1 1 1 A 1 11 11 11 1 1 I -_ \ - / \\ `\ ° I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I II I I 11 I - g �_ - -- - - -_` - i 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 I i(y� _. (BOX Eider and Willow are rrot `signiEcan[irees')I \O O � � -- - \ -- ti O V co I I 11 ( i , Tme R placement• - S(gnncant decldu u tree (8' 12 ) moxd, rep/ c w91h Mo 3' deciduous or lxo fi e Ikmus trees. \� II I 1 l i '� /I I I i I r � � it 111 11 11 { - _- Si9nTcanl deciduu Tree (12' +i moed, reel ewdh three 3'declduous orfh_ree6 mkmus trees. __ � / / ! I � �� Significant conikrous tree (8127 remold re lace tuth one 6' conikrous tree. V A \ )1 I/ // �! I 1 I I I I I V 1 conikrous tree a transremoved replace u,N tun B'conikmus Trees. - sI nifioant repixement is BUeeslaore) — k2- 1\8 - ` (O f NU1,ieER OF TYPE OF \ 1 Q \ 1 I I I I II II� 1\ 1 `f i' 1 1 1 \ 1(+i, TREE REPLACEMENT REPLACEh1ENT I O ° I r I rl 111 I I 1 NO SPECIES DIA B Yt COND. SAVE REItOVE TREES TREES U) - 17X\\ ' I I I 11 O \ \IV, -k \ \ \ 1 Iv 1 I I 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r to R LNG I I �� �� II I \ \1 VA}-\ v 1111 1 I :, k_ 44 fair Remora 3 13 geoid u orb nikraus U) ID _ �� O �l A Y v _ _ _ wy `-� _. _. -. -- - -- ` /. 1 { { I I \ ` \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 1 1 1 - 2 oak _ -{ 36 kir Remote / 3 3 deo__—ore nikras ' \ \ - \ \ r \ _ \ 1 o ° II I III III I I II II 1 C. \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 I -'4 elm -- 10 good Sayer O / - L 1 hackberry{ v/ T L�i \ I _,) 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I 1 I 4 oak 24 fair Sale W Z _-.- -- \ \ T I \ \ \ \ \ 34 .Fair Sale... F- Z Z - q \ \ i I \ \ , I 6 ,D -1--good Sme - - - — -_ W - I 1 F-� 1 A 1 A 1 1 A N A 1 _- 1 S _ 2E j v v S 0, 1, I I 7 ma e. iO good sae .1 \ \ \ \ ('� ° 1 1 I I I I I I 111 I I _ e elm 12 good Sate._ _.. _ j __ _ Z (n \� 1 f4 \ 1 V A \ ° \ V I I 1 I I I I I I I I II I', 1 0 maple 30 1 -fair Rema _ + _ Z v A I I 1 I I I I { 3 r3 deciduous -ore onikrcus v AI 1 1 A [� I I i E V A L� -1 1 \ \• \ \ t 1 I I I I t I ! 1 I o k 2d fair 12 d r 12 kfr Re m 2 ;6 conikrous O 13 k 40 good Rem— 1 3 3'doddeoue ore eo if - _ Q O -- -- - -ter - - -- - -- - -- -- - r / I l l I ' _ Remoe I 3 i3 deaiduous or 6'conikras 'I Cj W 1 A \ ail 1 1 / l I 1 1 i 11/ /1 / / ( 1 15 etm ,0 C _good Remora 2 3 deciduous orb c nikrovs r•� A A I I / I 1 1 1 l // I I 1 ___ __- _�_ - W 1 / / / / / ( t8 oak 20 fair Remora 3 ;3 deciduousorbconikrous ��� \ \ \\ \ \\ I 1 / .l l l l l 1 I i �l 1 / _i7 oak 28 - -ktr - -- Remus 3 13 deciduous orb conikrous V I I �/ / ° / l / 1 !l I ! I I ( { f / t 1 18 oak 30 good Remote 3 3"deoidowe ore'conikrous - V / 1 / / ! I l l I 1 1 1 { � / I 19 maple 40 ` by Remora � - 3 3 deciduous ore conikrous � LLI A �\ \ O I I II ! I/ I I i / i t ! (� 1 N I O I i O I I I I I ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 pm 20 1 poor Re ote ' 2 ,B oonikmus _ Q L LL \ I I I 21 pm 22 gaga Remora 2 e canife— _ _ X\2 `. \ 1�v tv 1 I �' Q 1 rT I I 1 v V v A\ V A V A A II 22- -- Save �.. 1 \ 1 I I 1 22 Im 20 fatr �- Iri 1 I I (i (� , l 1 1 I \ \ \� \ \ \ \ \ \ f b twod 18 good Saie i 7 Cn \ I 1 I III I 1 �V \ \ \ \ \ \'\ \ \ \ \ \ `\ \\ \ \ \ ' I\ 24 b SSw d to tzR Save I . 25 b s Ood' 18 ( .fair 3 to LO 26 a h 20 ( fatr S ye O, v , ttT �— — — O y � v tip} _2T sh 10 good s %e_ - ``— / — "�� — — �� —tw— \ v �'\ t\ \v v 1 A V A v v v A v A Av \1A - bj I ->R 1 \ 1 TOTAL 1 36 •� 19 21 2 v \ v v ' O �;)O Z� - — \ Tolai nu acement ire sV re - 3.28Ire slac/e -- a �q� M1tax re iacement _ _ _ EIEII TION.ORREro TWAS p frees regd. 26 tees ( B I HEREBYCERLFY TH4TTL,s PWJ, (� I 1 \I 11 1 I I r I , ' 1 PREPARED BY ME OR LRA R MY DIRECT 1 Y \ \ / / SUPERYISIONAND TH4TIAMAIXAY II I I \ ° I I I IJCENSED tAAOSCAPEARCI -OTECT UNDER ° TREE REMOVAL NOTES: E LAV]6 CFTIIE STATE DF,ANNESDTA. I \Ei UE�E� 1°' ( / / ALLTREES NOTSHOIYN TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PROTECTEDAIJDARE TO REMAIN UPlTOUCHED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTM7Y. CG \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ \ \\ 1! -! ! r i l l l!!° CONDITION CATEGORIES ° I I I { I II TREES AS LISTED IN THE ABOVE TABLE YJERE EXAMINED AND THEIR CONDITION RATED ON A GENERAL HEALTH SCALE. Par kJ. Sarver WE3R /,4 rKFN5E IA. 24904 II INFORMATION IS DEEMED RELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED. OBSERVATION DATE 02/03114 GOOD - PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE IN PROPER FORM FOR AGE AND SPECIES, MINOR NATURAL BRANCH BREAKAGE AWAY BE ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUM MARY PRESENT, FORM 15BALANCED AND HEALTHY. DnTE DESCRIPr1oN FAIR - PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE GENERAL IN PROPER FORPA FOR THE AGE AND SPECIES, BREAKAGEANDSOMETRUNK SCARRING MAYBE BE PRESENT BEYOND NORMAL, NATURALOCCURRENCES, FORM IS GENERALLY BALANCED T01900ERATELY O 1 \ \ O \ UNBALANCED. 1 1 \ 11 \ 1� 1 O\ 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I -- J \ Oi \ 1 \ 'O \ \ 1 1 1 I i I I 1 1 I 1 I POOR -PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE NOT IN PROPER FORM FOR THE AGE AND SPECIES, h1AJOR TRUNK AND/OR BRANCH \ 1 \11\ 2 11 1 111 111 L /JI'_ 1 r 111 ( 1 li I ,I I II BREAKAGE IS PRESENT, MAJOR SCARRING i BE PRESENT, FORM IS UNBALANCED AND MAY CO NSTITUTEASAFETY HAZARD. I I V v I A� 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I \ 1 1 6P 1 1 I 1° - - -- I I \ \\ 1 2 \. 1 11 \ \ \ 1 1 t \ I I""i -' L O' \ I 4 10 1 1 1 1 11 1 11 I I II 1 1 1 I I i I ,ry LEGEND: 21 F,E� - I v ??CCI ti�P v v OI O �1 1 01 Imp' •\ _ 2 6 \ \ \ 1 \ \'� ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I I I 1 1' � I' � PROTECT EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN / -'V V 1 1 0 1 I I I I I T T REVISION SUMMARY 17' \J n \ O\ 1 �j LIB I I DA E oESCwPnoN - - lJ� ,. (,.` \ 2 V rZ0 1 A Q V A V 1 II I I 1 1 11 `-4 I I O� \ v 1 I q V A \ I I O I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 3R/f4 REVISIONS l 3'-J 1 'I 1 1 Q V 2 A A 1 A I 1 I 1 1 I\ I REMOVE EXISTING T111. INCLUDING ALL STUTAPS ANO ROOTS �1�,(i -APER I ,�, 1 I i 1 vv `v y' v °v vy v vI v v 'v � 1 1 1 II 1i 11 1 1 v, I C� v v 1 v � _. //5 0\0 I 1, I I0t 1v _h '20- -- _ 29 OI q ti2'1 I 01 1 1 1 11 1 1' 1 y v v 00 O — — —\ —1 �T �—�1_ L I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d 3\ '\ \ \ \ \ ` O \., GOPHER STATE ONE CALL TREE REMOVALS PLAN C'J O i A V 1 1 1 1 A I 1 A V A y \ \\ NMAN.GOPHDO12 2-1165 TOLL FREE 31 O� I -. �� V A \ 1 1 1 1 I 1 �1 1 �1 V 1 V A V A \ (651) 454- 0002LOCAL i I R C"S� 11 1 1 1 11 1 1 II 11 I 1 II I I 1\ 1V A '\ \v , \\ \\ \V A v ` •� A C.Y _ v` pCl\ 15 1 / 1 1 1 1 I1 i v A V A A �v v v_ - ° � ` = a`�\ �F, ,• �. T I I I I I 1 t 1 1 \, \, \. \ \ \ \ . I� I, 1ao•� o _2aa' L 1. 0 ©��a`�nml3 ttaR9lECeoW M'. ,7 < LLI II PLANT SCHEDULE — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — 1-4+_l It T A vi 0 o' 'Q\ O 0 ---------- \b 0 \N\ ----------- 0 0 0\\ \c� d'- -0 0 EF I - AIR o 2- M 0 -10 0, b'\ AR--RIIW - ' 3-J,_ , `\ ` _ _ _ 0, 'o I � * - 0 PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN 0 NORMALTREESHAPE) CivUslie STAKING OP nDNAL-SEE SPECIFICATIONS ; i I I , j C) It I I " I � I / i I 1 1, i , I / / / , I I I THREE TX478'WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROIIN cm R 0- U P YM TWO STRANDS OF WIRE T"ISTED TOGETHEFU 4- W. 95TH ST. SUITE M STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120'TO ONE ANOTHER. STADUMPAR Wl WIRE 'HALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBER CIOISI—�-, HOSE COLLARS µ3ItP—k Pat Server 76 213-34" 952-256� TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: " PLANT TREE V-TADOVE EXISTING GRADE HARDNOOD CYPRESS 0 CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER Terra EDGE OF SAUCER Er MULCH T FROMTRUNK. COLOR To W I%K n IN'D LANDSCAPE Engineed ng, Ino. ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING EXISTRIGGRADE 7 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP IM OF VHT. ROOT BALL IF NON - BIODEGRADABLE, REMOVE SINGLE LEADER COMPLETELY 8 BALSAM FIR AbB9bal— M—.P(s, MIT SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE M705— FAX7BGSIM7f7 BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED 51 DO NOT EXCAVATE O OF ROOTUALL BELOW ROOTBALL \xo 0', f, DECIDUOUS TREE o 0, o -T- 11111 AS FIELD DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTTO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN NORMALTREESHAPE) STAKING OPTIONAL-SFE SPECIFICATIONS 2 - 5w L THREE 2747("YOODEN STAKES, STAINED BROWN WITH 0 1)VOSTRA14DSOFIYiRETV4$TEDTOGETHER.STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 1201 TO ONE ANOTHER fflRE SHALL (Q BE THREADED THROUGH ELACK RUBBER HOSE COLIARS 13- 4� ov 0\ 0 PLANT TREE V-2"ABOVE EXISTING GRADE 0 TRUNK RARE JUNCTIO'k. 0, I - SH HARDWOOD CYPRESS OR CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER KEEP MULCH ZFROM TRUNK. COLOR TO BE l � r DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO . I d ORDERING. EXISTING GRADE 'I I T CUTANO REA'OVE BURLAP 10 1 1 FROM TOP 13 OF ROOT BALL IF NON-810DEGRAWD-E, READVE GOI.IPLETELY 2 SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE EINF�ITU ARM I 05� I I I I I I I i 1 (8, ; i I I , j C) It I I " I � I / i I 1 1, i , I / / / , I I I BACKFILL AS SPECIFIED DO hOTEXCAVATE BELOW ROOTBALL I 3 SWAMP WHITE OAK /0 FTI i I , I / I , ! / / o I / / o/ / THREETIN WIDTH OFR T L 0 I " 0 EVERGREENTREES EVERGREEN TREE W F I 1 10, 0 10 1 BITS 7 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Pe— g(—'D.mla' VHT. I-5H SINGLE LEADER 10 I 8 BALSAM FIR AbB9bal— BHT. LANDSCAPE NOTES: 0 0 3 T7 7 2 Li 3. o qC) jr 'I � o I I p D � Q \0 2 - �fl \� R� E U I i I I I DWI 0 01 2 -BF V, 0 T c)— L 7. -7- I I 8. I I O \0 0 SH9 14 1 1 0 '0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 lc:D 01, 1 01 1(, F1 J 0 2 - 5F Otis \ I � 6 \ , \ It Ict" I � I 0 /511 TAPER / 0 '\ 0 I& 0 0- 7-7 \0 7—� --T SYM QUANT. COMMON NAME BOTANICALNNIE SIZE ROOT COMMENTS DECIDUOUSTREES ARM 4 AUTUMN RADIANCE RED MAPLE Air mb—Autum RadlarpDY 3.01 B&B STRAT. LEADER. FULL FORM SIT 4 SUNBURST HONEY LOCUST Gkdbia bi—th. S=.W 3.V B&B STRAT. LEADER. FULL FORM SWO 3 SWAMP WHITE OAK Cu.— Ncow 3.0' B&B STRAT. LEADER FULL FORM 0 (n w O EVERGREENTREES Z z w 0 z BITS 7 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Pe— g(—'D.mla' VHT. IRS SINGLE LEADER BF 8 BALSAM FIR AbB9bal— BHT. B&B SINGLE LEADER ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER OWNERS REP SHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EOUAL, PLANT I.IATERLAILS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMBNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURING OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN 04 THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL Cor IPLETION DATE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL RECEIVE 4' LAYER LONA AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 0' .4 THE DRAWINGS. COORDISIATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND NW' NTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ACTIVITIES. SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS ACTIVITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALLORG (800) 252_1 166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-O002 LOCAL A(:Vk 1-21• 101-W 0 2w-ol I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT111SPLA.fy SPECIFICATICR OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISK)NAND THAT IAMADULY UCENSEDLANDSCAPEAR HITECTUNDER THE LAWS Of THE STATE OF IWNLTESOTA S—, .TO 3ftll4 L1CF1SEtA. 24904 ISSUFJSUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION W114 REVISIONS LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.1 cl) u) 0 (n w O Z z w 0 z 0 U) :2 LU 0 z < U) z 51 IL Y 0 OL o° < a: W g w 0� (1) 0 0 W U) , w * Uj U ) o 10 Lf) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT111SPLA.fy SPECIFICATICR OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MYDIRECT SUPERVISK)NAND THAT IAMADULY UCENSEDLANDSCAPEAR HITECTUNDER THE LAWS Of THE STATE OF IWNLTESOTA S—, .TO 3ftll4 L1CF1SEtA. 24904 ISSUFJSUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION W114 REVISIONS LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR SUMMIT WOODS P.U.D. WHEREAS, Homestead Partners, LLC (Applicant) has an interest in certain land within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for Development Stage Plan and preliminary approval of a residential Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) to be known as Summit Woods P.U.D.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated 26 February 2014, which Memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Engineer and his recommendations have been duly set forth in Memoranda to the Planning Commission, dated 26 February 2014 and 25 March 2014, which Memoranda are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 4 March 2014, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The Applicant's request for Development Stage Plan approval and preliminary plat approval of Summit Woods P.U.D. is hereby approved. 2. That such approval is subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Planner's Memorandum, dated 26 February 2014, and in the City Engineer's memoranda, dated 26 February 2014 and 25 March 2014, all of which memoranda are on file at City Hall. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of April, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #QA MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Retaining Wall Change Order Alternatives for the Excelsior Boulevard Trail Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Alternatives Figures Background: Council previously approved a cooperative construction agreement with the Metropolitan Council (MCES) for the Excelsior Boulevard Trail Extension as well as other projects. The trail extends from Manor Road to Barrington Way on the south side of Excelsior Boulevard. The embankment slope of TH 7 extends to the edge of Excelsior Boulevard and requires the construction of a retaining wall. The MCES plans were advancing to completion as decisions were made by the cities on their project construction items. As decisions were made, the information was provided to the MCES for inclusion into the construction documents. City engineering staff provided a performance specification to the MCES for the retaining wall that specified "Unit Face Texture: Shall be determined by the Owner ". The specific weathered edge unit face texture and the color type (photos attached) selected by the Council was to be added to a third addendum to the MCES bid documents. However, due to time constraints on the project construction schedule, the MCES decided not to release a third addendum, but to issue change orders for specific items post bidding. The project subcontractor and supplier for the retaining wall provided a bid on a base wall face texture "Limestone" and did not include a contingency for wall color. As a result, the MCES has prepared a draft Change Order for the wall face and color for City consideration. The changes would add the following costs to the project: 1. Recon Weathered Edge face texture vs. Limestone face texture Add $ 10,180 2. Three color wall staining Add $ 8,211 Total: Add $ 18,391 Retaining Wall As -bid Retaining Wall with CO $129,000 $147,391 The Cooperative Agreement included a 15% contingency on the City project items. The contingency for the retaining wall is $19,350, which does cover these additional costs from a budgetary standpoint. We are working with the MCES with funding assistance for the wall block unit face texture for the requested change order. The wall color will be a City cost. 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 Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff requests action of the Council to provide direction to staff for one of the following items: Approve the Change Order and authorize staff to execute the agreement to a. Add Recon Weathered Edge face texture, increasing the project costs by $10,180; and /or b. Add Three color wall staining, increasing the project costs by $8,211 Reject the Change Order for wall unit face texture and color additions a. Wall block face texture will be Limestone b. Color will remain light gray in color 3. Reject the Change Order for wall unit face texture and color additions with the MCES project and direct staff to request quotes to color stain the wall at a later date. r pr r t•• r - y i r+ ... jbmmk Ohio de I r • �� ��- } 1l �T �r l 4wr - i %t •`' ib ,� 4 - '7Zr-46 6_ ♦.- . . rt. mow. ,.. ' • -�. - ,' . -� ,. ReCon Le Sueur County Limestone, Stained, Minnesota t .+ .L #10A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title / Subject: Making an Appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Board Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments: Resolution Policy Consideration: Council may consider making an appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Board Background: Earlier this evening, Council interviewed one candidate, Paul Stelmachers, for consideration of appointment to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission. The term of this appointment goes through January 31, 2015. Options: 1) Appoint Paul Stelmachers for the term ending January 31, 2015; or 2) Do not make an appointment at this time. Recommendation /Action Requested: Should Council determine to make an appointment, it may adopt the attached Resolution appointing Mr. Paul Stelmachers to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission for the term April 14, 2014 — January 31, 2015. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will notify Mr. Paul Stelmachers and the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission of the appointment. 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 RESOLUTION NO. 14- A RESOLUTION MAKING AN APPOINTMENT TO THE LAKE MINNETONKA COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood annually appoints a Shorewood resident to serve as the City Representative on the LMCC Board; and WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Huber submitted his resignation as LMCC Board representative, effective January 31 2014; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council hereby appoints Mr. Paul Stelmachers as City Representative to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) Board for the term beginning April 14, 2014 through January 31, 2015. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of April, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk x`91 W;, City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Mayor and Council Member Compensation Meeting Date: April 14, 2014 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Comparison data, Scatter gram, draft ordinance 1 MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting At the City Council retreat in February of this year the staff was directed to research comparable pay levels for the positions of Mayor and Council Member in metro cities with similar structure and scope have abstracted the relevant data from the League of Minnesota Cities Salary and Benefits Survey. A summary of the data appears below and copies of the source comparisons are attached. You will also find a very rough scatter gram of the relative positions for these two titles in all metro cities up to 18,000 in population. In summary: Mayor For cities between 5,000 and 10,000 in population with budgets exceeding one million dollars and less than 25 full time employees: Average 2013 yearly compensation for Mayors $5,094 Current Shorewood compensation (effective January 1, 2005) $3,600 Council Member Cities between 5,000 and 10,000 population with budgets exceeding one million dollars and less than 25 full time employees: Average 2013 yearly compensation, Council Members $3,900 Current Shorewood compensation (effective January 1, 2005) $3,000 Given the League data, it would appear that establishing yearly Shorewood Mayor compensation in a range between $4,800 and $5,000 and Council Member compensation between $3,800 and $4,000 would place Shorewood elected officials firmly in the average range for comparable communities. Council Action If the Council so chooses, you will find attached a draft ordinance to affect the change in elected official compensation. 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 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 105 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO SALARIES FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 105.05 of the Shorewood City Code shall be amended to read as follows: 105.05: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: Commencing , the annual salary of the Mayor of the City shall be and the annual salary of each member of the City Council shall be Section 2. This ordinance shall be in fiill force and effect following its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of April, 2014. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Salaries C�M�ETIZQ .��_,ut�," Tl_r_s 14tva 11%0- A=IATION Of t /'iVEUTr 0"+NT15 Overview Your Account Organization Info. Salaries Organization Officials Benefits myFavorites Directory of Contacts Free Resources Sign Out Organization Officials We have compared the salary entered for each Job Title selected utilizing the location matching the criteria indicated. For multi -job search results, click on a Job Title to jump directly to the search results for that Job Title. Job Title(s) selected Click on Title to View Managed & Powered By Sur w or Organization Name TlIE WATERS Metro WGROUl CON G Salaries and Benefits on the Web Elected officials INC. C�M�ETIZQ .��_,ut�," Tl_r_s 14tva 11%0- A=IATION Of t /'iVEUTr 0"+NT15 Overview Your Account Organization Info. Salaries Organization Officials Benefits myFavorites Directory of Contacts Free Resources Sign Out Organization Officials We have compared the salary entered for each Job Title selected utilizing the location matching the criteria indicated. For multi -job search results, click on a Job Title to jump directly to the search results for that Job Title. Job Title(s) selected Click on Title to View Mayor Output Sorted by Organization Name Region(s) selected Metro Organization Size(s) selected 5,000 - 6,000 6,000 - 7,000 7,000 - 8,000 8,000 - 9,000 9,000 - 10,000 Organization(s) selected Elected officials Budget Restrictions Greater or equal to $1,000,000 Total Number of Employees Less than 25 Your search has returned 6 records. Page 1 of 2 Printer Make Friendly Excel Start New Search http: / /www. surveynavigator.comllmcl survey lcityofficialslsalaryresults .asp ?JobTitle= AA &L... 4/7/2014 Org Org Elected officials Municipality Num. of Annual Add'I Pmt. for ANNUAL ANNUAL allowed to Contract Date Population Region Elected Wages Special Health Provider Cost for Cost for participate in Officials Meetings Single Family your group Health Cov. Health Cov. health plan Circle Pines 5,279 Metro 1 $4,500.00 1/1/2013 Dayton 5,072 Metro 1 $6,000,00. 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 1/1/2008 Falcon Heights 5,762 Metro 1 $5,400:00 1/1/2013 Mahtomedi 8,143 Metro 1 $4,800.00 - n/a n/a 1/1/2008 Oak Grove 8,579 Metro 1 $4,772.04 $107.50/mo No 11112012 (EDA) Shorewood 7,618 Metro 1 $3,600.00 0 N/A $0.00 $0.00 No 1/1/2012 Start New Search http: / /www. surveynavigator.comllmcl survey lcityofficialslsalaryresults .asp ?JobTitle= AA &L... 4/7/2014 Salaries Page 1 of 2 Managed & Powered By SurveyNa i1 Or� r Salaries and Benefits on the Web CQOIJP, INC. CrRt)iJI; IVC. 6( CINIETRO TIES ilt�urau±tn Laths ASSX[ATI�ON[OF L� =�JULt 7 h.IV QTr. C;;PT4a Overview Your Account Organization Info. Salaries Organization Officials Benefits myFavorites Directory of Contacts Free Resources Sign Out Organization Officials We have compared the salary entered for each Job Title selected utilizing the location matching the criteria indicated. For multi -job search results, click on a Job Title to jump directly to the search results for that Job Title. Job Title(s) selected Click on Title to View Mayor Output Sorted by Organization Name Region(s) selected Metro Organization Size(s) selected 5,000 - 6,000 6,000 - 7,000 7,000 - 8,000 8,000 - 9,000 9,000 - 10,000 Organization(s) selected Budget Restrictions All Sizes Total Number of Employees All sizes Your search has returned 19 records. Org Org Annual Num. of Add1 Pmt. for ANNUAL ANNUAL Municipality Population Region Elected Special Health Provider Cost for Cost for Contract Date Officials Wages Meetings Single Family Health Cov. Health Cov Circle Pines 5,279 Metro 1 $4,500.00 1/1/2013 Corcoran 5,842 Metro 1 $1,800.00 1/1/2010 4 Dayton 5,072 Metro 1 $6,000.00 0 0 Falcon Heights 5,762 Metro 1 $5,400.00 • 1/1/2013 Jordan 5,402 Metro 1 $4,800.00 • 1/1/2011 Lake Elmo 8,326 Metro 1 $3,915.00 0 None Blue Cross,Blue 1/1/2011 Shield Mahtomedi 8,143 Metro 1 $4,800.00 0 n/a n/a 1/1/2008 edina13 5,026 Metro 1 $4,250.00 r N/A N/A Minnetrista 6,296 Metro 1 $4,800.00 Printer Make Friendly Excel Elected official, allowed to participate in your group health plan �r $0.00 $0.00 No Yes No http: / /www. surveynavigator. com/Imc /survey /eityofficials /salaryresults. asp ?JobTitle= AA &L... 4/7/2014 Salaries 1/1/2013 1 ound 9,787 Metro 1 $4,500.00 2 New Prague 7,081 Metro 1 $4,440.00 $50 1/1/2013 Oak Grove 8,579 Metro 1 $4,772.04 ti $107.50/mo 11112012 (EDA) Orono 7,980 Metro 1 $4,200.00 Y 0 0 1/1/2013 Shorewood 7,618 Metro 1 $3,600.00 0 N/A 1/1/2012 E Spring Lake Park 6,768 Metro 1 $7,234.08 1/1/2013 St. Anthony _ Mayor Pro-Tern Village 8,437 Metro 1 $7,500.00 Annual Wages 11112013 $6,756.00 St. Francis 7,455 Metro 1 $4,500.00 $35 /half day 1/1/2009 St. Paul Park 5,221 Metro 1 $4,350.00 ' 0 N/A 1/1/2013 Victoria 6,727 Metro 1 $2,700.00 " $0 1/1/2013 q Start New Search Y M Y A 4 q $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Page 2 of 2 No No No No No No No No Website Copyright © 2005 - The Waters Consulting Group, Inc. - All rights reserved Back to Top I Contact http: / /www. surveynavigator. comllmel survey lcityofficialslsalaiyresults. asp ?JobTitle= AA &L... 4/7/2014 Salaries Page 1 of 2 t� F Managed & Powered By SurveyNavkator TI IE WATERS Salaries and Benefits on the Web CONSULTING GRQLJP, INC. I I1i,icur „ CITIES C +ius ASSOCIATION OF L —gfV " tl �VESUTd CC! �tiT�55 Overview Your Account Organization Info. Salaries Organization Officials Benefits myFavorites Directory of Contacts Free Resources Sign Out Organization Officials We have compared the salary entered for each Job Title selected utilizing the location matching the criteria indicated. For multi -job search results, click on a Job Title to jump directly to the search results for that Job Title. Job Title(s) selected Click on Title to View Council Member Output Sorted by Organization Name Region(s) selected Metro Organization Size(s) selected 5,000 - 6,000 6,000 - 7,000 7,000 - 8,000 8,000 - 9,000 9,000 - 10,000 Organization(s) selected Budget Restrictions All Sizes Total Number of Employees All sizes Your search has returned 19 records. Org Org Num. of Annual Add'I Pmt. for ANNUAL ANNUAL Municipality Population Region Elected Special Health Provider Cost for Cost for Contract Date Officials Wages Meetings Single Family Health Cov. Health Cov Circle Pines 5,279 Metro 4 $3,900.00 t 1/1/2013 Corcoran 5,842 Metro 4 $1,200.00 1/1/2011 Dayton 5,072 Metro 4 $4,800.00 , 0 0 1/1/2008 Falcon Heights 5,762 Metro 4 $3,400.004 1/1/2013 1/1/2011 5,402 Metro 6 $3,600.00' Lake Elmo 8,326 Metro 4 $3,130.00. None Blue Cross, 1/1/2011 Blue Shield Mahtomedi 8,143 Metro 4 $3,600.001 n/a n/a 1/1/2008 Medina 5,026 Metro 4 $3,000.00 t N/A N/A 1/1/2013 Minnetrista 6,296 Metro 4 $3,600.004 $0.00 $0.00 f Printer Make Friendly Excel Elected official: allowed to participate in your group health plan No No Yes No http: / /www. surveynavigator.comllmcl survey lcityofficialslsalaryresults. asp ?JobTitle= AB &L... 4/7/2014 Salaries 1/1/2013 Mound 9,787 Metro 4 $3,000.00 y 1/1/2012 New Prague 7,081 Metro 4 $3,144.00 $50.00 1/1/2013 Oak Grove 8,579 Metro 4 $4,100.04 �' $95.00 /mo 11112012 (EDA) 7,980 Metro 4 $3,500.00 0 0 $0.00 10/1/2013 Shorewood 7,618 Metro 4 $3,000.00 �' 0 N/A $0.00 1/1/2012 Spring lake Park 6,768 Metro 4 $5,787.24 1/1/2013 St. Anthony Village 8,437 Metro 4 $6,000.00. 1/1/2013 St. Francis 7,455 Metro 4 $3,900.00, $35 /half day 1/1/2009 St. Paul Park 5,221 Metro 4 $3,800.00 ' 0 N/A 1/1/2013 Victoria 6,727 Metro 4 $2,400.00 $0 1/1/2013 Start New Search_i $0.00 $0.00 Page 2 of 2 No No No No No No No No Website Copyright © 2005 - The Waters Consulting Group, Inc. - All rights reserved Back to Ton I Contact http: / /www. surveynavigator. comllmcl survey lcityofficialslsalaryresults. asp ?JobTitle =AB &L... 4/7/2014 Salaries Page 1 of 2 r j Managed & Powered fay T- ----I 0 Sury Navi, `or TI IVATERS r� Salaries and Benefits on the Web CONSULTING GR0LJR INC. CITIES �ftJhrt(fTA 0TIrS A�SSOC�IA�TION(OFF (r _I<:.II�.�J OME507A GGgmEs Overview Your Account Organization Info. Salaries Organization Officials Benefits myFavorites Directory of Contacts Free Resources Sign Out Organization Officials We have compared the salary entered for each Job Title selected utilizing the location matching the criteria indicated. For multi -job search results, click on a Job Title to jump directly to the search results for that Job Title. Job Title(s) selected Click on Title to View Council Member Output Sorted by Organization Name Region(s) selected Metro Organization Size(s) selected 5,000 - 6,000 6,000 - 7,000 7,000 - 8,000 8,000 - 9,000 9,000 - 10,000 Organization(s) selected 5,072 Budget Restrictions Greater or equal to $1,000,000 Total Number of Employees Less than 25 Your search has returned 6 records. Municipality Num. of Contract Date Population Region Elected Officials Circle Pines 5,279 Metro 4 1/1/7013 Add'I Pmt. for ANNUAL ANNUAL allowed to Dayton 5,072 Metro i 4 1/1/2008 Meetings Single Family your group Falcon Heights 5,762 Metro 4 11112013' Mahtomedi 8,143 Metro 4 1/1/2008 Oak Grove 8,579 Metro 4 1/1/2012 Shorewood 7,618 Metro 4 11112012 q * X Printer Make Friendly Excel $4,800.00 0 • $3,400.00 Org Org Elected officials Annual Add'I Pmt. for ANNUAL ANNUAL allowed to $3,000.00 Special Health Provider Cost for Cost for participate in Wages Meetings Single Family your group 3 900 00 • Health Cov. Health Cov. health plan - $4,800.00 0 • $3,400.00 s $3,600.00 n/a $4,100.04 • $95.00 /mo (EDA) $3,000.00 0 r Start New Search 0 $0.00 $0.00 - i n/a - No N/A $0.00 $0.00 No http : / /www.surveynavigator.com/Imc /survey /cityofficials /salaryresults .asp ?JobTitle= AB &L... 4/7/2014 mav or C mrsA�V� ao 13 • • 9w Shorewood glop LOGO 0 Ito 3 ljow 6;00 Co loom apip Raw 1�,OOD Iwo koo 'COO #10C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title / Subject: Agreement with CLHA to Conduct AIS Inspections at Christmas Lake Access Meeting Date: 14 April 2014 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Draft Agreement Policy Consideration: Should the City enter into an agreement with the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (CLHA) that would delegate the contracting of AIS inspection services to the Association? Background: For the past two boating seasons, AIS inspections have been conducted at the Christmas Lake boat access by Volt Workplace Solutions. The first year was overseen by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Last year, the MCWD chose not to perform the oversight, but provided grant money to cover approximately one half of the cost of the inspections. The 2014 effort was overseen by City staff. In both cases, the cost of inspections not covered by the grant money that was paid by the CLHA. This year the CLHA has requested that they be delegated to contract directly with Volt. Staff agrees that this is a more efficient way of getting the inspections done, especially with respect to payment of bills between three parties. As proposed, CLHA will contract directly with Volt, under the same terms as the City did last year. CLHA will then submit the final tabulation of costs to the City at the end of the season. The City will then reimburse CLHA for an amount not to exceed what the City receives in grant money. The new agreement, attached, replaces the Memorandum of Understanding from the two previous years. Financial or Budget Considerations: Aside from relieving city staff of the administrative burden of administering the Volt contract, costs to the City remain the same as previous years. Options: Approve the attached agreement, reject the agreement, or modify the agreement. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff favors the efficiency of the proposed arrangement and recommends that the Council authorize the City Administrator to execute the agreement on behalf of the City. Next Steps and Timelines: Given the expected later ice -out this year. We are assuming that CLHA will want to begin inspection sometime between 1 May and fishing opener (10 May). Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy environment and sound financial management. 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 AIS INSPECTION AGREEMENT between CITY OF SHOREWOOD and CHRISTMAS LAKE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION This AIS Inspection Agreement is entered into this day of April 2014 by and between the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, (the City) and The Christmas Lake Homeowner's Association, a non - profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, (CLHA) relating to the Christmas Lake Public Access Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Inspection Program (the Inspection Program). RECITALS I. The City entered into that certain agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) concerning the control, operation and maintenance of the public access to Christmas Lake dated January 29, 1986 (the Christmas Lake Access Agreement). 2. The City entered into that certain grant agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the DNR dated January 30, 2013, relating to the inspection of water - related equipment at the Christmas Lake Public Access in accordance with AIS inspection protocols developed by the DNR. 3. The City contracted with Volt Workforce Solutions (Volt) Specialized Professional Services Agreement to provide watercraft inspection services at the Christmas Lake Public Access during the 2012 -13 boating seasons. 4. The CLHA proposes and the City desires that CLHA assist with the administration of the duties and obligations of the Inspection Program. 5. The City and CLHA share the common objective to prevent the spread of AIS into Christmas Lake. AGREEMENT I. Term. This Agreement shall be effective from the date written above and shall expire November 15, 2014, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first. 2. Duties of CLHA. The CLHA will be responsible for the administration of the contract with Volt to carry out the 2014 Inspection program consistent with the terms of the Specialized Professional Services Agreement (2014 Services Agreement) attached hereto as Exhibit A. The CLHA shall at all times carry out its obligations under this Agreement in conformity with all provisions of the Christmas Lake Access Agreement and at the direction of the Planning Director, Brad Nielsen. 4844 - 7869- 2122.1 Payment. The CLHA will be responsible for paying the periodic installments for the cost of the Services Agreement. The City will pay to CLHA on or about November 15, 2014, an amount up to $22,500 reflecting reimbursement of proceeds from that certain grant AIS inspection from the MCWD and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In no event will the financial liability of the City to CLHA under this Agreement exceed the grant amount paid by the MCWD and DNR to the City. 4. Indemnification. Each party to this Agreement shall be liable for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party, its agents, volunteers, or employees. It is understood and agreed the liability and damages arising from the parties' acts and omissions are governed by the provisions of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Claims Act as provided in Minnesota Statute Ch. 466. 5. Termination. This agreement becomes effective the date first set forth above and shall expire on December 31, 2014. This Agreement may be terminated with or without cause by providing a ten (10) day prior written notice of one party to the other. 6 7 9 Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any prior representations or agreements and contains the entire agreement with regard to the subject matter herein. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only in writing signed by each of the parties. Notice. Any written communication under this Agreement will be addressed to the other party as follows: To the City Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 5 533 1 To CLHA: Government Data Practices. The City and CLHA Public Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statute Chapter under this Agreement. 4844 - 7869- 2122.1 must comply with the Minnesota 13 as it applies to all data provided EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed the day first above written. CITY OF SHOREWOOD: CHRISTMAS LAKE ASSOCIATION: IM C William Joynes Its: City Administrator Its: 4844 - 7869- 2122.1 ecOHMURAy�, z s METRO MUNICIPAL IIE4X4 A °� CITIES LEGISLAUVE ° " CO�V M SSION Ma,�..���a. April 9, 2014 The Honorable Mark Dayton Governor of Minnesota Room 130, State Capitol 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Paul Thissen Speaker of the House Room 463, State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Erin Murphy House Majority Leader Room 459, State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Kurt Daudt House Minority Leader Room 267, State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 The Honorable Tom Bakk The Honorable David Hann Senate Majority Leader Senate Minority Leader Room 226, State Capitol Room 147, State Office Building 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55155 RE: Municipal Street Improvement District Legislation: HF 745 (Erhardt)/SF 607 (Carlson) Dear Governor Dayton, Speaker Thissen, Majority Leader Bakk, Majority Leader Murphy, Minority Leader Daudt and Minority Leader Hann, On behalf of Minnesota's 853 cities, we thank you for recognizing the pressing need for road repairs across multiple jurisdictions statewide. We sincerely appreciate you supporting efforts to advance funding to fill potholes and restore roads to a drivable condition. Unfortunately, the deterioration we are seeing on state and local roads is not the result of one bad Minnesota winter. Roads that are properly maintained are significantly less vulnerable to damage than roads that have been neglected. The current poor condition of road pavement throughout the state is the result of deferred maintenance due to fiscal constraints. While one -time revenue will April 9, 2014 Page 2 be helpful in the short term, a long term solution is not only necessary, but critical to preserving expensive assets. The cost to perform maintenance on schedule is a fraction of the cost of making repairs to crumbling roads. According to the United States Dept. of Transportation, for every one dollar spent on maintenance, a road authority saves seven dollars in repairs. By the time a road is crumbling, the opportunity to make modest investments has passed. Cities are in a uniquely difficult position as it pertains to road maintenance and reconstruction. While the state and all 87 counties receive funds from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, only cities over 5,000 population (currently 146 of 853 cities) arc eligible for state aid dollars. Within state aid cities, revenues are not keeping up with needs. Currently 84 percent of city streets are paid for with a combination property taxes, local government aid and special assessments. Each of these funding mechanisms has limitations, which we would be more than willing to discuss with you in further detail. The point is that cities are falling woefully behind on street maintenance and have long recognized the need for a new funding option. We are writing to respectfully ask for your assistance in securing passage of a funding tool that would help cities pay for street maintenance and reconstruction. The legislation, SF 607 (Carlson)IHF 745 (Erhardt), is a bipartisan bill that would allow cities to create street improvement districts. It is a local option that we strongly believe should be made available to cities statewide. Our preferred version of this initiative is attached. Cities have attempted for several years to secure passage of legislation that would enable them to implement street improvement districts. Just since 2013, 100 cities have adopted resolutions of support for enacting street improvement district authority. The legislation would authorize cities to establish street improvement districts within their boundaries to fund municipal street maintenance, construction, reconstruction and facility upgrades. If enacted, this legislation would provide cities with an additional tool to build and maintain city streets. Most importantly, this tool would allow cities to perform maintenance at the optimal time —that is, when it is most cost effective. In 2013, the counties secured expanded wheelage tax authority and local option sales tax authority to fund transportation projects. In spite of passing through all policy and finance committees having jurisdiction over the bill, the street improvement district initiative did not reach final passage. A version of the cities' street improvement district bill was included in the House's omnibus tax bill in 2013, but the provision was removed in conference committee. We strongly urge you to seek inclusion of the street improvement district language in a conference committee report that will reach final passage in 2014. We appreciate your attention to this important issue and stand ready to answer any questions you might have. April 9, 2014 Page 3 Please direct any correspondence on this issue to Anne Finn, Assistant Intergovernmental Relations Director, League of Minnesota Cities, at (651)281-1263 or afinn @lmc.org. Sincerely, Shaunna Johnson Administrator, City of Waite Park President, League of Mirmesota Cities Susan Arntz Administrator, City of Waconia President, Metro Cities Randy Wilson Jim Hovland Mayor, City of Glencoe Mayor, City of Edina President, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities Chair, Municipal Legislative Commission 4fy Jeff Thompson Mayor, City of Paynesville President, Minnesota Association of Small Cities C: Rep. Ron Erhardt Sen. Jim Carlson Rep. Frank Hornstein Sen. Scott Dibble Rep. Ann Lenczewski Sen. Rod Skoe Commissioner Charlie Zelle Attachments: Street Improvement District Language List of Cities That Have Adopted Street Improvement District Resolutions t LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 2013 -2014 Street Improvement District Support Resolutions As of April 9, 2014 Albert Lea Hawley Proctor Alexandria Hendrum Ramsey Arden Hills Hopkins Red Wing Barnesville Hoyt Lakes Rochester Bemidji Hutchinson Rogers Bird Island Jordan Roseville Bloomington Lake City Royalton Braham Lake Crystal St. Augusta Brainerd Lake Park St. Cloud Breezy Point Le Center St. Joseph Brooklyn Center LeRoy St. Francis Cambridge Lonsdale Sartell Canby Luverne Sauk Rapids Center City Madison Lake Scandia Champlin Maple Grove Sebeka Chaska Maple Plain Shoreview Chisholm Maplewood Shorewood Clara City Mayer Sleepy Eye Cloquet Mendota Heights Stillwater Comfrey Minnetonka Tracy Coon Rapids Minnetrista Truman Crookston Moorhead Verndale Crosby Morgan Wadena Crosslake Mountain Lake Waite Park Curve New Prague Walnut Grove Delano New Ulm Watkins Dodge Center New Prague West St. Paul East Grand Forks North Mankato Wheaton Edina Norwood Young America Windom Fairmont Nowthen Worthington Falcon Heights Oak Park Heights Wyoming Grand Rapids Pelican Rapids Zumbrota Granite Falls Pine City Grant Pipestone 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281 -1200 FAX: (651) 281 -1299 ST. PAUL, MN 55103 -2044 TOLL MEE: (800) 925 -1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.OP.G HF 745 2nd Engrossment - 88th Legislature (2013 - 2014) Minnesota State Legislature Minnesota House of Representatives HF 745 2nd Engrossment - 88th Legislature (2013 - 2014) Posted on 04/02/2013 03:I2pm KEY: stricken = removed, old language. underscored = added, new language. Version List Authors and Status 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to municipalities; authorizing municipalities to establish street 1.3 improvement districts and apportion street improvement fees within districts; 1.4 requiring adoption of street improvement plan; authorizing collection of fees; 1.5 proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 435. L6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: L7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 1.1.7 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.21 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.s 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.1.3 2.14 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 2.26 2.27 2.28 2.29 2.30 Section 1. T435.391 MUNICIPAL STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. Subdivision 1. Definitions, a For the purposes of this section the followincl terms have the meanings given them. their repair-, millin • overlaying; drainage and storm sewers -excavation; base work; sub..grade corrections; street lighting;,, traffic signals: signage; sidewalks; pavement markings; boulevard and easement restoration; mitigation; connection and reconnection of utilities: turn lanes; medians; street and alley returns, retaining . walls; fences: lane additions; and fixed transit infrastructure trails or pathways. "f=ixed transit infrastructure" does not include commuter rail rolling stock light rail vehicles or transit way buses; capital costs for park - and, -ride facilities; feasibility studies, planning, alternative analyses, environmental studies,, engineering, or construction of transit ways; or operating assistance for transit ways, d "Maintenance" means striping, seal copting, crack .sealing, avement repair, sidewalk maintenance signal maintenance street li ht maintenance and si na e. e "Municipal street" means a street alley, or public way in which the municipality is the road authority with powers conferred by section 429.021. (f) "Municipality" means a home charter or statutory city. (q) "Street improvement district" means a geographic area designated by a municipality and located within the municipality _ within which street improvements and maintenance may be undertaken and financed, according to this section h "Undevelo ed arcel" means a parcel of land that abuts an unimproved municipal street and that is not served by municipal sewer or water utilities; or in the case of a parcel abutting an improved. municipal street and served by municipal sewer or water utilities the parcel contains a structure that has not previously been occupied. Subd. 2. Authorization. A municipality may establish. ordinance municipal street improvement districts and may defray all or part of the total costs of municipal street improvements and maintenance by apportioning street improvement fees to all of the classification of real estate. Subd. 4. Adoption of plan. Before establishin a municipal street improvement district or authorizinq a street improvement fee, a municipality must propose and adopt a street improvement plan that identifies the location of the municipal street improvement district and identifies and estimates the costs of the proposed improvements during the proposed period of collection of municipa[.street improvement fees,, which must be for a period of at least five years and at most,2,0_years. Notice of a public hearing on the proposed plan must be given by mail to all affected landowners at least 30 days before the hearing and posted for at least 30 days before the hearing At the public hearing, the governing body must present the pfan and ,al,l . affected landowners in _attendance must have the opportunity to comment before the governing body considers adoption of the plan. Subd. 5. Use of fees. Revenues from street improvement fees must be placed in a separate account and used only_ for projects located within the district and,.identified in the municipal street improvement plan. Page 1 of 2 https:// www .revisor.mn,govlbillsltext.php ?number= HF745& version =2 &session- ls88 &sessi... 4/9/2014 HF 745 2nd Engrossment - 88th Legislature (2013 - 2014) Page 2 of 2 2-31 Subd. 6. Collection; up, to 20 -years. (a) An ordinance adopted under this section 2.32 must provide for billing and payment of the fee on a monthly, quarterly, or other basis 2.33 as directed by the governing bod . The governing body may collect municipal street 2.34 improvement fees within a street improvement district for a maximum of 20 years. 3.1 (b) Fees that, as of October 16 of each year, have remained unpaid for at least 30 3.2 days may be certified to the county auditor for collection. as „a special assessment payable 3.3 in the following calendar year against the affected property. 3.4 Subd. 7. Improvement fee. A municipality may impose _a, municipal street 3.5 improvement fee by ordinance. The ordinance must not be voted on or adopted until after 3.6 public notice is provided and a public hearing is. held in the same manner as provided in 3.7 subdivision 4. 3.8 Subd. 8. Not exclusive means of financing improvements. The use of the 3.9 munici al street im rovement fee by a municipality does not restrict the municigality from 3.10 imposing other measures to pay the costs of local street improvements or maintenance, 3.11 except that a municipality must not impose special assessments for projects funded with 3.12 street improvement fees. 3.13 Subd. 9. Undeveloped parcels; fees. A municipality may not impose street 3.14 improvement fee on any undeveloped parcel located within an established street 3.15 improvement district until at least three years after either the date of.substantial completion 3.16 of the paving of the previous unimproved municipal street or the which a previously 3.17 unoccupied structure is first occupied, whichever is later. 3.18 EFFECTIVE DATE.This. section is effective July 1, 2013. https:/1 www .revisor.mn.govlbillsltext.php ?number =HF745 &version =2 &session= 1s88 &sessi... 4/9/2014