Loading...
07-13-15 CC Reg Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JULY 13, 2015 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby___ Labadie___ Siakel___ Sundberg___ Woodruff___ B. Review Agenda Attachments 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes of June 22, 2015 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2015 Minutes 3. CONSENT AGENDA – Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List B. Postage Meter Lease Renewal Clerk’s memo C. Stantec Additional Services Agreement Administrator’s memo D. Special Event Permit, 5K Event for Minnewashta School Director of Public Works’ memo 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS A. Fencing - Community Garden Planning Director’s memo 8. PLANNING A. Friendly – Request for Partial Right-of-Way Vacation Planning Director’s Easement Agreement, 5590 Shore Road memo CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – July 13, 2015 Page 2 B. Minor Subdivision Planning Director’s Applicant: Steve and Jane Korin memo, Resolution Location: 6135 Cathcart Drive 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Receive Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids Engineer’s memo for Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Resolution B. Freeman Park Area Drainage Study - Draft Report Discussion Engineer’s memo C. Request for Change in the Posted Speed Limit, Cathcart Drive Director of Public Works’ memo D. Request for Change in the Posted Speed Limit and No Outlet Sign Request, Director of Public Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane Works’ memo E. Boulder Bridge Storm Water Pond Outlet Discussion Engineer’s memo 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Hazardous Structures/Premises – 28015 Woodside Rd Planning Director’s memo 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trails Schedule Trails Schedule 2. Police Chief Search Update 3. Christmas Lake 4. Covington Road Manhole Rehabilitation (MCEC Project) 5. Minnetonka Country Club B. Mayor and City Council 12. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, July 13, 2015 7:00 p.m. 5:30 PM – City Council Executive Session 6:00 PM – City Council Work Session Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the June 22, 2015 Council Work Session Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the June 22, 2015 Regular Council meeting Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list. Agenda Item #3B: This motion approves the renewal of the Pitney Bowes postage meter lease for approximately a 3-year term at the same rate of $197/quarter. Agenda Item #3C: This motion approves the Additional Services Agreement with Stantec for services relating to the Minnetonka Country Club project. Service fees will remain the same as stated in the original agreement. Agenda Item #3D: This is consideration of the 5k Event for Minnewashta School. Staff is recommending approval. Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no Council action will be taken. Agenda Item #5: There are no public hearings scheduled this evening. Agenda Item #6: There are no scheduled reports or presentations this evening. Agenda Item #7A: Per Council direction, staff has obtained a quote for the cost of fencing at the community gardens at Freeman Park and the Skate Park. Staff seeks direction on proceeding with the installations. Agenda Item #8A: Ian and Carol Friendly have submitted an easement and maintenance agreement for the turnaround on their property at the end of Shore Road. Due to extraordinary costs of construction for a surface that will support snow plow equipment, they have requested that the City split the cost of construction with them. The City’s share would be up to $10,000. Agenda Item #8B: Janie Korin has requested approval of a minor subdivision for her property at 6135 Cathcart Drive. Her revised plans reflect the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of July 13, 2015 Page 2 Agenda Item #9A: Staff recommends Approval of Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvement Project, City project 14-10. Agenda Item #9B: Staff requests Council input on the preliminary draft drainage study for the Freeman Park Area Drainage Study, due to the potential cost of the unfunded improvements. Agenda Item #9C: This motion accepts the petition for a speed reduction request for Cathcart Drive from 30 mph to 25 mph. Agenda Item #9D: This motion accepts the petition for a speed reduction request for Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane from 30 mph to 25 mph. Agenda Item #9E: Staff requests Council direction for the proposed improvements to the Boulder Bridge Pond Outlet Project. The Council accepted the feasibility study without further action in February, 2015, with the intent of discussing at the Council Staff Retreat. Due to other issues that needed discussion at the retreat, this item discussion was postponed. Agenda Item #10A: Based upon neighborhood complaints, staff is recommending condemnation proceedings for the hazardous property at 28015 Woodside Road. Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2015 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby Absent: None B. Review Agenda Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. XCEL ENERGY POWER OUTAGE DISCUSSION Administrator Joynes noted that Council had asked staff to invite representatives from Xcel Energy (Xcel) to come and talk with Council about power outages in Shorewood. Michelle Swanson noted that she is the Community Relations Manager for Xcel for the southwest metropolitan area. She serves about 35 communities including Shorewood. She then noted that with her this evening is Kim Marinac who is the Area Engineer for Xcel for Shorewood and the surrounding area. She explained they have been asked to talk about some recent outages in the area. Engineers investigated outages for two years for three different addresses in Shorewood provided to them by Director Brown. Ms. Marinac will review the outage history and the causes for them and talk about what Xcel does on a proactive basis. She noted Xcel takes reliability very seriously. On behalf of Xcel, she thanked residents for their patience and any inconvenience the outages have caused. Ms. Swanson turned control over to Ms. Marinac. Ms. Marinac stated her office is in Shorewood and she serves many of the communities west of Shorewood. She works on reliability issues. She also works with Xcel’s designers and construction crews who design and build Xcel’s infrastructure. Ms. Marinac noted tree trimming is done on a 4 – 5 year cycle. Ms. Marinac reviewed the results of the outage investigation for the three addresses they were asked to report on. Each of the properties received their electricity from a different feeder. Outages are categorized as either preventable or unpreventable. The highlights are as follows. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 2 of 8 – Address 1 – 5680 Christopher Road The area is fed out of Xcel’s substation in the City of Excelsior. The trees were last trimmed in 2012. There were four outages. Three failures were at the feeder level and one was at the substation level. The outage lengths were: momentary; 1 hour 2 minutes; 2 hours 6 minutes; and, 2 hour 29 minutes. She noted what failed and what repairs were made. The substation was infrared tested by June 14, 2015. She will submit a job to get the transformer that feeds the 6 – 7 homes in that area upgraded. Address 2 – 4485 Enchanted Cove – The area is fed out of the Xcel’s substation in the City of Mound. The trees were last trimmed in December 2013. There were six outages all caused by trees and all but one were unpreventable. The outage lengths were: 4 minutes; 1 hour 11 minutes; 2 hours 12 minutes; 2 hours 40 minutes; 3 hours 2 minutes; and, 4 hours 42 minutes. She noted what failed and what repairs were made. Because of the number of tree issues the tree trimming supervisor with do periodic checks on tree conditions. Address 3 – 5770 Marsh Point Drive – The area is fed out of the Xcel’s substation in the western part of the City of Waconia. The feeder out of that substation is very long and it has a lot of exposure. The trees were last trimmed in 2012 and 2013. There were 11 outages. One was caused by a rotten tree. Two were caused by squirrels. It is difficult to keep them out of the equipment no matter what prevention attempts were made. Three were caused by Ospreys building a nest on a pole. The outage lengths were: momentary (15 seconds or less) for five; 1 hour 28 minutes; 1 hour 47 minutes; 2 hours 38 minutes; 2 hours 46 minutes; 3 hours 7 minutes; and, 7 hours 5 minutes. She noted what failed and what repairs were made. Ms. Marinac explained Xcel is trying to build a new substation in the City of Chaska. It would have two different lines coming out of it. The new substation would benefit Shorewood and other communities in the area because the feeders will break up some of the very long feeder line from west Waconia. Unfortunately, Xcel has encountered some conditional use issues with Chaska. Hopefully things can get resolved. If Xcel is granted the right to build the substation the goal is to have it online by the fall of 2016. Councilmember Sundberg thanked Ms. Marinac for coming and noted that she understands the challenges Xcel has. She stated the most frequent issue residents bring directly to her attention is power outages. She explained that she had previously lived in the City of Minnetonka which also has many trees and she never experienced the number of outages that she has while living in Shorewood. An outage doesn’t just mean residents are without lights it also creates significant health issues for residents with medical equipment in their homes, issues for those who work out of their homes, and it prevents access to well water. Ms. Marinac encouraged people who need medical equipment to function to call Xcel and have their account flagged as such and that does come up when the dispatcher is looking at outages. The dispatcher will take that into account. Sundberg noted that residents are buying generators because of the high number of power outages. Sundberg asked Ms. Marinac if she has comparative data that shows outages for Shorewood and other communities in her service area. Ms. Marinac stated it is not done at that level. There may be comparative data for the west metro area versus east metro area. She noted that Xcel has to file many reliability numbers with the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). Sundberg stated it is difficult to locate that information. Sundberg stated it appears that there is too much equipment that at been in the field too long. Ms. Marinac explained that Xcel does take some proactive measures. It has a 10 – 12 year pole testing cycle which it implemented about seven years ago. It involves drilling into a pole, going down into the ground and taking a sample for testing. If the sample indicates rotting, the pole has to be replaced within a certain amount of CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 3 of 8 time. All feeders (the main circuits coming out of the substations) are infrared tested every four years. Xcel does not proactively replace transformers, for example, because it is too costly unless Xcel implements tremendous rate increases. From an area engineering perspective, she will look at loads and she will assess whether equipment is up to standard. If it is not up to standard or if there are consistent failures she will ask to have the equipment replaced. Sundberg noted today people are extremely dependent on electric power. She stated Xcel needs to find solutions to reduce the number of outages. Ms. Marinac noted that none of the outages she talked about were because of a failure of an underground cable. She explained that Xcel has a lot of cable underground. When an underground main cable fails Xcel needs to isolate it and make repairs the first time. If it fails again within a certain period of time, Xcel has a system called “fast path” which involves replacing the cable within 60 days. That system was implemented in 2014. Mayor Zerby asked if there is a higher number of outages in Shorewood than in other communities and commented that it seems to residents that outages are on the rise. Ms. Marinac stated she does not have an answer to that. Xcel uses different indices. She stated she would try to provide that information later in the week. Zerby stated he went to the PUC’s website and tried to find the out what the service level expectations are for Xcel. He could not find that information. All he found is appropriate service will be provided. Zerby asked Ms. Marinac if she thinks there is trend of the number of outages increasing in Shorewood. Ms. Marinac stated based on the data for addresses 1 and 2 which are serviced out of the substations in Mound and Excelsior she does not see much of a change. For the address serviced 3 out of the west Waconia station Xcel knows outages are increasing. That feeder line is very long and there is a lot of exposure. Zerby asked Ms. Marinac if she has found a correlation between the budget and being proactive. Has the budget gone up, down or remained flat? Ms. Marinac stated the budget fluctuates based on activities going on throughout Xcel and noted that she does not know what the budget is for maintenance. Zerby questioned if equipment in the field is not being replaced fast enough. Ms. Marinac noted Xcel’s reliability group, which operates out of Denver, Colorado, has spoken with Xcel’s upper management about the aging infrastructure. Councilmember Siakel asked Ms. Marinac if Xcel has a strategic plan for its infrastructure. She stated the outages discussed would have been preventable if the power lines had been buried. She noted the City has a 20-Year Pavement Improvement Plan. She asked if burying the lines is part of a plan and if not why not. Ms. Marinac explained Xcel’s planning group that looks at things 5 – 10 years out does consider future capacity needs. That group helped get the funding for the proposed substation in Chaska. When that substation is built, some equipment that substation serves will be brought up to standard. If cities or counties or customers want power lines undergrounded they will have to pay the incremental cost to do that. She noted that Xcel has a very large project in Minnetonka and lines will be put underground for a number of miles. Councilmember Labadie asked how many feeders service Shorewood. Ms. Marinac responded she thought a maximum of four or five but she would have to look at a map to confirm that. Labadie stated that citizens on the eastern side of Shorewood, such as the Christmas Lake area, are not represented in the outages CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 4 of 8 presented. Two of the feeders for the outages were for western Shorewood and one was for out on the Islands. She asked if the City paid for the report or was it done as a courtesy. Ms. Marinac responded it was a courtesy. Labadie asked if an outage investigation could be done for the other feeder(s). That would give Council an outage snap shot for the entire City. Ms. Marinac stated she could do that but it would be only at a feeder level; the main lines coming out of the Deephaven substation. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like to get several years of data for outages in Shorewood. He then stated he thought there were outages out on the Islands that impacted properties beyond his property but did not impact his property. He expressed that looking at outages for specific addresses may not include enough data to make the evaluation accurate. In response to a comment from Woodruff, Ms. Marinac clarified the report was for sustained outages. She noted that Xcel’s equipment does not capture outages of 10 – 15 seconds. Residents would have to call those in. Woodruff then stated that from his perspective trimming trees is extremely important because it reduces the number of outages. But, the way the trees were trimmed was bad. The trimmers whacked the trees. Some were cut to a height of 10 feet off of the ground and no limbs were left. The tree trimming company basically told residents “tough luck”. Councilmember Siakel stated residents definitely think there is a serious problem with outages but she does not perceive Xcel recognizes the outages as a problem. She suggested a true assessment of the problem be done. She noted she lost power at her property very recently. She expressed concern that the problem is not being acknowledged and that there is no plan to resolve it. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like Council to be provided comparative data. She suspects Shorewood is on edge of receiving acceptable service from Xcel. That comparative data could help Xcel personnel convey more funding is needed for maintenance in high outage areas. Ms. Marinac stated she will try and get that comparative data. Ms. Marinac stated the area engineers receive a weekly report about equipment that fails twice or more in a year for the same reason. Then area engineers have to report back on what action was taken. There is another report that looks at it from a customer perspective. That report shows customers who lost power six or more times in a year. There are measures in place to alert area engineers to what is going on in their service areas. In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel, Ms. Marinac stated every customer that has an outage should call it in. Councilmember Siakel stated when the power is out a customer may not have access to the internet so it is not easy to report an outage. The system is not user friendly. Siakel suggested the City encourage its residents to report outages and to tell them how to in its newsletter. Councilmember Sundberg asked staff if there is anything Council and staff can do to help Xcel get approval from Chaska for the new substation. Director Brown responded adopting a resolution of support would help. Doug Miller, 26850 Marsh Point Circle, asked why there is such a long distance between Marsh Point and the feeder when there is a feeder in Shorewood. Ms. Marinac explained the feeder from western Waconia is 35,000 volts and the one in close by is 13,000 volts. Caution has to be exercised not to over load the 13,000 volt line. Xcel made a decision 20 years ago to go with the higher voltage because it could go a longer distance and serve many more customers. Mr. Miller stated since he moved to where he lived in 2003 the outages have been horrible. Mayor Zerby noted that part of the residents at Marsh Point have underground lines. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 5 of 8 Chris Lizée, 5705 Brentridge Drive, noted she lives in an area serviced by the western Waconia substation. She stated she is thrilled to hear a new substation may be built in Chaska that could provide power more efficiently to the area she lives in. She then stated that all of the outages she heard about during this work session were for service provided by lines above ground. She encouraged Council to work with Xcel in a proactive way to bury power lines underground. She explained they had the power line buried for the first home she and her family lived in but it still went to a pole. For their second home, the one they live in now, the entire development is serviced by lines underground but the power still comes from a pole. She stated if the feeder power lines could be buried she thought the residents would appreciate that and she did not think they would mind paying a little more. Mayor Zerby thanked Ms. Marinac and Ms. Swanson for coming this evening. He stated Council appreciates getting information from Xcel and hopes to receive additional information about power outages in Shorewood. He noted the information will be placed on the City’s website. 3. ALTERNATIVE ENERGY STUDY UPDATE Bryan Ross, with Great Plains Institute (GPI), noted he and two of his colleagues, Abby Finis and Michael Orange, are present to provide Council with an interim update on the renewable energy assessment it is doing for the City. The last time he spoke with Council he was working for his own firm CR Planning. Since then his firm merged with GPI (a nonprofit organization). He explained that Mr. Orange is doing all of the baseline benchmarking analysis for energy usage, greenhouse gas and for forth. He clarified that they are not ready to make any recommendations yet. They will present their findings to date. Mr. Ross explained GPI focuses primarily on clean energy work that includes facilitating discussions between stakeholders. Currently it is working with some environmental groups. It also works with communities on sustainability issues. It does some policy analysis and technical analysis as well. Most of its work is done in the Midwest with the bulk of it being done in Minnesota. For the City’s project there are four deliverables. The first is an assessment of the City’s operations in terms of energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It is the most detailed and laborious. The second is a community wide assessment. It is a little easier to do that the first. They have most of the data for that analysis. The third is a renewable energy analysis. It involves assessing what the resources in the City are and identifying opportunities for the City to participate more in renewable energy development if the City wanted. The fourth deliverable is the financial analysis. It involves taking into account what is available in the City and what the options are moving ahead in terms of making cost effective investments and investments that have some type of return. After the benchmarking is complete it will require some prioritization. Mr. Orange noted he has completed the Citywide baseline assessment. He explained a graph of the Citywide GHG emissions (tonnes) by sector for 2013. There are three study years – 2011, 2012 and 2013. The six sectors and percent of the Citywide emissions total were: natural gas – 27 percent; electricity – 25 percent; vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – 25 percent; miles to the airport – 20 percent: solid waste – 2 percent; and, wastewater treatment – 1 percent. There are complex formulas for calculating the miles traveled. The airport miles are a share of a total. He displayed bar charts showing the Citywide GHG emissions, energy and costs as a percentage of the total. There was a reasonable correlation between the emissions and energy associated with them for the VMT and airport. Electricity is responsible for 14 percent of the energy and 25 percent of the emissions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 6 of 8 More than one-half of the energy used to create electricity is lost in the generation and transmission of electricity. Natural gas is responsible for 27 percent of the emissions yet delivers 38 percent of energy. He displayed three line charts showing the Citywide per-capita GHG emissions (tonnes), per-capita energy (measured in MMBtu (British thermal unit)), and per-capita costs for residential energy, commercial/industrial energy, transportation (VMT and airport) and solid waste/wastewater for 2011 – 2013. By analyzing it by per-capita and weather helped normalize the charts. He explained the three charts. Mr. Orange stated the data he reviewed gives the City a benchmark. As the City implements the recommendations adopted as part of the plan the City should be able to see the Citywide graphs change. He will provide the City with transparent information and all of the formulas he used. Staff will be able to take things over. He will provide the same for the City operations. Councilmember Labadie stated that in the final packet the Council will receive from GPI she asked that there be an explanation how the airport miles share and the vehicle miles traveled were arrived at. Mr. Orange stated it is explained in his report. Ms. Finis provided Minnesota wind facts. She displayed a map of Minnesota’s wind resources by wind speed at a height of 30 meters (about 90 – 100 feet). She explained the data came from the Minnesota Department of Commerce. That Department took wind speeds over the course of one year to get annual, average speeds. The best wind resources are in the southwest corner of the State. The northeast corner of the State where it is more forested is not a very good wind resource. In Shorewood the wind speed at 30 meters is about 4 – 6 meters per second (roughly 10 – 12 miles per hour) and at 80 meters it is 6 – 8 meters per second. At 80 meters that exceeds the 200-foot threshold for FAA regulations and that would cause a lot of issues. Mr. Ross explained the City does not have much of a wind resource that is economically feasibility. However, it does have a substantial solar resource. The State put out very good solar resource data last year down to a one meter resolution for the entire state. That helped in analyzing the solar resource in Shorewood. He displayed a picture of the solar resource in the City. The best solar resource in the City is on top of the water because there is no shade. The trees inhibit capturing the solar resource. The City does have a really good urban forest. He and his colleagues are doing a solar analysis on several fronts and they will provide an analysis of the solar reserve in the City including the roof top solar reserve. A detailed analysis is being done for the rooftops of public buildings. The Southshore Center roof has about 20 kW (kilowatt) of solar generating capacity. It would generate 25,000 kWhs a year if the City put a solar system on that building. That is about the equivalent of about two homes worth of energy use. The roof on the Public Works facility has about 81 kW of solar generating capacity. A solar system there would generate about 105,105 kWhs annually. The solar generating capacity on the public buildings roof tops, if the City decides to go that way, will eventually be compared to the actual energy usage in the buildings. The total solar generating capacity that could be generated on rooftops in Shorewood is not enormous because of the volume of trees. An analysis of potential ground-mount systems has not been done yet. That will not happen until there has been a discussion about what Council’s priorities are. Mr. Ross then explained they have some analysis of how the City regulates the private sector investment in solar energy. Zoning ordinances have been reviewed with regard to private sector solar development. A detailed analysis was done for solar energy land uses and amendment options were given to Director Nielsen for comment. GPI personnel can help the City do the same for wind energy land uses if Council desires. The primary thing they would assess is if there is an opportunity to do private sector towers and building mounted wind (which he thinks is a bad idea). They reviewed the City’s planned unit development CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 7 of 8 (PUD) regulations because of the proposed redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) property. They provided staff with some language that could be added to the PUD ordinance. He suggested the developer know what the City’s priorities are before entering into PUD discussions. They reviewed the City’s permitting process and made some recommendations about changes that could be made for solar permitting requirements to help make that process more transparent and predictable. Ms. Finis explained they analyzed the various financial incentives available for these technologies and including energy efficiency for residential, commercial and Shorewood. The PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) program is run by the St. Paul Port Authority. It basically allows a commercial entity to finance their projects (energy efficiency and solar energy) with no upfront costs through a revolving loan fund and it is paid back via an assessment on their property taxes. Shorewood would have a small role as the middle man between the commercial property and the Port Authority. Trillion BTU is a large revolving loan fund and is basically a financing structure set up between the St. Paul Port Authority and works directly with the commercial entity for energy efficiency and solar energy projects. Rebates are available through the utility programs for energy efficiency, solar energy and ground source heat pumps. Tax credits are available through the end of 2016 for solar energy, wind energy and ground source heat pumps. GESP (Guaranteed Energy Savings Program) is offered by the State of Minnesota for energy efficiency, solar energy, wind energy and ground source heat pumps. The City can take advantage of that program. It is for local governments to finance their projects. There are no upfront costs. There are two technology specific programs available for consideration – Windsource (it is offered by Xcel Energy) and Community Solar Gardens. The Community Solar Gardens program would allow the City to purchase solar power from a garden that may not be located in the City. Through the Gardens the City’s role could be an educator, a subscriber or a host (have a solar garden on its public land or roof space). The Metropolitan Council is aggregating cities to do this. Councilmember Sundberg asked when the assessment is supposed to be completed. Mr. Ross explained the big gap is in getting all of the data needed to do the City operations baseline analysis. That is a complex data gathering effort. There has been back and forth with Xcel Energy making sure they are getting the correct data from Xcel. That has not been totally settled yet. They are waiting to get data related to the buildings from City staff. It is taking longer to get City operations data than originally thought. The ground work has been created so once they receive the rest of the data it should not take long to do the remainder of the analysis and create the report. Mr. Orange stated that once he gets the rest of the data it will not take him long to analyze it and generate the report. Mr. Ross clarified that if they miss one little piece of the data it could change the analysis. Sundberg asked when the work on the PUD can begin. Mr. Ross clarified there is nothing about the data that is limiting the City from doing that. He explained they would be happy to give Council and staff what they need in pieces. Sundberg stated because of the redevelopment of the MCC property she thought it prudent to talk about PUD sooner versus later. In response to a comment from Councilmember Siakel, Mr. Ross stated they have already provided language for things the City could do with its PUD ordinance. Council can discuss more specific recommendations with Director Nielsen. He noted he discussed the language with John Shardlow with Stantec Consultant Services Inc. Stantec coordinated the MCC Planning Advisory Committee’s activities. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to gain an understanding of how well the PUD ordinance recommendations have worked in other communities. Mr. Ross stated that based on his experience if the developer knows in advance what a city’s priorities are they are frequently able to accommodate them. He noted he would be happy to provide Council with the memorandum he gave to Director Nielsen. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 8 of 8 Mayor Zerby asked Director Nielsen if that is on the Planning Commission’s work plan. Nielsen responded yes. 4. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of June 22, 2015, at 7:25 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2015 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Joynes; City Clerk Panchyshyn; Finance Director DeJong; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and City Engineer Hornby Absent: None. B. Review Agenda Administrator Joynes stated that during the work session immediately preceding this meeting Council indicated it wanted to add Item 10.B Resolution in Support of a New Xcel Energy Substation in Chaska be added to the agenda. Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, June 8, 2015 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 8, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Establishing Dates for the 2015 Deer Management Program C. Accepting a Donation for Shorewood Parks D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-046, “A Resolution Adopting Performance Measures.” E. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-047, “A Resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for 2015 Crackfill and Seal Coat Project, City Project No. 15-03.” CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 2 of 16 F. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-048, “A Resolution Approving Plans, Specifications and Authorizing Advertisements for Bids for Lift Station 11 Rehabilitation Project, City Project 13-03.” Councilmember Siakel stated there are four weekends specified in the documentation for Item 3.B the 2015 Deer Management Program. She asked if an alternate weekend could be added in case one of the four weekends is rainy. Director Nielsen stated he would do that. Councilmember Labadie stated the Computer Check Proof List by Vendor shows a check was written to vendor 184 Gregory Fasching for Child Care Reimbursement. She asked what that is. Director DeJong explained there is a child care account setup that is tax free. Mr. Fashing takes money out of his check into that account and submits his child care expenses for reimbursement out of the account. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein subject to adding an alternative weekend to the 2015 Deer Management Program. Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. 2014 Audit Report by Abdo, Eick and Meyers Mayor Zerby noted Andy Berg, with the independent CPA firm of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP, is present to provide an overview of the City of Shorewood’s 2014 financial audit. Mr. Berg noted the firm he works for issued a clean opinion on the City’s financial statements. The firm also issued a separate report on Minnesota League of Compliance; there were seven different categories that are tested. That also received a clean opinion. There were not any compliance issues with Minnesota Statutes. He stated there were two 2014 material audit findings. One was for having an old city administrator’s name on an investment account. That has been taken care of. The other was for untimely bank reconciliations. He provided a financial overview of the City’s General Fund expenditures and revenues. He displayed a five-year trend graph of the City’s General Fund balance and how it relates to the next year’s expense budget. He explained the City’s General Fund balance was about 72 percent of 2015 budgeted expenditures at the end of 2014. The City’s General Fund Balance Policy requires a fund balance of 55 – 60 percent of the next year’s expenditures. That has been more than maintained over the last five years. He highlighted the summary of the 2014 operations. The summary showed final budgeted amounts, actual amounts and variances from the final budgets. Revenues were close to $184,000 over budget. That was primarily because Licenses and Permits were higher than budgeted. Expenses were about $312,000 under budget. That was mainly in the Public Works and General Government areas. Just over $1.315 million CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 3 of 16 was transferred out to other City funds; about $283,400 more than what was budgeted. The General Fund balance increased approximately $109,000 in 2014. The ending fund balance was just under $4.1 million. He displayed a graph comparing five sources of revenues excluding property taxes and transfers in for 2010 – 2014. He explained that property taxes made up about 86.6 percent of the revenues in 2014. The revenues from licenses and permits have been increasing slightly each of the last five years mainly due to permits with a little higher increase in 2014. He displayed a graph comparing five sources of expenditures and transfers out for 2010 – 2014. He explained the majority of the City’s expenditures are in general government and public safety with them being 21.7 percent and 27.7 percent respectively of the total expenditures and transfers out. The 2014 transfers out were just over $1.315 million; they totaled about $1 million in 2013. He explained that at the end of 2014 the bonds outstanding totaled about $8.135 million and the total interest remaining for the life of the bonds is about $1.75 million. He displayed a graph of the principal and interest scheduled payments for 2015 – 2028. In 2023 the bonded debt for the public safety facilities will be paid off. There will only be the 2008 lease revenue bonded debt remaining; at the end of 2014 there was just over $1 million in principal remaining. He displayed a table of the City’s capital project funds. The six funds totaled approximately $3.3 million at the end of 2014. That reflects an approximate increase of about $80,700. The Street Reconstruction Fund decreased close to $607,000. The Trail Construction Fund increase about $517,000 due to Municipal State Aid funding. The Park Capital Improvement Fund increased about $323,000 mainly because proceeds from the sale of the City-owned property were transferred in. Mr. Berg highlighted the Enterprise Funds (water, sewer, recycling, and storm water management). For each fund he displayed a cash flow graph and a cash balance graph for 2011 – 2014. In 2013 the City refunded the G. O. Water Revenue bonds with some of the payback in both 2013 and 2014. The Water Fund cash receipts have been covering the operating disbursements. The operating receipts decreased the last two years. There was a decrease in the ending cash balance when compared to 2013 due mainly to the payoff of the bonds due to the refunding transaction. The year-end balance was close to $4 million. That has been fairly consistent over the last four years except for 2013 when there were more restricted funds related to the bonds. Mr. Berg stated the Sewer Fund cash flow graph indicates there are no outstanding bonds for sewer operations. The cash receipts from operations have been consistent to cover operating cash disbursements. The cash balance is significant in relation to the minimum target balance of four months of operating disbursements. The 2014 year-end cash balance was about $3.2 million. The Recycling Fund is basically a break-even fund. Receipts were higher than disbursements in 2014. The cash balance graph shows the cash balance increased in 2014 when compared to 2013. It went up in 2013 and 2014. The 2014 the year-end cash balance was approximately $70,000. The recommended minimum target balance is three months of operating costs based on a three-month billing cycle. The Stormwater Management Utility Fund cash flow graph indicates the cash receipts from operations have been fairly consistent over the last four years. There was a slight increase in 2014. The cash balance decreased by about $30,000 in 2014 when compared to 2013. It was about $119,000 at the end of 2014. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 4 of 16 Mr. Berg reviewed some of the items in the ratio analysis over a four year period comparing some of the City’s financial ratios to peer group ratios. The City’s debt-to-assets ratio (for the City’s assets this measures how much is owed for them) is 26 percent; 4 percent lower than the 2013 peer group’s average. The City’s taxes-per-capita ratio is $645; the 2013 peer group’s was $487. It has been consistent over the four-year period. The City’s current-expenditures-per-capita ratio is $502; the 2013 peer group’s was $634. It has been decreasing 2012 - 2014. Mr. Berg stated the new GASB (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) Statement 68 relates to pension reporting. It has to be implemented in fiscal year 2015. The main pension plan the City participates in is the Public Employee Retirement Association (PERA) plan. PERA has unfunded liabilities and none of its member cities or other governments recognize their portion of the liability on their financial statements. The new standard will have each member city recognize their share of the unfunded pension liability. It will mainly be a year-end accounting transaction and it will show up on the City’s financial statements. It is currently a note disclosure with no liability recorded. In response to a question from Councilmember Siakel with regard to the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association’s (EFRA’S) fund for pensions, Mr. Berg explained an actuarial report will have to be done. Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Berg for his efforts and for coming this evening. He stated he thought Mr. Berg did a great job as always and that his report was well done. He noted that expenditures and revenues are becoming more consistent throughout all of the City’s operations. He commented he thought the 2014 findings were minimal and he stated he assumes bank reconciliations will be more timely going forward. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, accepting the draft 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Siakel asked Director DeJong if he anticipates the 2015 year-end General Fund balance to be about 72 percent of the 2016 operating expenses. DeJong noted that is difficult to project at this time. He explained that for 2014 the biggest fluctuation in revenues was for building permits and fees. For 2015 to date they are about as expected. For 2015 there is a budgeted deficit of about $140,000. For 2014 it was about $102,000. He believes the reserve ratio will go down a little because expenses will go up and revenues will stay about the same. He clarified that the reason a deficit is budgeted is that every year revenues are at or above budget and expenses are at or below budget. But, staff does not know where the variances will be. B. Public Information Meeting on the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Mayor Zerby opened the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) Public Information Meeting at 7:52 P.M. Director Brown noted Jesse Carlson is a stormwater management expert with WSB & Associates, Inc. Mr. Carlson stated he is present to make a presentation about the progress the City made during 2014 on its SWPPP and to provide an overview of what will be done next with regard to stormwater management. He explained holding a public information meeting about the City’s SWPPP is a requirement for obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) General Permit. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) administers the MS4 permit. Last year the City’s new application for its General Permit was adopted by the MPCA. In that application the City committed to doing a number of things to comply with the new program. The permit CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 5 of 16 will expire in 2018. In the not too distant future the MPCA will start to revise the requirements for the next permit. He noted that this meeting provides the public an opportunity to comment on the SWPPP. He explained that all cities within the seven-county metro area are regulated. Communities outside of the metro area that have populations of at least 10,000 (per the 2010 census) are also designated MS4. Shorewood has been designated an MS4 since 2003. Some agencies (e.g., the Minnesota Department of Transportation, watershed districts colleges, county lands/right-of-ways) may also be designated MS4 by the MPCA. Agriculture is not regulated by an MS4 permit. He then explained the City’s SWPPP has six minimum control measures (MCMs).  MCM 1 – Public Education and Outreach  MCM 2 – Public Participation and Involvement  MCM 3 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination  MCM 4 – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control  MCM 5 – Post-Construction Stormwater Management  MCM 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations He reviewed the progress the City had made in 2014 to satisfy the MS4 Permit.  Public Education/Outreach City website – it has a lot of information about stormwater related activities  City newsletter – published articles about stormwater related information  Resident guide – it contains information about what residents can do with things such as  lawns and landscaping Recycling   Construction site inspections – when the City does building site inspections it does look for erosion control issues. If there are complaints the City does follow up on them.  Post-construction plan reviews – the City is required to be concerned about construction sites that are one acre or more in size. There were three plan reviews in 2014.  Street sweeping – it is estimated that the City removes 57 pounds of phosphorus annually. Mr. Carlson highlighted the new requirements the City needs to undertake as a result of the new MS4 General Permit that became effective August 1, 2013. General  Complete revisions to the existing SWPPP to be in compliance with the new permit.  Create an organization chart that identifies what departments are responsible for specific  best management practice (BMP) activities, enforcement response procedures (ERPs) to compel compliance with illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE), construction erosion and sediment control, and post-construction stormwater management. Identify partnerships with other regulated MS4s, including written agreements.  Update the stormwater system map to include all pipes greater than 12 inches in  diameter, outfalls, structural stormwater BMPs, receiving waters, and ponds. Identify all approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and all activities that will be  completed to achieve compliance. Lake Virginia was the only one identified prior to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 6 of 16 issuance of Permits so it is the only one the City needs to worry about. The City has demonstrated that it is in compliance with the TMDL for Lake Virginia. Develop a mechanism to track activities being completed by Shorewood (educational  activities, complaints, plan reviews, inspections, etc.). MCM 1 – Public Education and Outreach  Prioritize Education Activities Within the City of Shorewood – areas without stormwater  treatment and areas discharging to water bodies that have degraded water quality. Educate the public and commercial businesses on IDDE with handouts, surveys,  newsletters, social media, etc. Document specific MCM 1 information.  MCM 2 – Public Participation and Involvement  Provide public notice of the annual public information meeting to provide the public an  opportunity to comment on or present issues with the City’s SWPPP. Document specific MCM 2 information.  MCM 3 – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination  Develop ERPs to compel compliance with IDDE Ordinances. Update the ERPs to  comply with the new permit coverage. Draft ordinance revisions which include definitions, right of entry, exemptions and  enforcement. This has been completed. They should come to Council for consideration in the near future. Develop written procedures for conducting on-going inspections and for responding to  illicit discharges, spill response, and priority areas. Priority areas to focus on for commercial areas in Shorewood include restaurant grease,  compact leachate, mop water and waste management. Complete training of all field staff in recognition of illicit discharges. Training is  scheduled for July 9, 2015. Document specific MCM 3 information.  MCM 4 – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control  Develop clear ERPs to compel compliance with construction site stormwater runoff  control. Update ordinances to comply with the new permit coverage for MCM 4. The ordinances  must be at least as restrictive as the MPCA construction general permit so that will be referenced in the ordinances. A draft of those ordinance amendments has been written. Develop written procedures for completing site plan reviews, inspections, and prioritizing  inspections. Create check-lists and inspection forms. Document specific MCM 4 information.  MCM 5 – Post-Construction Stormwater Management  Develop clear ERPs to compel compliance with post-construction site stormwater  management. Update ordinances to comply with the new permit coverage.  CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 7 of 16 New development of no net increase in volume, TSS (total suspended solids) and TP  (total phosphorous) from pre-project conditions. Redevelopment of net reduction of volume, TSS, and TP from pre-project conditions.  Watershed district standards must be taken into consideration.  Develop written procedures for site plan reviews.  Develop post construction regulatory mechanisms to allow Shorewood to conduct  inspections, perform maintenance, and assess costs to maintain structural stormwater BMPs constructed after the permit is in effect. Document specific MCM 5 information.  MCM 6 – Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations  Complete an inventory of City owned and operated facilities that contribute pollutants to  stormwater (e.g., maps, spreadsheets, clear BMPs). Develop written procedures and a schedule for evaluating the TSS and TP treatment  effectiveness of Shorewood's ponds that were constructed and used for the collection and treatment of stormwater. The City developed a Storm Water Asset management Program (SWAMP). It is a system  designed to help prioritize pond inspections and management activities. It involves doing a cost-benefit analysis on ponds that provide the most benefit. Prioritizing is critical because of the rise in disposal costs. There are likely five ponds that need costly maintenance. The inspections the first time around will likely be more like survey work. Complete inspections for: structural stormwater BMPs (annually); outfalls (once per 5  year permit term); ponds (once per 5 year permit term); and, stockpiles and material handling areas (quarterly). Develop and implement a stormwater management training program to commensurate  with employee’s job duties. That is scheduled for Jul 9, 2015. Document specific MCM 6 information.  He explained Lake Virginia is the City’s only impaired waterbody. The City’s required phosphorus reduction is 27 pounds per year. It’s estimated the City is achieving a 41 pounds per year reduction into the Lake through street sweeping. The City has been able to demonstrate to the MPCA that the City is meeting the requirement. There should not be any additional requirements. Mr. Carlson highlighted next steps. Finalize the Standard Operating Procedures for each MCM.  Finalize the Enforcement Response Procedures.  Adopt revised ordinances to comply with the new MS4 Permit.  Conduct staff training.  Continually perform inspections for illicit discharges, construction sites, and post-  construction sites. Submit the 2014 Annual Report by June 30, 2015.  Seeing no one present wishing to speak on this topic, Mayor Zerby opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Information Meeting at 8:16 P.M. Woodruff stated the 2016 budget should include funding for implementation costs. He asked if there is enough information to estimate those costs. Director Brown stated that by the time the SWPPP report is filed there should be a better idea of the costs. He explained the relatively large stockpile of street CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 8 of 16 sweepings at Public Works site. The last time the sweepings were removed from the site and managed it cost more than $100,000. He and WSB are trying to find alternative ways of doing that. Mayor Zerby thanked Mr. Carlson for his report. Mayor Zerby closed the Public Information Meeting at 8:18 P.M. 7. PARKS A. Report on the June 9, 2015, Park Commission Meeting Chair Mangold reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 9, 2015, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). He noted the Park Commission’s tour of parks was cut short because of rain. They only toured three. Councilmember Labadie questioned if it would be appropriate to ask the City of Chanhassen for a contribution towards the warming house at Cathcart Park in the winter. Mayor Zerby asked Director Nielsen what the status is of trying to have a joint meeting of the Shorewood and Chanhassen Park Commissions. Nielsen stated he is trying to organize that for August. Councilmember Woodruff stated a number of months ago Council discussed the drainage issue in Freeman Park and the surrounding area. It is his recollection that staff was directed to study the drainage situation. He asked what the status of that is. Director Brown stated WSB & Associates has completed a rough draft of that. It has identified options for addressing the issue. The costs to implement the options are very substantial. Staff and WSB have been trying to find ways to reduce the costs. Woodruff asked if it would be appropriate for staff to summarize the options and present costs so Council can provide some direction. Brown suggested that be discussed during a Stormwater Management Capital Improvement Program (CIP) discussion and noted that will be a lengthy discussion. Woodruff stated if it is to be a detailed report that will likely not be until October. Brown noted the solution to the issue will not be easy. Woodruff stated Council would like to have some high level report on what the City is facing. Woodruff then stated that when he first joint Council there was a $500,000 project in the CIP for a holding pond. Brown clarified it was $350,000. Woodruff noted that was deleted from the CIP because the then Council would not spend that much money on it. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the residents in that area would appreciate hearing an update as well. Councilmember Siakel asked if there are other stormwater management projects and issues and if so she suggested Council discuss them in a work session. Director Brown explained the need for a pond inventory is an ongoing issue. He noted the costs to deal with the Manor Park pond were very substantial as well and that is an easy pond to get to and to deal with. A then Council decided not to deal with the issue because of the costs. 8. PLANNING A. Accept and Provide Feedback on the Minnetonka Country Club Report from the Planning Advisory Committee Director Nielsen explained that during Council’s June 8, 2015, meeting John Shardlow, with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., presented a summary of findings and recommendations from the Minnetonka CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 9 of 16 Country Club (MCC) Planning Advisory Committee (PAC). The work of the PAC will be used in conjunction with the pre-application stage of the Comprehensive Plan amendment that will be forthcoming from Mattamy Homes, the developer for the redevelopment of the MCC property. The Planning Commission had started discussing that during January 2015 when Mattamy first submitted a pre-application to the City along with a concept plan. Back then Council decided to hire a consultant to help with the preplanning process and established the PAC. Staff views tonight as Council’s end to the pre-application process. The intent is for Council to identify issues it thinks are important and to possibly prioritize them and to also give the developer some direction on what it would like to see in a formal application. Nielsen then explained that during its June 8 meeting Council asked staff to create a graphic timeline illustrating the various steps in City’s development review process for a planned unit development (PUD) project. (A copy of that graphic was included in the meeting packet.) The first scenario shows the shortest amount of time in which the process could be completed; it goes by the 60-day rule. The second scenario is the longest amount of time in which the process could be completed; it shows using up the 120 days allowed. He clarified that once the Concept Stage plans (the formal Comprehensive Plan amendment and PUD) is approved there is no way to know how long it will take the developer to submit plans for the Development Stage. That same thing applies for between approval of the Development Stage plans and preliminary plat and the submittal of Final Stage plans. An application is submitted for each of the stages in the PUD process – the Concept Stage, the Development Stage and the Final Stage. The Planning Commission holds a public hearing for for the Concept Stage and the Development Stage reviews. Councilmember Sundberg asked if Mattamy has seen the proposed ordinance amendments related to renewable energy submitted by Great Plains Institute. Director Nielsen responded no and noted that staff just got them late last week. Nielsen noted that topic will be on the Planning Commission’s July 7 meeting agenda. Sundberg stated she would like to hear what the developer’s reaction is. She noted she is very curious about solar ready standards among other things. Mayor Zerby stated he thought the PAC did a great job. They spent a great deal of time talking about issues and recommendations. The opinions the PAC members provided were well thought through. He noted he would be fine with receiving and filing the findings and recommendations from the PAC. He is not ready to put forth his thoughts until Council has had an opportunity to discuss the pre-application during a work session. He stated Council and staff are well aware that traffic is the biggest issue. A number of residents have indicated they would like to have more input on that. Some residents have told him they were not aware of the opportunity to participate on the PAC. He thought it would be a good idea to give residents the opportunity to participate and really study traffic. He then stated the proposed length of the cul-de-sac does not comply with the City’s regulations. He wants to know how that will be resolved and connect into the rest of the roadway system. He recommended a traffic study also include the time vehicles are on the connector route (Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive) as well as the volume of traffic. Councilmember Labadie concurred with Mayor Zerby’s comments. She stated from her perspective Mr. Shardlow was trying to pass the buck on the traffic issue by saying it needed to be brought to the Metropolitan (Met) Council’s attention or the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) or the Hennepin County Transportation Department’s attention. It is her recollection that Mr. Shardlow was trying to make it a regional issue rather than a local issue. It may be a regional issue but it will impact the City locally. If Council were to have a discussion about traffic she would like a representative from Met Council or Hennepin County to participate. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 10 of 16 Labadie then stated she had spoken with Director Nielsen about possibly having another traffic count done where traffic enters on to Highway 7 from Eureka Road or Church Road. But, that should be done when school is in session. Once the count is taken the number of anticipated trips from/to the redeveloped MCC property needs to be factored in to the count. From her vantage point, the number of trips coming from/to the redeveloped property cannot be compared to the trips coming from a Country Club whose membership and use was declining. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks all of Council realizes traffic is the major issue. She then stated it is her recollection that PAC member Arnst suggested forming a committee to study traffic. She thought that was a good idea. She noted that she is ready to approve that moving forward this evening. She asked who would lead that study. She stated she thought it is important for residents to feel heard. She noted that the PAC in general did not think closing Country Club Road to cut through traffic is an option. She stated she would like to know more about restoring the large wetland on the MCC property. She clarified she does not feel a need to have to make a decision during this meeting. She is comfortable accepting the PAC findings and recommendations report. Mayor Zerby stated he agreed with getting someone to help orchestrate the traffic study. The study needs to come up with a longer vision. He anticipates the three corners of the intersection of Highway 7 and Highway 41 will be developed more commercially over the years. The draw down to the Cities of Chanhassen and Chaska will also continue to grow. Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, to receive and file the Minnetonka Country Club Redevelopment Planning Advisory Committee Summary of Findings and Recommendations Report. Motion passed 5/0. Zerby moved, Sundberg seconded, directing staff to write a proposal for conducting a traffic study for the connector route (Country Club Road to Yellowstone Trail to Lake Linden Drive) and the impact of the redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Club property on the roadway system. Motion passed 5/0. There was Council consensus to have a work session to discuss the redevelopment of the MCC property. Councilmember Labadie stated the City needs to let residents know about the traffic committee and who can be on it. Mayor Zerby stated that as a courtesy he asked if anyone in the audience wanted to comment on the process. No one did. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Galpin Lake Road Speed Study Director Brown explained that during Council’s May 26, 2015, meeting resident Jim Cradit, 5925 Galpin Lake Road, appeared before Council and requested the City do something to try and reduce the speed of vehicles traveling on Galpin Lake Road. Since that meeting staff had WSB & Associates Traffic Engineers perform a speed study, perform an analysis of the speeds measured, and continue work on a previously adopted policy. A copy of the Galpin Lake Road speed study was included in the meeting packet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 11 of 16 th The results of the study indicate the 85 percentile speeds on Galpin Lake Road are: 38 miles per hour (mph) north of Mayflower Road; 44 mph south of Mayflower Road; and, 36 mph south of Highway 7. Galpin Lake Road is signed at 25 mph between Highway 7 and Melody Hill Road (in Shorewood) and 40 th mph south of Melody Hill Road (in Chanhassen). Based on the results of the speed study and the 85 percentile speeds the recommended speed limit would be 35 mph north of Mayflower Road and 40 mph south of Mayflower Road. When the horizontal curves, the narrow road width and limited sight distance were taken into consideration the statutory 30 mph speed limit would be more appropriate. Adopting the resolution included in the meeting packet would allow the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) to legally enforce that 30 mph speed limit. Brown noted that staff is continuing to work with representatives from Carver County to get Reduced Speed Ahead signage installed along County Road 117 going north shortly before getting to Galpin Lake Road. Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 15-049, “A Resolution Establishing a 30 Mile Per Hour Speed Limit on Galpin Lake Road.” Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Woodruff commented that part of the text in the staff memorandum is missing. He asked Mayor Zerby to please let the SLMPD Chief of Police know that the speed limit on Galpin Lake Road has been changed once the signs are put up and ask the Chief to have the speed limit enforced. B. Speed Limit Review Policy Engineer Hornby explained City has been receiving an increase in requests from residents to review or reduce speed limits on City roadways. He had asked the WSB & Associates Traffic Engineers to provide Council with background information about how speed limits are set and dealt with from a statutory perspective and from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) perspective and the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) perspective. He also asked them to provide a suggestion on implementation. State Statute was changed to allow cities to do speed studies in house and then change speed limits through resolution. The meeting packet contains implementation process language that could be incorporated into a policy for setting speed limits. The packet also contains a copy of a May 2013 technical memorandum including the speed concern evaluation process in decision diagram form for traffic calming (the process was approved by Council). Hornby noted that staff is asking for Council feedback on the implementation portion of the June 18, 2015, memorandum from WSB or asking Council to direct staff to put the implementation process portion into policy form. Councilmember Woodruff stated the posted speed on Enchanted Island and Shady Island for all roadways is 20 miles per hour (mph) yet the proposed implementation process language does not include 20 mph. Director Brown stated there are a number of 20 mph postings on the mainland as well. Staff will have to research if there are resolutions supporting the 20 mph postings. Woodruff stated he is anecdotally aware that some residents got speeding tickets out on the Islands. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Engineer Hornby explained Council is being asked to direct staff to put the implementation section of the June 18, 2015, memorandum from WSB into policy format. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 12 of 16 Woodruff moved, Zerby seconded, directing staff to put the process for setting speed limits into policy form subject to adding 20 miles per hour to the implementation language provided by WSB & Associates. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Zerby asked that the technical memorandums for setting speed limits and for traffic calming be put out on the City’s website. C. Minnetonka Boulevard Roadway Improvement – Shorewood and Greenwood Engineer Hornby explained that during Council’s June 8, 2015, meeting there was discussion about Greenwood staff having approached Shorewood staff about rehabilitating a section of Minnetonka Boulevard between Forest Drive and Ferncroft Drive. The worst segment is about 750 feet long. A portion of that segment was excavated and temporarily patched during the spring thaw the due to a frost boil. The intent is to reclaim that section. Greenwood would have the work done in 2015 and Shorewood would pay one half of the cost. The total estimated cost is $80,000 – $90,000 so Shorewood’s share would be $40,000 – $45,000. Because Shorewood had recently awarded two street improvement projects that were bid well below the budgeted construction amount, there are funds available in the capital improvement program (CIP) for this improvement. Councilmember Siakel asked if one half of that section is in Shorewood. Engineer Hornby responded one half is on Shorewood’s side of the border and the other is on Greenwood’s side. Mayor Zerby asked who did the temporary repair. Engineer Hornby explained the City of Deephaven had that done because Greenwood contracts with Greenwood for roadway maintenance. Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, authorizing the expenditure of up to $45,000 out of the Street Reconstruction Fund for one half of the cost of improving a section of Minnetonka Boulevard with the City of Greenwood paying the other half. Motion passed 5/0. D. Excelsior Boulevard Trail Contract Modifications Engineer Hornby stated the meeting packet contains a copy of a document outlining the costs savings from eliminating the construction of a retaining wall for the Excelsior Boulevard Trail and adding an Anchor-Reinforced Vegetation System (AVRS) to stabilize the slope above the trail. The City had hired a consultant, Stantec Consulting Services, to prepare the quote package for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) contractor to provide a change order bid. The change is a net wash. It does not exceed the amount Council had already approved. Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, authorizing the City Engineer to direct Metropolitan Council Environmental Services to eliminate the construction of a retaining wall and add the Anchor- Reinforced Vegetation System to the Excelsior Boulevard Trail between Manor Road and Barrington Way. Motion passed 4/1 with Woodruff dissenting. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Southshore Center Landscape Maintenance Proposal Administrator Joynes stated staff recommends Council authorize having some landscaping maintenance work done in front of the Southshore Center. A number of plants are dying. Improving the landscaping is important because the Center is rented out. The quote from Mangold Horticulture for improvements in CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 13 of 16 front of the Center and maintenance of the area through the end of this growing season is $5,030. He noted staff did not seek a bid for improvements on the sides or back of the Center in part because of the outstanding ownership issue with the Center. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like the plantings and maintenance to be consistent with the City’s bee friendly policy so the City can place a bee safe sign in that area. Councilmember Labadie stated she does not think anything should be done to the sides and back of the Center and she does not think 31 shrubs should be replaced or 30 daylilies should be added because of the ownership issue. She supports doing the landscaping clean out, weeding, adding mulch and garden maintenance through October. Councilmember Sundberg stated the shrubs and daylilies may go because it will be bee friendly. She noted that she thought it important to keep the property up because the Center is rented out. Siakel moved, Woodruff seconded, accepting the quote from Mangold Horticulture to make bee friendly landscaping improvements in the front of the Southshore Center and to provide bee friendly ongoing garden maintenance through October for the area for an amount not to exceed $5,030. Motion passed 5/0. B. Resolution in Support of a New Xcel Energy Substation in Chaska Director Brown explained that during its work session immediately preceding this meeting Council discussed adopting a resolution in support of Xcel Energy constructing as new substation in the City of Chaska. That substation may help with reducing the number of power outages in Shorewood. He spoke with Michelle Swanson from Xcel after the discussion about outages and she indicated Xcel would prefer Council hold off on adopting the resolution in part because Chaska is supposed to let Xcel know what its position is on the proposed substation this that week. Also, it would be appropriate for Council to see what the resolution says first. Ms. Swanson told him that if Xcel needs to garner support for the substation she would appreciate Council adopting such a resolution. Councilmember Sundberg stated she would like to see the resolution language before adopting it. She then stated she does not support being timid about supporting the new substation. She thought it important to let Chaska know how important that proposed substation is to Shorewood. She asked staff to make a compelling reason for the need of the substation in the resolution. Councilmember Woodruff stated he is reluctant to act on a resolution advocating something that he does not have background information on. Staff indicated it will draft a resolution of support in case it is needed. Councilmember Siakel suggested publishing something in the City’s newsletter to encourage residents to call Xcel Energy when they experience power outages. That should also be put on the City’s website. Councilmember Sundberg suggested the City publish a list of phone numbers for various service providers (e.g., Xcel Energy, Mediacom) that residents can call when there is a service interruption. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 14 of 16 1. Trail Schedule Mayor Zerby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule. Engineer Hornby noted it is the same schedule as the one he distributed on June 8. Engineer Hornby noted that Council will be asked to approve plans and specifications for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project during its July 13 meeting. The permit application will be submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on June 23 or 24. Jesse Carlson, with WSB & Associates, has been working with the MCWD on the requirements. Mayor Zerby asked if three weeks is enough time to obtain approvals from the MCWD and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Hornby explained that there is seven weeks, including this week, before the permits have to be posted and in the hands of the contractor. If there are permitting issues that come up during the bidding process those would be addressed through addendums. Generally modifications do not take much time to make. 2. Spring Clean-up Report Director Brown noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a recap of the spring clean-up effort. The expenses totaled $10,427.71 (not including staff time) and revenues totaled $5,746. 3. Dump Trucks Director Brown stated the City took delivery of two dump trucks that were ordered over one year ago. It will get them ready for the next snow season. He noted that staff has been told by the vendor and other vendors that if the City ordered a truck today it would not get it until February 2017. 4. Christmas Lake Update Director Brown explained the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and staff are working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on a new plan for a barrier that will be installed across about one half of Christmas Lake on June 24. The access will be closed on June 24 to allow for the barrier to be put up and for the treatment of zebra mussels to occur. The DNR has indicated that on either June 23 or June 24 it will start reconstructing the ramp for the boat access. Enough will have to be left in place for the MCWD to treat the area. Director Nielsen stated he participated in a conference call earlier in the day on this item. The goal is to reopen the ramp on either July 6 or 7. With the reopening the intent is implement the pilot program for decontaminating boats. All inspectors for the launch site will be trained as Level 2 inspectors and trained to decontaminate the boats. Administrator Joynes stated he received a memo earlier in the day from Keagan Young indicating the barrier will be removed and the access will be reopened on Friday, July 10. Mayor Zerby noted that he attended a meeting of the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (CLHA) held at the MCWD facility on June 17. There was discussion about the timing of the events and about how the residents could get there boats out after the closure. He explained the MCWD is going to chemically treat the Lake with 17,000 pounds of potassium chloride (which is commonly used as a salt substitute). People can swim in it and dogs can drink the water safely. There will be signage at the ramp about what has been done to the Lake. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 15 of 16 Mayor Zerby recessed the meeting at 9:26 P.M Mayor Zerby reconvened the meeting at 9:29 P.M. 5. Minnetonka Country Club Schedule This was discussed as part of Item 8.A. Administrator Joynes noted that Council will be provided with a copy of the legal timeline for tax abatement for its July 13 meeting. He is working on that with representatives from Springsted this week. 6. Succession Planning Mayor Zerby noted that Council found a copy of a succession planning document at the dais this evening. Administrator Joynes stated the Personnel Committee met a few months ago to discuss succession planning. No action is required from Council this evening. He explained that sometime this summer there will be a budgetary item about some of the decisions Council will have to make in the next 12 months. He has received some comments from Councilmembers about succession planning. He has been asked to include in the document an overlap plan for the first quarter of 2016 when the City will hire a new administrator. There will be a significant loss of staff with a significant level of experience in the next 18 – 21 months. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City has a number of people on staff who are approaching retirement age. They have been working for the City for a long time. In response to a question from Mayor Zerby, Administrator Joynes noted his contract runs through the end of 2015. Zerby stated it would be helpful to hire a replacement administrator in time to allow for a couple of months of overlap with Joynes. If Joynes contract has to be extended into the beginning of 2016 to make that happen that would be okay. Mayor Zerby stated that he is not necessarily convinced that the City needs to have full-time employees go to part-time or to work from home some. Administrator Joynes clarified that his intent was to structure the City’s personnel policy around that should there be a need for that to attract people. That can be done in 2016. Joynes explained the bulk of the vacancies will occur toward the end of 2016 or in the first quarter of 2017. He stated that based on his experience and the people he has spoken with the market is very competitive. Cities are having trouble filling traditional positions. Zerby stated the City has several part-time employees and there are some who work from home one day a week sometimes. 7. Police Process Update Administrator Joynes explained the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) member City Administrators/Manager will interview seven candidates for the SLMPD chief of police position on June 29 and 30. They are all reasonable candidates. The Administrators/Manager will recommend a subset of finalists for consideration to the SLMPD Coordinating Committee. Councilmember Siakel asked if all four member cities have the same voting power for that selection. Joynes responded yes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2015 Page 16 of 16 8. Southshore Center Mayor Zerby stated the City has received a letter from the Greenwood Council in response to the appraisal results for the Southshore Center. Administrator Joynes noted there is a deadline for receipt of letters from the other three cities who also co-own the Center of June 30. After that Council will again meet in executive session to discuss next steps. Councilmember Woodruff stated he is confused by the Greenwood Council’s position. The letter states Greenwood is willing to consider a reasonable offer. He asked if that meant the City’s offer was not reasonable and that it wants to negotiate a different buyout amount. Administrator Joynes responded yes. Other Director DeJong stated staff has started to work on budget documents. They will be ready for Council’s July 13 work session. He then stated he has spoken with someone from Kennedy and Graven, the City’s Bond Counsel, and asked her to research what is required to refund the bonds on the public safety facilities. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie stated she has been approached by 6 – 8 residents since June 17 asking what can be done to make sure the Minnewashta Elementary Back to School 5K run/walk event can take place. They want to know what it will take to get the permit approved. She noted that Pete Miller is a Shorewood resident, he is a parent of a child who attends Minnewashta Elementary School, and he is the Director for the run program for all of Life Time Fitness. The event coordinators are hoping that the event can become the main fundraiser for the School instead of having children peddle things like magazines and popcorn. Administrator Joynes stated staff has a meeting scheduled on June 23 at 9:00 A.M. with Mr. Miller. 12. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 22, 2015, at 9:39 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: July 13 , 2015 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 61637 - 61638 & ACH 35,901.08 Pending 61639 -61692 & ACH 465,791.21 Total Claims $501,692.29 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending June 28, 2015. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r 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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ity of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Postage Meter Lease Renewal Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Pitney Bowes Lease Agreement Renewal Background: The current lease for the Pitney Bowes Postage Meter runs through August 17, 2015. Pitney Bowes is offering to continue the lease at the same rate of $197/quarter. As the current Pitney Bowes postage meter has been working well and Pitney Bowes has provided excellent customer service, renewal of the existing meter lease contract is recommended. Financial or Budget Considerations: The rate of $197/quarter is good for a 36-month term. Recommendation / Action Requested: A motion approving the Pitney Bowes Postage Meter lease renewal of $197 /quarter for 36-months (13 quarters), and authorizing the City Administrator to execute the lease agreement. 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 NUN Agreement Number Your Business Information���ay�����������a�a� Lei - z InT19191 I ATTN FINANCE AP DEPT Full Legal Name of Lessee Tax ID # (FEIN /TIN) 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 -8927 Billing Address: Street City State ZIP +4 SHOREWOOD ATTN FINANCE AP DEPT 18439537863 DBA Name of Lessee Billing CAN # 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 -8927 Installation Address (if different from billing address): Street City State ZIP +4 JEAN PANCHYSITYN (952)- 960 -7911 18439537863 Installation Contact Name Installation Contact Phone # Installation CAN # Your Business Needs Quantity Business Solution Description 1 P700 Postage Meter 1 SBBX DM100 W/5 LB SCALE, NO M 1 PP23 PURCH POWER REDUCED DM100 1 PTVO PBSMARTPOSTAGE FREE 1 WTVO PBSMARTPOSTAGE SUBSCRIPTN 1 P7MM MOISTENER FOR DM1001 Items to be included in customer's payment: Tier 1 Service Levcl Agreement Included Includes Unlimited Postage by Phone Meter Resets ValueMAX Included Softguard Included Purchase Power Included If green products are Identified on your Order, the equipment covered by this Agreement includes remanufactured products that have gone through our factory certification testing process.] Your Payment Plan Number of Quarters Quarterly Amount- Initial Lease Term: 39 Months 13 $197 ❑ Tax exempt certificate attached ( ) Tax Exempt Certificate Not Required SR #: 3- 4520855167 M1XP700SBBXXXXXX 'Does not include any applicable sales, use, or property taxes which will be billed separately, payment plans begin after any applicable Interim Usage Period. Your Signature Below By signing below, you agree to be bound by all the terms of this Agreement, including those contained on page 2 and those located in the Pitney Bowes Terms (Version 1/14), which are available at www.pb.com /terms and are incorporated by reference. You acknowledge that you may not cancel the lease for any reason and that all payment obligations are unconditional. The lease will be binding on us after we have completed our credit and documentation approval process and have signed below. The lease requires you either to provide proof of insurance or participate in the ValueMAX@ equipment replacement program (see Section L9 on page 2) for an additional fee. Please initial here, indicating that you accept the terms and conditions outlined on page 2. Lessee Signature OFFICE MANAGER Pitney Bowes Signature Print Name Date Sales Information Dale Rew 192415 0021 Account Rep Name District Office (00154404.4} Page 1 of 2 See Pitney Bowes Terms for additional terms and conditions PBGFS Lease Agreement (Version 1/14) 02014 Pitney Bowes Inc. All rights reserved. Pitney Bowes pbSmartPostage, Purchase Power and ValueMAX are trademarks of Pitney Bowes Inc. or a subsidiary. PITNEY BOWES LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS L1. DEFINITIONS Capitalized terms that are not defined in this document are defined in the Pitney Bowes Terms. PBI is the manufacturer of the equipment. PBGFS, a wholly -owned subsidiary of PBI, provides you with the leasing services. L2. AGREEMENT L2.1 You are leasing the Equipment listed on the Order. L2.2 You may not cancel this Lease for any reason. All payment obligations are unconditional. L2.3 You authorize us to file a Uniform Commercial Code financing statement naming you as debtor /lessee with respect to the Equipment. L3. PAYMENT TERMS L3.1 We will invoice you quarterly in advance for all payments on the Order (each, a "Quarterly Payment "), except as provided in any statement of work attached to the Order. You will make each Quarterly Payment by the due date shown on our invoice. L3.2 Your Quarterly Payment may include a one -time origination fee, amounts carried over from a previous unexpired lease, and other charges. L3.3 Any Meter, rental fees and SLA fees (collectively "PBI Payments "), will be included with your Quarterly Payment and begin with the start of the Lease Term (as defined below). After the Initial Term, your Quarterly Payment will increase if your PBI Payments increase. L4. EQUIPMENT OWNERSHIP We own the Equipment. PBI owns any Meter. Except as stated in Section L6, you will not have the right to become the owner of the Equipment at the end of this Agreement. I.S. LEASE TERM AND INTERIM USAGE PERIOD The Lease term is the number of months stated on the Order, plus the "Interim Usage Period" ( "Lease Term "). The Interim Usage Period is the period between the date your Equipment is delivered and the first month of the subsequent calendar quarter. You agree to pay the prorated portion of your Quarterly Payment for the Interim Usage Period. L6. END OF LEASE OPTIONS L6.1 During the 90 days before your Lease ends, you may, if not in default, select one of the following options: (a) enter into a new lease with us; (b) purchase the Equipment "as is, where is" for fair market value; or (c) return the Equipment and Meter in its original condition, reasonable wear and tear excepted and pay us our then applicable processing fee. If you return the Equipment and Meter, you will, as specified by us, either properly pack and return them to us in the return box and with the shipping label provided by us or furnish them to such service carrier as we specify to pick up and ship them to us. L6.2 If you do not select one of the options in Section L6.1, you will be deemed to have agreed to enter into successive 12 -month annual extensions of the term of this Agreement. You may choose to cancel the automatic extensions by giving us written notice between 120 days and 30 days before the Lease expires (unless the law requires the period to be shorter). Upon cancellation, you agree to either return all items pursuant to Section L6.1 (c) or purchase the Equipment. L7. WARRANTY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY L7.1 PBI PROVIDES YOU WITH THE LIMITED WARRANTY IN THE PITNEY BOWES TERMS. L7.2 PBGFS MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR FREEDOM FROM INTERFERENCE OR INFRINGEMENT. L7.3 WE ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS, DAMAGE (INCLUDING INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES), OR EXPENSE CAUSED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY THE EQUIPMENT. L8. EQUIPMENT OBLIGATIONS L8.1 Condition and Repairs. You will keep the Equipment free from liens and in good repair, condition, and working order. L8.2 Inspection. We may inspect the Equipment and related maintenance records. L8.3 Location. You may not move the Equipment from the location specified on the Order without our prior written consent. L9. RISK OF LOSS AND VALUEMAX® PROGRAM L9.1 Risk of Loss. (a) You bear the entire risk of loss to the Equipment from the date of shipment by PBI until the Equipment is returned to, and received by, us, regardless of cause, ordinary wear and tear excepted ( "Loss "). (b) No Loss will relieve you of any of your obligations under this Lease. You must immediately notify us in writing of any Loss. (c) To protect the equipment from loss, you will either (i) keep the Equipment insured against Loss for its full replacement value under a comprehensive policy of insurance or other arrangement with an insurer of your choice, provided that it is reasonably satisfactory to us ( "Insurance ") or (ii) be enrolled in PBGFS' ValueMAX program described in Section 9.1(d). (d) YOU MUST CALL US AT 1- 800 - 732 -7222 AND PROVIDE US WITH EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE. If you do not provide evidence of Insurance and have not previously enrolled in our equipment replacement program (ValueMAX), we may include the Equipment in the ValueMAX program and charge you a fee, which we will include as an additional charge on your invoice. (e) We will provide written notice reminding you of your Insurance obligations described above in Section L9.1(c). (f) If the Equipment is included in the ValueMAX program and any damage or destruction to the Equipment occurs (other than from your gross negligence or willful misconduct, which is not covered by ValueMAX), we will (unless you are in default) repair or replace the Equipment. (g) We are not liable to you if we terminate the ValueMAX program. By providing the ValueMAX program we are not offering or selling you insurance; accordingly, regulatory agencies have not reviewed this Lease, this program or its associated fees, nor are they overseeing our financial condition. L10. MISCELLANEOUS L10.1 If more than one lessee is named in this Lease, liability is joint and several. L10.2 You, and any guarantor signing the Order or any documents executed in connection with this Lease, agree to furnish us financial information upon request. Each of these persons authorizes us to obtain credit reports on them now and in the future. L10.3 YOU MAY NOT ASSIGN OR SUBLET THE EQUIPMENT, THE METER OR THIS LEASE WITHOUT OUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT, WHICH WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD. ANY ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT OUR CONSENT IS VOID. L10.4 We may sell, or assign all or any part of this Lease or the Equipment. Any sale or assignment will not affect your rights or obligations under this Agreement. L10.5 We will provide you with a welcome letter by email. tC0154404.41 Page 2 of 2 See Pitney Bowes Terms for additional terms and conditions PBGFS Lease Agreement (Version 1114) 02014 Pitney Bowes Inc. All rights reserved. Pitney Bowes pbSmartPostage, Purchase Power and ValueMAX are trademarks of Pitney Bowes Inc. or a subsidiary. #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Stantec Additional Services Agreement Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Attachments: Stantec Agreement Background: It was noted in the July 7 work session that an Additional Services Agreement with Stantec would be forthcoming for services relating to the Minnetonka Country Club project. Attached is the Additional Services Agreement. Financial: The compensation for additional services will be in accordance with the terms of the initial agreement for additional amounts of work to be performed upon request and compensated on a time plus materials basis, in accordance with the Standard Rate Sheet attached. Recommendation / Action Requested: A motion approving the Additional Services Agreement with Stantec for services relating to the Minnetonka Country Club Project, and authorizing the City Administrator to execute the Agreement. 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 1i Date 29 June 2015 "'Stantec " STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES Stantec Project # 193803118 INC. Stantec Pipeline # NA 2335 Highway 36 N, St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 Ph: (651) 636 -4600 Fx: (651) 631 -3100 email: john,shardlow @stantec.com CLIENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD Client Project # 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 -8926 Ph: (952) 960 -7900 Fx: (952) 474 -0128 email: cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Project Name Planning process related to the Change Order # 1, and Location: redevelopment of the Minnetonka Country Clup property This is authorization for Stantec to perform additional services on the project as noted above. A. Stantec agrees to perform the following additional service(s): 0 Consultation and Meetings with staff, Developer & City Council ® Assistance with the structuring and coordination of Comprehensive Plan amendment and Planned Unit Development (PUD) Concept Plan submission Additional services as requested by the Client B, CLIENT agrees to compensate Stantec for such additional services in accordance with the terms of the initial agreement for additional amount(s) stated below: The work will be performed upon request and compensated on a tir-ne plus materials basis, in accordance with the Standard Rate Sheet attached to the original agreement C. All other terms and conditions of the original agreement shall remain in full force and effect, Effect on Schedule: The work in the original agreement has been completed, All of the above described work is to be completed after the completion of the tasks authorized in the original scope By signing below, the parties agree and affirm that each has reviewed and understands the provisions set out above and that each party shall be bound by each and all of said provisions. A copy of this agreement shall serve and may be relied upon as an original, STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC. John W. Shardlow, Senior Principal Print Name and Title Bill Joynes Acting Administrator Print Name and Title hi #p�:jJtr+�tY%,[�5. rids: fi777J�rcrritt�� €atsIp;3+�ab /��1.1f�![1� C{5h4iENijt* ill= SltrgCtir�3�i: kMa €rc��mt�snilkhrrr�z�llpr+�3tar �. 1c3N9t��s�i� ,Sksru'r�t>5,�t� #fst Y Stantec AUTHORIZATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES Page 2 I 4�e Signature �V- Signature Date Signed: Date Signed: htlp;//tngl v002,corp.ods:7777/portal/page/portalISTANNET2-CONIENT/PAFS/Practicef4iskManagement/Authorization_JoT�_Additional_Seivicgs,dotrTi Classification Senior Principal Principal Specialist* Project Manager Senior Engineer I Scientist I Architect I Landscape Architect I Planner Architect I Landscape Architect Land Surveyor Engineer Planner I Scientist IGeologist I Hygienist Designer G|3 I Landscape Designer Graphics Senior Technician Engineering Technician Project Technician Field Supervisor Crew Chief Inspector Survey Technician GPS Survey Equipment Total Station Equipment G|SVYnrkstotion Equipment GPS Sub meter Unit (per use) Flow Met er (per week) Air Detection Equipment (per half day) $ 38.00 $ 28.00 $ 22.00 $ 80.00 $ 200.00 $ 25.00 *Speckalist: Experts inhighly technical disciplines including Principal Planners, Market Analyst and Certified Industrial Hygienist These rates are adjusted annually in accordance with the normal review procedures of Sfanfec. 12 #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Special Event Permit, 5k Event for Minnewashta School Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments Route Map, Revised Request Policy Consideration: Should the City Council grant approval of this special event? Background / Previous Action: Previously, staff had reported that an event permit for the first 5k Event for Minnewashta had been received. However, due to traffic and safety concerns with the layout along the route, staff had recommended denial of the permit. Since that time, staff has met with Mr. Pete Miller, Cross Country Coach and Event Coordinator for this event, to discuss alternatives. Mr. Miller has revised the plan in that the proposed route will be reversed (starting from Minnewashta School and heading West on Smithtown Road); the starting time has been shifted to start earlier (thereby avoiding traffic); and the runners will be running along the shoulder of the roadway, versus blocking off an entire traffic lane. A few Officers from the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) in addition to volunteers will be present along key traffic points along the route. Mr. Miller’s revised proposal is included to this memorandum, as Attachment 2. Staff Recommendation: Based upon the revised request, staff is recommending approval of the special event permit for the Minnewashta 5k Event. Financial or Budget Considerations: None Options: 1. Approve the permit, as presented. 2. Deny the permit. 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option 1 which approves the permit be approved by Motion. 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 From: Pete Miller [mailto:petemiller3000@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 3:41 PM To: Larry Brown Cc: Bill Joynes Subject: Re: Proposed 5K from Minnewashta Elementary Larry - Thanks for meeting last week. Per our discussion, I'd like to amend the original application: - Course will be run clockwise to clear majority of Smithtown Road, as well as Marsh Pointe, earlier in the event. - All roads will remain open during the event (with appropriate traffic control). Cones will be used to create a "lane" for runners, allowing vehicle traffic to move in both directions on Smithtown Road. - Start time will be moved up to 8:30 AM - 5K will be limited to 500 participants Thanks again for working with us on the planning. - Pete Miller ATTACHMENT 2 Amended Request by Applicant #7A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Fencing – Community Gardens Meeting Date: 13 July 2015 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Policy Consideration: Should the City install fencing around the community gardens at Freeman Park and the expanded gardens at the Skate Park? Background: At its last meeting in June the City Council authorized staff to order the installation of a water line and to obtain estimates for fencing the community gardens at Freeman Park. We have since received a quote from Dakota Fence Company. For the existing garden area, the cost of a black vinyl coated, chain link fence is $4994. Including the future expansion area the price would be $6009. We have also received a quote for fencing the expanded garden area at the Skate Park - $2381. Council asked us to get the Park Commission’s recommendation on the extent of fencing for Freeman Park, but the Commission has not met since we received the quote. Financial or Budget Considerations: The cost of fencing would come from the Parks Capital Improvement Fund. Options: The Council could approve any of the quotes; approve the extent of fencing subject to the recommendation of the Park Commission (they meet on Tuesday); or wait until the Park Commission weighs in on the matter and continue this item to the 27 July Council meeting. Recommendation / Action Requested: The expansion of the Skate Park gardens has already occurred and staff recommends installation of the additional fencing. We await direction from the Council relative to the Freeman Park fencing. If Council is comfortable with the quotes and the Park Commission’s recommendation, staff will arrange for the installation of fencing per the Commission’s recommendation. Next Steps and Timelines: The City Council meets on Monday. The Park Commission meets on Tuesday. Depending on the Council’s direction, the fencing can be ordered on Wednesday. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services, healthy environment and attractive amenities. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 # 8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Friendly – Request for Partial Right-of-Way Vacation – Easement Agreement Meeting Date: 13 July 2015 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Draft Agreement Policy Consideration: Should the City contribute to the construction of a turnaround at the end of Shore Road? Background: In May of this year, the City Council approved a partial right-of-way vacation of Shore Road for Ian and Carol Friendly. The approval was conditioned upon the Friendly’s providing an easement for a turnaround for maintenance vehicles on the west side of their property. In designing a turnaround capable of supporting snow plow equipment, the Friendly’s were somewhat surprised at the extraordinary cost of constructing the turnaround – approximately $20,000 dollars. They now request that the City split the cost of the improvement. The attached easement and maintenance agreement includes language to that effect. Financial or Budget Considerations: If approved, the City’s $10,000 share of the project could come out of the street fund. Options: Approve the request and authorize staff to execute the maintenance agreement attached hereto; or revise the agreement to require the property owners to pay the entire cost of the improvement. Recommendation / Action Requested: As mentioned in the earlier staff recommendations relative to the right-of-way vacation, the turnaround is a benefit to both the City and the property owners. It is also important that the turnaround be constructed to a higher standard than a residential driveway. As such staff recommends that the City agree to share in half the cost of construction, not to exceed $10,000 (.5 X $20,000). With respect to the agreement, the City Attorney will provide his edits to the agreement, under separate cover. Next Steps and Timelines: Upon execution of the easement, the owners must record the documents with Hennepin County. The turnaround should be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Friendly’s new home. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and 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 SEASONAL ROADWAY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT THIS SEASONAL ROADWAY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (“Easement Agreement”) is made this _____ day of ____________, 2015, by and between Ian and Carol Friendly, husband and wife, (collectively, “Grantor”), in favor of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, (“Grantee”). Recitals A. Grantor is the fee ownerof the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto, which property is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “Property”). B. Grantor desires to grant to the Grantee an easement for purposes of access to a portion of the Property to facilitate the turnaround of trucks and plows for Grantee’s snow removal services, according to the terms and conditions contained herein. Terms of Easement 1.Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals and the terms therein shall be incorporated into this Easement Agreement. 2.Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged : by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to the Grantee the following easement A perpetual, non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress purposes for seasonal roadway maintenance vehicles to facilitate the turnaround of trucks and plows for Grantee’s snow removal purposes over, under, across and through that part of the Property described and depicted on Exhibit B (the “Easement Area”), attached hereto and made a part hereof. 3.Scope of Easement. Grantor and Grantee agree that the Easement Area shall be used only for vehicular access, ingress, and egress by Grantee’s snow removal vehicles (“Permitted Easement Uses”). Grantor and Grantee agree that the Permitted Easement Uses will be allowed only during those times when snow removal services are required, and for no other purpose. Grantor hereby further agrees that it will not perform or allow or cause the construction of any improvements on the Easement Area which could damage or obstruct the Easement Area or interfere with Grantee’s Permitted Easement Uses. 4.Construction and Maintenance of Easement Area. Grantor and Grantee hereby agree to share equally the reasonable cost to construct a turnaround in the Easement Area consistent with the budget, plans and specifications to be approved by both the City Engineer and Grantor. After the initial construction of the Easement Area, Grantee will repair, maintain and plow the Easement Area and repair any damage to the driveway lying within the Property, the mailbox or landscaping on the Property, in a first class manner, at its sole cost and expense, except for any required lawn mowing. 5.Warranty of Title. The Grantor warrants that it is the owner of the Property as described above and have the right, title and capacity to convey to the Grantee the Easement herein. 6.Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorney's fees, or losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate to, the Easement Area or Property prior to the date of this instrument. 7.Indemnification. Grantee and its successors and assigns covenant and agree, at their respective sole cost and expense, to defend, protect, indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from and against any claims against Grantor for claims, losses, liabilities, costs and expenses, and any actions or proceedings arising therefrom, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs arising from Grantee’s use or enjoyment of the Easement Area granted hereunder or any default by Grantee. In case any action or proceeding is brought against Grantor by reason of any such claim, Grantee, upon notice from Grantor, will defend such action or proceeding with attorneys reasonably satisfactory to Grantor. 8.Severability. If any clause, sentence or other portion of the terms, conditions or covenants of this Easement Agreement become illegal, null or void for any reason or be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be so, the remaining portions will remain in full force and effect. 9.Headings. The headings of articles in this Easement Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not in any way limit or define the content, substance or effect of the articles. 10.Governing Law. This Easement Agreement will be governed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota, including without limitation matters affecting title to all real property described herein. 11.Notices. Any notice, request, demand or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be given in writing and sent by (a) personal delivery; (b) overnight nationwide delivery service with proof of delivery; (c) certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or (d) facsimile transmission, provided the sender’s facsimile machine confirms receipt, and addressed to the parties at the addresses indicated below (or to any other address designated by Grantor and Grantee in writing and given in the manner set forth herein). If to Grantor: ______________________________ Attn: _________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ With a copy to: Siegel Brill, P.A. Attn: Anthony J. Gleekel 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 If to Grantee: _______________________________ Attn: __________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ 12.Counterparts.This Easement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 13.Non-Waiver. No delay or failure by either party to exercise any right under this Easement Agreement, and no partial or single exercise of that right, shall constitute a waiver of that or any other right, unless otherwise expressly provided herein. 14.Entire Agreement/Modification of Agreement. This Easement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. This Easement Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, oral and written regarding the subject matter hereof. This Easement Agreement may be amended or modified at any time only by a writing, executed and acknowledge by all parties to this instrument or their successors. Grantee may not assign its rights under this Agreement without the written consent of Grantor. 15.Authority.Each party represents and warrants to the other that it has the sole right and authority to enter into this Easement Agreement. 16.No Dedication/No Third Party Beneficiary.Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Easement Area to the general public. This Easement Agreement is not intended to give or confer any rights, privileges, claims, actions or remedies to any person or entity, including the public, as a third party beneficiary or under any statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, order, decrees or otherwise. 17.Binding Effect; Enforceability. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be binding on the Grantor, and Grantor’s heirs, successors and assigns. This Easement is enforceable by the City of Shorewood acting through its City Council. STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE Dated this _____ day of ______________, 2015. GRANTOR: GRANTEE: Ian Friendly CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Carol Friendly By:_________________________________ _________________________________ Its: City Clerk _________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2015, by Ian Friendly and Carol Friendly, husband and wife. ______________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2015, by Jean Panchyshyn, the City Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION –FRIENDLY PROPERTY (insert legal description of property) EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION - EASEMENT AREA (insert legal description of easement area) j CV) S_eC SEASONAL ROADWAY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT THIS SEASONAL ROADWAY MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ( "Easement Agreement ") is made this day of , 2015, by and between Ian and Carol Friendly, husband and wife, (collectively, "Grantor "), in favor of the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, ( "Grantee "). Recitals A. Grantor is the fee owner of the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto, which property is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "Property "). B. Grantor desires to grant to the Grantee an easement for purposes of access to a portion of the Property to facilitate the turnaround of trucks and plows for Grantee's snow removal services, according to the terms and conditions contained herein. Terms of Easement 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals and the terms therein shall be incorporated into this Easement Agreement. 2. Grant of Easement. For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is acknowledged by Grantor, Grantor grants and conveys to the Grantee the following easement: A perpetual, non - exclusive easement for ingress and egress purposes for seasonal roadway maintenance vehicles to facilitate the turnaround of trucks and plows for Grantee's snow removal purposes over, under, across and through that part of the Property described and depicted on Exhibit B (the "Easement Area "), attached hereto and made a part hereof_ 3. Scope of Easement. Grantor and Grantee agree that the Easement Area shall be used only for vehicular access, ingress, and egress by Grantee's snow removal vehicles ( "Permitted Easement Uses "). Grantor and Grantee agree that the Permitted Easement Uses will be allowed only during those times when snow removal services are required, and for no other purpose. Grantor hereby further agrees that it will not perform or allow or cause the construction of any improvements on the Easement Area which could damage or obstruct the Easement Area or interfere with Grantee's Permitted Easement Uses. 4. Construction and Maintenance of Easement Area. Grantor and Grantee hereby agree to share equally, with the Grantee's contribution to the cost of construction to be in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00, the reasonable cost to construct a turnaround in the Easement Area consistent with the budget, plans, and specifications to be approved by both the City Engineer and Grantor. After the initial construction of the Easement Area, Grantee will repair, maintain and plow the Easement Area and repair any damage to the driveway lying within the Property, the mailbox or landscaping on the Property, in a first class manner, at its sole cost and expense, except for any required lawn mowing. 5. Warranty of Title. The Grantor warrants that it is the owner of the Property as described above and have the right, title and capacity to convey to the Grantee the Easement herein. 6. Environmental Matters. The Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs, expenses, damages, demands, obligations, including penalties and reasonable attorney's fees, or losses resulting from any claims, actions, suits or proceedings based upon a release or threat of release of any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants which may have existed on, or which relate to, the Easement Area or Property prior to the date of this instrument. 7. Severability. If any clause, sentence or other portion of the terms, conditions or covenants of this Easement Agreement become illegal, null or void for any reason or be held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be so, the remaining portions will remain in full force and effect. 8. Headings. The headings of articles in this Easement Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not in any way limit or define the content, substance or effect of the articles. 9. Governing Law. This Easement Agreement will be governed in accordance with the laws of Minnesota, including without limitation matters affecting title to all real property described herein. 10. Notices. Any notice, request, demand or other communication required or permitted hereunder shall be given in writing and sent by (a) personal delivery; (b) overnight nationwide delivery service with proof of delivery; (c) certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid; or (d) facsimile transmission, provided the sender's facsimile machine confirms receipt, and addressed to the parties at the addresses indicated below (or to any other address designated by Grantor and Grantee in writing and given in the manner set forth herein). If to Grantor: Attn: With a copy to: Siegel Brill, P.A. Attn: Anthony J. Gleekel 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 If to Grantee: City of Shorewood Attn: City Administrator 5775 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 11. Counterparts. This Easement Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 12. Non - Waiver. No delay or failure by either party to exercise any right under this Easement Agreement, and no partial or single exercise of that right, shall constitute a waiver of that or any other right, unless otherwise expressly provided herein. 13. , Entire Agreement /Modification of Agreement. This Easement Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. This Easement Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, oral and written regarding the subject matter hereof. This Easement Agreement may be amended or modified at any time only by a writing, executed and acknowledge by all parties to this instrument or their successors. Grantee may not assign its rights under this Agreement without the written consent of Grantor. 14. Authority. Each party represents and warrants to the other that it has the sole right and authority to enter into this Easement Agreement. 15. No Dedication/No Third Party Beneficiary_ Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of the Easement Area to the general public. This Easement Agreement is not intended to give or confer any rights, privileges, claims, actions or remedies to any person or entity, including the public, as a third party beneficiary or under any statutes, laws, codes, ordinances, rules, regulations, order, decrees or otherwise. 16. Binding Effect; Enforceability. The terms and conditions of this instrument shall run with the land and be binding on the Grantor, and Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns. This Easement is enforceable by the City of Shorewood acting through its City Council. STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: NONE Dated this day of 1 , 2015. GRANTOR: IAN FRIENDLY CAROL FRIENDLY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) GRANTEE: CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA C Its: City Clerk The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2015, by Ian Friendly and Carol Friendly, husband and wife. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA } ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN } The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2015, by Jean Panchyshyn, the City Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Siegel Brill, P.A. 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 1300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Notary Public NOTARY STAMP OR SEAL (insert legal description of property) . LEGAL DESCRIPTION - EASEMENT AREA (insert legal description of easement area) #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Korin – Minor Subdivision Meeting Date: 13 July 2015 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 28 May 2015 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Steve and Jane Korin? Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the recommendations in the Planning Director’s memorandum. With respect to the conditions, the applicant has resolved all issues and provided the legal documents requested. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicants’ application fees cover the administrative costs incurred by the City. In addition, the division will generate $6500 for the park fund and $1200 for the sewer fund. Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Prior to release of the resolution, the applicant must move or remove the existing small shed and dog kennel on the south side of Parcel 2. Also, the deeds for the required easements must include consent forms from the mortgage companies listed in the applicant’s title commitment. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants will have thirty days from the date they receive the resolution to pay the required fees, remove the small shed and dog kennel and record the resolution with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY O SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 a (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 May 2015 RE: Korin, Janie — Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405(15.01) BACKGROUND Janie Korin has requested approval to subdivide her property, located at 6135 Cathcart Drive (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached), into two lots, as shown on Exhibit B. The property contains 5.1 acres and is zoned R- IA, Single - Family Residential. The Korin home currently occupies the southerly portion of the property. The northerly portion of the property has a fairly large wetland area on it. As proposed, the southerly, lot (Parcel 1), with the house on it, would have 87,106 square feet of area. The new lot (Parcel 2) would have 119,935 square feet of area, of which, approximately 33,790 square feet consists of wetland. It is worth noting that this request was approved last year, subject to the applicant obtaining an updated wetland delineation. The applicant was unsure at the time whether to pursue the subdivision or sell the property as one lot. As a result, the deadline for recording the division lapsed and she has filed a new application. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Although both of the proposed lots meet or exceed the requirements of the R- 1Azoning district, there are two issues that must be resolved as part of the approval process: 1) street right -of -way; and 2) wetland conservation easements. ®1 q ®41® PRINTED. ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Korin Minor Division 28 May 2015 1. The right -of -way for Cathcart Drive is substandard at 33 feet of width. adjoining the Korin property. Since land across the street is unlikely to be further developed, the 17 feet of right -of -way necessary to bring Cathcart Drive up to standards must come from the'east side. This will not adversely affect the size of the proposed lots, nor the setback for the existing home. The R.O.W. is illustrated, but not legally described on the applicant's survey documents. Prior to review by the City Council, the applicant's surveyor must draft legal descriptions for the R.O.W. and her attorney must provide deed conveying the right- of -way to the City. The R.O.W. descriptions will necessitate redrafting of the legal descriptions and drainage and utility easements for the new lots, 2. As can be seen on Exhibit B, a substantial portion of the northerly lot is delineated as wetland, pursuant to the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The wetland area and required buffer area have been identified as conservation easements, and have been legally ' described by the applicant's surveyor (see Exhibit C)., Prior to Council review of the application, the applicant's attorney must provide deeds conveying the conservation easements to the City. Also, the updated wetland delineation must be confirmed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Due to the amount of wetland area on the northerly lot, the buildable area of that lot is quite limited. It is recommended that the new lot line be moved at least 40 feet to the south. This will increase the buildable area of Parcel 2 and provide room for a driveway that will not have to encroach into the wetland buffer area or require an easement over Parcel 1. The small shed and fences will have to be moved onto Parcel 1 or be removed from the site. It is worth noting, that both lots are quite buildable, particularly with the recommended enlargement of Parcel 2. The proposed subdivision, in itself, will not result in any tree removal. Consequently, it is recommended that tree preservation and reforestation be addressed with any building permit for the northerly lot. Approval of the subdivision is recommended, subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant's updated wetland delineation must be confirmed by the MCWD. B. The applicant's surveyor must provide the following legal descriptions: I. Seventeen feet of R.O.W. for Cathcart Drive 2. Revised drawings and legal descriptions for the two lots, showing the proposed new lot line at least 40 feet south of what is shown on the attached exhibits. 3. Revised conservation, drainage and utility easements, based on the new lot descriptions and the confirmed wetland delineations. 4. Revised 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the two lots. -2- Memorandum Re: Lorin Minor Division 28 May 2015, C. The applicant's attorney must provide the following: 1. An up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. (In lieu of a title opinion, the applicant may submit evidence of a title insurance policy). 2. Deeds for the items listed in B., above. D. The applicant's surveyor must provide low floor and low opening elevations for Parcel 2, based on available topographic information. E. Items A -C, above, must be completed within 30 days, after which the request will be scheduled for review by the City Council. F. Prior to release of a resolution approving the subdivision, the applicant must,pay $6500 in park dedication fees and $1200 in local sanitary sewer access charges for the new lot. Credit is given for the lot with the house on it. G. Once the applicant has received the Council resolution approving the request, she must record it with Hennepin County within 30 days or the approval is void. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Lary Brown Tim Keane Janie Korin i i S S i i S i S S S i p S S i ar �n e / i i i CCU i i All i d �—] �v r� y �O as o- La rp iinio n L ��� N a� awe 0 300 600 Freeman Park 1,200_ Feet U) Subject L Property �, i w � m i ve E 62 d t Hennepin / Carver County border 1pl�, h, ' v I 'I 4 MINOR SUBDIVISION - / 1 FOR: Janie Korin ( @� I / // J ,LEGAL DESCRIPTION:,,-'- - / ( I / // (UNSUBDIWMEO (.Q i 1 v !t \ J ONNFR: AWES AxD AhroREA Tu6xWLSr i -- ..' -- 6095 cATHCART DRIVE / That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of S,.0 n 32 Township 117 Range 23, described as follows: / I .. pl0 32- 117- 2 }34 -OD56 / Beginning t a point on the Northerly tire of the nght -f -way of the Minnaapolic and SL Louie Railroad fOB feet -� 4' North of the Southxnt coma of the Southeast 15/4 of the Southwest 7/4 of a°(d Baction 3l, Township 11Z ' // �7 , / 9� Rat 9- d;3Thwc�� Southwesterly along East rights -of way 947hfeat more a heaMtnnthaopoht o beginning. / ({ O%NER: JAPES A! {(tfi ANDREA NRh ST J1 Henne N Count Minnesota. 3 ORNER; WCHARD AND KARet FYHRtUND /// n� \ Oiw1rA: CANDALE .EAII FDWARDS I 6095 CAIHCART D YE 'r P Y, 1 0 %NER EDWARD A ZEYdRYCKI I6 I PID CA117_23 DRIVE -- 7� 6035 CATHCART ORNE to 32- 117 -2 }3 0056 Ill 111 dY Warrant par Document Number 6367200 3D30 -117- RT DIVE ° PIO 32- I77 -2J -J4 0041 / ( Y Deed PID 32- 117 -23 -3 }0019 � 32- 11] -2] -34 -0013 ) PR SED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: OPO <r BIRARBERRY C9iCtE (PRNATE ROAD) HO ACCESS N 517E - L��PM - Ali VANER R YES tc ANDREA NRNa1RST ]: - �¢ 1 of line Swtheos Quarter _X. i„ l vlji r sv. x 0%NER KFNe1 D. STERN 1 � - .�y Z - ' ' -� - _ t Q rter of the Southwest Warta of Section S2, Township 117, Range 23, d°svtbad as E .-a.. ,.�=.• ="' '1::�.:u`;r` - _ _ES - fellows / Tha p rt 26835 BEVERLY DRIVE (- ' _ - 5 - _. / / �6,'p PID 3z- 117 -z3 -33 -Dote a s.SB9%21'42w -- - - - \, Gammmcin9 at the a°uDleaaf coma of wid South—, Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, than S°ulh 89 degrees ♦ 1 -- •` -L __ -- 21 minutes 19 second, West, - assumed beodng aimg tins south Tine of.. d Southwest Quarter of the Southwest _ aT" s. . >� • _ L"�y t' JY'�'� // Warta, a distance of 1320.39 feel to the aouthxwt coma of said Southwat Quarter of the Southwest Walter, ri l tat -�= [[ �� sa3.os �q {i' ?, :.; / �. '� •• ��•h. s. yJ • J _ ? �� e •// • / o tc,,,Iy Y /• ' / / ,rte'- - ...yyy thence North 00 degrees 04 minuls° 23 samds Weat, donq Ula wsst line of said Southeast Warta of the . y ' t y t •a t Tt . • / / r(, R Southwest Warter, a distance of 111.72 feet to Iha northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Ragioncl i. I •'' 4Y� , I _Cp gRyA y r •4 +f = C?Y , ,n / : ,.- -- a�4sevA �e / _ Rea oad Autho ty eortidor, fo me ly the Minn apo a and St, tnuta Ra Uo°d, and tin° nt of be Innln �;J 1 W to be described; thence cmtinuin North 00 d A- wAeucr / v4 _ . 1�_'JI� :�1' gar 4e,�M.tre _ ♦ / P° 9 9 of vatd land � e' R�: / / '- f / a Southeast WMa, of the Southwest Warta, a dt tonce Of 41&27 feei;cthan.. North 89 degrees 21 minuiwh 42 / '/ 9 ply s ''VT Ear pPA°Uy CE j - S I r q't6 _ � ands East, a distance of 483.29 feet to said narthcry right of way It.% thm<e South 48 degrees 55 minutes y 3l; / t / !u = / 52 seconds West, cam wid muthady right of way line, o distance of 640.29 fast to said point of beginning. "IQ �r- l',Y - `- etgYe7/ }':#1' -___� �` / / /� /� / "�" A` That -2•• 1 4-Y 1 VC• /,rte /�= • ,,l e \ / g / g/f /� /�' port of the Southeast Warta °F line Southwest WMar of SecUm 32, Township 117, Ran e 2 described °s It /,- wj = —ri _ fa lows: P g a 3E 1, ;f ' ; s `� , _ ( : ;• / „/ - / /, 1 Commmdng at the aoutheml coma of said Swthe°st Quarter of the Southwest Quarter. thence South 89 degrees R / %- - 21 mtnutes 19 sec -ds Welt, - assumed bwrin W- the aou'lh Iine of sold Southeast Custer of the Southwest 1 �:. • ''; ,m ; „�,. Y L\ / s / 5� /� afA ���MAPL�' A�I ENU Warter, a distance of 1320.39 feel to line aoultneeE Comer of wid Southeast Water of the Southwest WMar, ej j �' `,; •z f0 / __ thence North 00 der a 04 mtnutes 23 sec -ds Weet, aimg the west line of said Southeast WMar of the ^y�p •, , y _ ,J(`n'., al �j- ``: .� \ ,t :'1y I y/ ,C3 6 / �? -�•^ gas o LJ / Y 6wlhwaat Warter, a distance of 111.72 feat to lino n°rthedy rr hl of way the of the Hennepin County Regional I ' - ♦ ma •` / O ' -�3 �� /j r ” Ratlro°d Authority co rldor, formerly the Mlnneopolis and St tnuis Railroad; (hence continuing North 00 degrees 04 ;('_'1 E X .� ,t�f,: / /� , b n t<,f \ y W ��•,J -' �!�( ✓� �j / / 1 mutes 23 seconds Waat, °long acid west I'na of the Sou1h°aat WMa of the Southwest Wider, a distance of SSS OvrtffR: ,EFTREY & JOYCE WASSENAM a luf • -Tt•.1 ice f \ Y.� ` ij' / / , 415.27 feet to the oint of beginning f sold I Of to he desalted; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 / `6100 CATiCART DRIVE NI R 9< /• / 1 \ r nn,, 1A it eeeonda Eaal, a dieP nce of 483.29 lost to said narthed ri t of way Ime• thence North p0 32 -117 -23-33 -0038 / l � � - � 1} / � � ` 1 `� �- �` -�' '�,J � _ �. � 1 / �=��/ � t ( � ' , 0 � � 52 seconds East, elan Y � Y rth 48 dagr °es 55 minutes fast; lb.­ South \ \\ • *�. tyn i'•�* // "�- ��, \• /�! + t mtnutes 42 seconds West, la distancey ofg716.06 feet ta'sw dcwest II�e of Southeast WMa of line Southeast Wortar, thence South W degrees 04 mrnut. 23 sacmds East, along wid meat Ilne, a distance of 200.01 feet to Q '; I' Y l✓ ` /` (� `i\ y y F } • ... f� / /.,F -�� =/ /// / ) I ; ) • a}}. ^ -,� J/ ,n1.. - ' ` - - -- 4al�.t Y , It �, .• 4J 4•} 4 Jiy -r/ "`�v ,' % / / / � — said point of beginning. o ,`^ .CYY .c •L - ...� -_ • .J.' .^ear 1 /.� - ° / / . i — _ — - / Q r _:1NOTES: 483.29 -- • , y/ / /` ��� - 1. The orientation of this haartn teen is based on the Hennepin County coordinate grid (TURD 83 -96 Adj), / Ir r /- - -=� -.. i gsn 4. ,?$�1-0 �1 vARIX4 G.if'1,/; ' / < / {/ ',f'` , 2. The total area of the ^q,. S � L'_ , �A�. k Sc� /- yt� , Pr°PMy described hereon Is 220,277 square rest or 5.0569 oaaa. 1.J R: 1- ' ,�f "c• �t: ` �'y= t e TUrs'N EASx]n -- \ f" /r ,-1 / `�QO �W. 3. The legal der rIpUm used M the p,.parotim of this aurwy iv based an the Warranty Dead par Document Number r t / .1,4,tN 6367200. - _ F8a •' - - _ \ �I , / m'F /•��*- ,-p / / / 'Yf }. i 4. E13stin9 utilities, services and underground alrvctures ahawn haem was 1°eated booed upon obserYed evdmee. ok / w I ' i�' j i '%� �' - H . rrr_ SSF� �ss�� - ;-cr�s('� / —/ - -• t Y -- W S I VerlReatton and location of dl utilities and v icas should be obtained from the owners of the rasp..Uve uNNU. prier �.t�. �!! Ij t° °n deaf A� , I ' %•- ..n, ♦'r, ♦, _ / .� V i Y �, Planning - eseawtion. property described here- lies withtn Flood Zme X (Areas dalarntnad to be outride of the 0.2X annual Dance 1 'cP'• 5. The / \ h (�J ••/�� �i •� • �s7c� // �•__ /���+ I V ewdptarn) per Federal Insolence Role Map N. 27053 C 0313 E. dated Septem6a 2, 2004. iar O%NER GEORGE R. k 1ESUE C. CIEASON 7 { J 6130 CAIHCART DRIVE rj ,; ♦ 1 6. BENCHMARK: Top nut of the hydrant located on the north aide of Maple Avenue °pp..Mat.ly 320 feet mast of •;i. 5. �s '`� !' / Q, / ( J /� `` (dY of Shorawmd datum). (' a, �.e f �j P o �il.�J •J Strawberry Lane, elevation - 978.60 feat C' ll y' ; [,;y,} q e f'_Fi . 1• -- / Y g Egan, Field A Nowak survey dated July 19, 2004. No currant field work -a P • t / (1!�o , )j— , F Z This sores Is based on °n existing en performed In the preparation of this wnvy. / J J 3 m i tt • (' 0 (• 11" z �� lI •< /irk- z{' y 1 4 ° 1N e. Wetlands depicted haaann were delineated h A uaUa Eccsdutt I r ./% f.O C- /// .. w �• , v F' Y 9 ons, Inc. -d field located January 9, 2004. / e I N �. Er ( `• e ` �lj •�,y/ / J/f � a' � T '' � DWI- 9. The a..hired eras of xe8onda located an the property Is 33,790 square feet mare or less. 10. The locations for topography and bulfdtn itu°tad outside of the 9 Prop My Rn was taken from informatlan Provided to us by the City of Sh a od 1 - // f CERTIFICATION ` / / / W °" ` t ° ,°_.Y' ' '�3 • aL1R;� `v/ 'Pv y��t j,� 9� \ f I hereby ...illy that this wrvey w pre pared by me m undo my direct aupeMel- and that 1 °m a duly Llemsed Land / / I ~ n { y,l. e f' 1f �Y / • � _ \ v Su w3or undo the Ian of the Stale of M nnnota. Date of surny. January 5, 2004. Date at at t c y gins ore: Fehru 28, 2014. JOHN P. KDCK J J I I I m w, / •1 ��E/ V" &Y'� ^� Minnesota LI ense N. 44123 O%NER: ANOREW J. DOROTHY A ME1D (_ 6180 CATHLART Oflm'E l�� (4445555 r�,f PID 32- 11] -2} Y_ // 1 f / 1 LEGEND " MHO MANHOLE HYDRANT c� all / /r'oN ¢ GATE VALW / / Q 4�, , /{' `,^ 's / ( 1 . (•``J 1 \ 4a0 4,_ IPROPOSED AREAS '- -_ °- – ' ti GUY WINE POLE C' 3 /,:z��. # 1 1 uF� dJ I PROPS Py?CF�1 99 AIR CONDITIONER �s /• e u L Q / ( p t �A,3tJ c' 1 1 f 1 l Q� 5� . TOTAL PMCII. AREA - 100.342 eq.ft / 23035 saes ® ELECTRIC METER • CATHCART DRIVE R.O.W. = 13,236 aq.fL / 0.3039 ease - — — Q GAS METER fl 1 A PARCEL AREA LESS RO.W. - 87.106 SQ.FT. / 1.9997 ACRES �5= CHAIN LINK FENCE_ " ` `j CC / PROPOSED PARM 9 �0000c0 STONE WALL / / \` ,�, TOTAL PARCEL AREA = 119,935 s R. 27533 saw w SANITARY SEWER 4 II CATHCARi DRIVE R.O.W. = 6,600 aq.ft / 0.1515 acres WATERMAIN /� '/ t l I •# 1 t l / ,WVp. , O 50 .� QO ,150 PARCEL AREA LESS R.O.W. = 113,335 SO.Fi. / 26018 ACRES —E— OVERHEAD WR ELECTRIC OVERHEAD WIRE `. • 1 —TC4M UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE i "J \ 1 / 4— f —a— UNDERGROUND GAS SCALE IN FEET n'Y`r"Y'YVWV TREEIINE SWAMP G FOUND IRON MONUMENT xaatt SPOT ELEVATION FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENT /920 EXISTING CONTOUR LINE - E „� -/ / { I _ \ O SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED �? j�( / n KITH LICENSE NUMBER 44123 "OR :1� TREE f n sue® SET PK NAIL o 1 BITUMINOUS SURFACE ' 2 _ SIYCOPNER OF THE SW 1/4 / 1 -�- THE SW C1/ OF THE SE 1/4 OF J CONCRETE SURFACE �OF THE. 1/4 OF SEC 32 'S8' C NORNFJt OF 7H SE 114 �7N LINE O�IHE�£- F /4-t1r11fE SW 1/4 Clc SEC. 32, T. 117, R. 23 THE SW T/4 OF SEC. 32 (FOUND C1.AAj 1 GRAVE;. SURFACE T THE . ;M j OF THE Sq/(Cl� SEC. 32�-� ( ] S6921'19'W 1320.39 0/Tr OF SHOi4DV” - HENNEP /N COUNTY __ _ _ WEI AND AS DELINEATED BY Se921Y9'W 2640.78 /� -� CITY OF CHANHASSEN - CARVER COUNTY AQUATIC ECOSOLURONS INC FIELD BOOK PAGE OIHIEF: ORK REVISIONS SURVEY FOR: Exhibit B 25ss s2 PROPERTY ADDRESS: NO. DATE DESCRIPTION MINOR DRAWN Hanle Korin 6135 Cathcart Drive PROPOSED SUBDIVISION DRAWING NAME: PFY�� 35821,WG CHECKED SUBDIVISION Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Egan JOB NO. 35822 BY: FILE NO. 679 BRP tartd solve( PROPOSED EASEMENTS I / I �) L) / 1 I A T C �7 n l l v n ( r N892142 a M 0 E 716, 6 h v n v -/ / ! , +� /sas r ♦z� �- /� + ^k / +X.4, �/6!! lofmr wcr a+rAw4crrumm rwmlavr ,a< • .l,iy. ✓_ /_ /! / for - -- ifi- e4 7 /- 7- > sB9z14z'w 64s.od / �7---- - - - - -- - - -- j.7: /I srFYAnar4. '/ ,�dt' s>aa > / 7' /1w i I y /- carsxvAnw,,: / to r-- (+ i +-� . >fl NeZ,�wla // + +> ulrs7m ,f �mvsxvA !' Wgs 66i1�'!_'° i/ � / /- r f \7' � rt* ,� , / cwAraca ��'� y1- ,.. ¢vga,(/ i / :r+ 'l` ,t•£ +i�,7 / !`s unnY' !' ✓ ' /L P. QN / ♦ d''- } -� O A ��,/ // J : /� / e��t�''yyry� MAPLE AVENU / NG e I 1 ° ° o,1' - _ Y I ( \ xanyrro u 7: / / / / / / � N7a` x ,'o •`'a" - - --to -Fw-r x-mc -av4x4ru' uf 4e8m12`r9 + J J ! il N89 1'42 N89z142£ -c-r- r Y u_mr . +_ :� ' � /r <-� ` - i t>\ -/ - - � . /•/ rte /' - / _ 1 ! fi / / e )q- r,r7�•tysaror9�. 7v y �/e + 1!�892!'42 J sg f ( zr'4 S89�142 W 48329 ` r- vA • + / t `� N I ` a° 111 xasz 4zT 4 9- \\ wuw4ser j 4 / unDr all uw°F'nN "Easve„r it \ Oy � Izl �Iw2 1 I R / fib$ AO� dd�dsseyg a l l al P A 0, k/ t^ e h y A ' / e W RIB ii/ \aA '-t& Ct II i 0 Q I 0 50 100 150 jo I / ! SCALE IN FEET to o/ / / Y FOUND IRON MONUMENT I / OO FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENT O SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED W77FI UCENSE NUMBER 44123 SET PK NAIL IfETLWD AS DEUNEA7ED BY AQUA77C ECOSaU77CW4 ING ' �• AND 17ELD LOCATED JANUARY 9, 2004 II • r / 17 ! C0W.ERVA770N, DRAINAGE & U77UTY EA -smayr 2 0 SW CORNER or THE SW 1/4 r I" SEC W 11 O SE SE 1/4 OF 5' THE SW 1/4 OF SEG 32 -- -� ,-OF ME SW 1/4 OF SEG JZ W CORNER OF 7NE SE 1/4 I r SOUTH UNE OF THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 art' SEG 3$ T. 117, R. 2J (FOUND GLM !!- (FOUND GI.M.) N8921'19'E 1320.39 HE SW 114 OF SEG J2�1 / '' 58921'19'W 1320,.39 C/TY OF SHORE11'GX - HENNEP /N COUNTY S892P19W 2640.78 C /TY OF CNANHASSEN - CARtE'R COUNTY FIELD BOOK PAGE FIELDWORK 2596 62 CHIEF: SURVEY FOR: REVISIONS PROPERTY ADDRESS: N0. DATE DESCRIPTION MINOR DRAWN BY: DRAWING NAME: PMD Janie Korirr 6135 Cathcart Drive 35 g JOB B NO. 35822 BYECKED SUBDIVISION Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 NO. FILE NO. 679 BRP .MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR: Janie Korin 'PROPOSED EASEMENT DESCRIPTIONS:;" DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Pascal I- t drainage and al lity eosement °wr, under and .tram the easterly 10 feet of the we 43 43 fee4 the southamtedy 10 feat lytn99 aaaterly of the went 33 feet; and the northerly 10 feet lyhg aas[edy of the wart 33 feet of the fdloxhg dascrgred property, That part of the Southeast Mortar of the Southwest Quartz of Section 32, Townahip 117, Range 23, dasaibed as follows: Commencing at the southeast comer of acid Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Harter, thence South 89 degrees 21 minute 19 roe -redo West, an aswmed bearing °tang the south Ilea of mid Southeast Harter of the Southwest Maher, a distance of 1320.39 feel to the -authWest comer of mid Soulhaost Harter or the Smehwest Harter, th eme North 00 degraea 04 minutes 23 seconds Wast along the went Ilia of aid Smtheast Quad of the Smthwaat Harter, a di,Easca of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way itne of the Hennepin County Regfond Ra6mod Authority rridor formerly the Nfnneopdia old St Louis ".ad, or the point of beginning of said land t° be described; thence eon Unuhg North W degrees D4 mtnutas 23 aecmd, Wmt, slang said west line of the Southeast Harter of the Southxaat Harter, o dielmce of 47527 feet; thence North W degrees 21 mfiutea 42 secmda Eaat a diefano. of 483.29 feat to sold dorherly fight of way line; thence South 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 saemds Wm4 olmg sold nohhedy right of way Ifne, o d lance or 640.29 f t t° old point of beginning. Ae dare n go, and ubTily a aemmt over, under area across the easterly 70 reef of the wmlaAy 43 feet, the aouthadr 10 rase lyig austarly of the zest 33 fee4 the northerly 10 feat lying easterly of the west 33 fee4 and the southeasterly 10 fast of iha fallow fig dmcrfiad property, That port of the Southeast Hohe, of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Townsfifp 117, Range 23, daac bed as fellows; Commencing at the southeast comer of said Southeast Quarto, of the Southwest Harter, than- South 89 do,g- 21 minutes 19 ascends Wast, an assumed bearing dmg the south Ifne of add Smtheast quarter o/ the Southwest r u WWer o .Harter a defence of 1320.39 feet to the southwest comer of acid Smth east Harter of the Southwest Harter, thence N crth p0 d ram 04 mtnutas 23 a Herter, a dlatmce of 111.72p feat to the northesrly rtgfil otnr9iay Ifne of the Hanneptn County Rgiand Railroad AulhMty Wink, along d -k . °of the oSnwrihrn {mau toe, °the Smthx°atfiqumier, a dbtancWea °f 415.27 faef to the poamt f beginning of avd land to be daserbad; thence North 89 degrees 21 mfiutea 42 saeoIda East, a dlatas- of 483,29 feet to said northerly right of way lino thence North 48 degrees 55 mtnutas 52 aeconda Eask, along aoid nahhedy right of way, °dates- of 30 cask fee4 then- South B9 degrees 21 mtnutas 42 seconds Wmt, a distance or 716.08 feet to said zest line of South Mort er of the SmD, at Mahar, Chance South 00 degrees 04 mfiutea 23 ascends East slang mid went Ifne, a distance of 200.07 feet to mid poht err bsginnhg. CONSERVATION, DRAINAGE AND UTIU7Y EASEMENT Aconservation, drainage and utaity easement over, under and across the following desm'bad property, That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, T. -,hip 117, Range 23, dasaibed ore full..,; Commencfng at the southeast comer of said South east Marto, of the Southeast Morten, thmca South 69 degrees 21 minutes 19 aecanda Went. an aasvmad beodng long the routh Iles of sold Smtheast quarter of iha Southwest Horta, a d'ulan- of 1320.39 feet to the southwest comer of acid Smlhewt Hvhar of iha Southwest Haller, there a North 00 degram M mfiutea 23 seconds West, aimg the went Ihs of said Southeast quartz of the Southwest Quarter, dstm< of 11L72 feet io fha northerly right of way Ifie of the Hennepin County Regional NOV. Authority, condo,, (o0nedy the Nfinmpo6s and St. Lints Rdlrmd, and fhe poht °(.begt.Itng of old land to be deiOibed; Swthxmt Harts, aorldia mesa f 47 27 feet; Ih2onceeNorth 89 degaoes 21 �minut- 42 second, East rtdll t n e of the 483.29 feet to aoid northedy right of way Iina fhmce South 48 de gram 55 mtnutas 52 second, Wean dmg sold northerly right of way Iha, a dl,tanta of 640.29 feet t° mid pot t of beginnng. Sold easement if. northedy and ...tary of the following dmOlbed Iina; Commmdng at the aouthemt comer of sold Svuthaost Quarter of iha Smtheast Harter, thence South B9 degrees 27 minutes 19 secmda Wat m assumed basing dmg fha south line of eaid South eo,l Heher of the Southwest Herter a dslmce of 1320.39 feet to the southwest coma of mid Southeast Quarter of the South* mt Mortar, thane° Nohh 00 degrees 04 minata 23 sec-ds W-4 dmg the wast If., of mid Southeast Marta of the Southwest Quarter, a dNtma° of 111.72 fist to the northedy right of way Ifie of the Hmnepin County Regime! Retread Authority rddor. formerly the the l.in -pdfs and St Louis Ragroad, thence eonlinuhg Narit, 00 degrees 04 mfiuta 23 ecmds West, Gong mid west Ifia of fha Southeast Harter of the Southwest Harter, o dlatm- 1 475,27 fee4 thence North 89 degrees 21 mfiutw 42 seconds Eaat dong the north f ° of fha above dsecribed property, a dstance f 33.00 feet to the olnt of begfinhg of mid Ifne t° be desebad; tholes South 00 degrees 04 mtnutas 23 seconds North a degree or tat feet; thence North e9 degrees 21 flutes 42 eecmd, East, a distance of 21.97 feat; then - Narlh 72 da<yass 01 mtnula 15 seconds ake. dhtan- of 33.55 feat to -ld north Ifne of the ,bow described hence South 4s d� dageas 21 :rules 42 aecmda East, °long mid north iha, a distance of 217.49 feat 52 aaemds East, a d'atm -2 FF 47.42 e1; second. then- Smite dGStaasce of 60.09 fast thence Smite BO degrees 48 mtnutas g a 22 mm ten 36 accord, Em4 a distance of 20.80 feet n mid nodthedy fight of way the of the Hennepin County ftegl -ai R.Troad Authority corr/d., and there mid Ilne temnito sold Parcel R A cm -floc, drainage and 'URy ---t over, under and across the NI..ing des bad property, That part of the Southeast Harts, of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing of the southeast coma of mid Southeast Harter of the Snuthxest Hester theta. South 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 as. do Wmt m assumed baoring dmg the south Iina of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Marta, o d'utan- of 1320.39 test to the aouthxast coma of sold Smlhcas! Hader of the Southwest Harts; thence Nash 00 dagrem D4 mfiules 23 seconds Wmt along the went the of and Southeast Quarts of the Southwest Harter o dntmce of 117.72 faef to the northedy dghl of way Ifne of the Hennepfi County Ragland Ra6raad Authodty Went, olon�erly the tlhnmpo6s end St Louts Railroad; thence cmtfiufig North 00 degrees 04 mnutm Z3 mconds g said went free of the Smlhewt Harter of fha soulhxast quanta, a diston- of 415.27 feet to fha point f begnnng al mid land to be des bed; thence North 89 dagrem 2f minutes 42 seconds East, a distaste of 483.29 feat to said northedy dghE of way i -no, thence North 48 degram 55 mfiutea 52 seconds East, clang aoid northedy right of way, a dstas- of 308.39 fee4 then- South 89 dagrem 21 mfiutea 4Z seconds West. a distance f 716.06 E�4toalaaid zest line of Smtheast Harter of the Smtheast Harter, thence South 00 degrees 04 mhutas 23 sacmds g said went fin4 o dglance of 200.01 faef fo aoid point of beginning,. Said -,-.at is described m follows; Commencing at the southa°st coma of mid Southeast Harter of the Southwest Harter, thence South 89 degrees 27 minutes 19 eaemds f 13 m assumed bearing dmg the south Ilno of aoid Smth 'Zo Harter of the South 89 t Hartz, a dsemee of 132039 feat to the muthxact -ma of old Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 00 degrees 04 mfiutea Z3 --ds Wmt, dmg the zest it,. of and Southeast Harter of the Southwest Mahar . dlaton- of 117.72 feet to the northedy right al way Iha of the Hennepin County fta -to R f the Authority coaid formerly the fha Nhnmpdfs and St Louis Ralroad, thence ton N' North 00 degree 04 mfiuta 23 ends Went Img sold west Ifie of the Smtheast Hats of fhe Smthwmt Harter o distance of 415.27 reef then<a North 89 degram 21 mfiuta 42 samds Ewt dmg the south Ifne of the show descbad property, a diatarxe of 33.00 feat to fheEEppooht of begfinhg of sad easement to be due at thence contfiufig North 89 degrees 21 "go mhmda EasF,datance of 5042 fasyuthmce North l48cdecgea 37 mhulm 50 sec�ndss Eas tra d- mlante�n of 98.83 fee4 thmca North 22 degram 72 minutes 39 sends East a d,.tmee of 78,74 faef thence North u degrees 32 inuim 28 sends East, a distm- of 7285 feel: thence South 78 degree, 32 mnutm 55 seconds East a, distan- t 43,50 { t then- South 50 d<greva DB minute 31 eeconds W t, a d'ulw<e of 3 se feet fhenca Smite 13 dedstm�.f 47.80 fee4 then -E-`, distance of 80.00 (set•, thence South 26 degrees aD mtnutas 17 seconds M. Iina thmca North 89 d degrees 42 mfiutea 37 s ,13 East; a dfat°nw of 6.95 feet to eaid south northedy rigfit of way I �e of ifi° Hmneph Cou nty Regimvl R trogad Author'�ity oarido ,I thence North 48 deg, to ea 55 Inutas 52 second, East dmg mld northerly fight of way Rne, o dfA -Cho of 30 &39 feet to the north Ifie of and boo dashed property, thence South 89 degrees 21 mfiutea 42 second, West along sold north rho. a distance of 146.4E feet theca South t degam 37 minutes 41 seamds West, a dlslan- of 38.85 feet thmca South 13 degrees 06 mnutes 46 sacande EO:t a d(stm- of 21.97 fad; thmca South 36 degram 32 minutm 16 seconds West a distance of 47.28 tai: thence South 25 degrees 43 mfiules 11 aecvnds Wmt a dfstonce of 34.81 feet thence South 65 degrees 48 minutes 30 aecon W t a d'atan- of 68.73 faef then- North 72 degrees 08 mh1ut. 28 second. Went a dstmu 11 19 fin4 Uenea North 52 degrees 38 minutes 46 seconds Wast a distance of 25.57 fast D" North 30 degrees t2 mfiules 30 seconds Wsat a distance of 30.21 feat thence North 10 dagrem 56 mfiules 34 so, -redo West, a dstona of 43T tarot thence North 06 dagrem 10 minutes 53 sends East, a dl= of 30.01 tea thmca t North 4. degram 38 minutm 35 s id a East o dfstan- of 49.9) feat to mid naih Iha than- North 89 dagrem 21 mtrruEn 42 aemMs East, dmg and north ilea o disfan- of 328.58 fee4 lhanca South 52 degram 44 "rules f. seconds West a 45 - of 3&92 trot thence South 02 dagrem Ot minutes 21 seconds East a distance, f 28.58 tech than- Smite 45 degrees 37 mtnutas 15 seconds West, a diston- of 8.91 feat than- North 81 doe oaten -5of 20.68 (at thenc as Saui7apdp d4ACe of 24.28 to I; thence South 51 dagrem 23 minutm 28 mole West, point of begfinhg. o9raa 04 minutm 23 accords East a dAtmce of 134.42 feat to said Exhibit C PROPOSED EASEMENTS Egan, flab tend at)rYe I Ft ' 1 .11 EDWARD A 26!RRYCKI II A`vjc` SOW CATHCART DIVE PID 32- 117 -2T- 33-0019 I, 13 All OWNER D, STERN I 26885 BEVERLEVML Y DRIVE 1 PID 32- 117 -23 -33 -0016 (J rJ / y Owi.'ER: ,EfFREY do JOYCE WA99D,AAR / / `6100 CATHLR DRIVE . I0 32- 117 -23-33 -0076 / � �97t/ N A� OW)ER GEORGE R. V tESVE G GLEASON 6130 2-117- CATHCART OR-0 1\ PIS 32 -i1�, }33 -0037 4 �1 �Q a' I y3 t W 1 'I� OwTER; ANDREW J. pOROTHY A VELD/ 1{1{ 6mD CATHCART EJUI L_ti PIO ]2- if] -23-j5 -0038 J / IL ;ti / t 4 it o wvcfilll " WE SW 1/4 f�OF THE SW 1/4 OF SEC 32 W CORNER CF 7He SE 1, (F ) / a� THE sw� /� of Wa w =- F0 NB971'!9 £ 132039 -D BOOK 2596 DRAWING NAME: 35622.dwQ JOB NO. 35822 FILE NO. 679 ;^", MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR: o �a ` r i 1 lie K ®rin E - _ / � _.D 1 t // i. K / .''LEGAL I OwN R 4UE8 Ax0 ANDREA NRNOV BT l'I ' 6095 CAINCART DNiI'E That port of the Southeast 1 1 PID 32 -if7 -23-34 -0056 / Po /4 of the southwest 1/4 of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, da6afoed se follow. 1 1 Deginning al o Point on the Nor wy It.. of the right -of -wa f the 1117-1-11- / �� .: 111 -� 9 North of the Soulhweat coma of fhe 5outheaat 1/4 of the SouthxeeF 1 sald Se tioo 32, T wnahp 117. fee! / Range 23, thence North 619 feet; then_ E a 71 fact to the rl9ht -of -way of the Mlnneapalia and SL Loofa I O''o JAVES Ak ANDREA TURK 9T / /q1 RaAraad; ih nce Eo;.. ealerly along Ifne of sold right -or -way 947 feet mare ar lead is the poll( of beginning. OW`IER: RICHARD AND KARD] FYNRLVNO /// �•� \ OrixFR: CANOACE JEAN EDWARD6 I 6095 CAIHCART DRIVE L� �t Hennepin Co. nty, MNneaot Ia 60]5 CATNCART 3RNE PIO 32- 117 -23-3 0056 / iii gS- P10 32- 117 -13 -3q -0041 6065 011E-2RT34 -O / / (Warranty, Deed Per Dowment Number 63672DO) \PM 32- 117 -2J -34 -0046 � ;`;PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS:!-`,"-- •' > 51R/.W9ERRY CIRCLE ( PRNA� p) ND ACCFS6 TO SIE I rTS -m.a Jp / ` D'N;JER: JAUES AND ANDREA NR]KlUBT \ issr ,�' / •�' r� yP ry •' L n �{ / Parcel is .. - t.�.-- _- . -.... 'S:-s. =ice -. �.:x,. = {F'>r:'.. ?1-l_ -f:�r "`- �"` >�.n.•�:; -g' _ _- _ .;,�w_j- •`s+z� -.:. _v=- rx�+' -r -/ ww / mat part of the southeast Ouart o ra.. o a f the Southwest Quanta of Section 32, Tawnshtp 117, Ranger 23, desatbed as -- �. I _ 1 • ] .� 58921'42 "I .• t." -',i " ^--- - c Commencin •�, s ,r- -•- '" era" a-. 1LF - �' ,+ A"� 9 at the aoutheaa( coma of wid Southeoat Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence South 89 d �•:� '1 /� 'S 68306 y'1 "T \ -s� ♦ e. f -" ,' // / / 4• 21 minutes 19 seconds Was an on assumed hearing don the south Me of cord southeast Quarter S the soot hw�ta •+,:.f ♦ // (/ e ♦ • >'L 6 •.• y y - '� Ark / , `-�` ` Quanta, o d(atanca of 1320,39 feet to Ue soulhwt C«na of void Southeast Quarter o{ (he SWtnxea{ Quo ter '.� e ♦ .� I / v V 9d °rah �+.�. _,. ( 1'-"'- .� +' /• . - y-`-:- d; then. North 00 dagreas D4 minutaa 23 sacwLds W. along the xast Itne of aatd Saufheaet Wwta of the • - awsxvena4 y •g!•T�e f ,f?1 9 ,�T . vim- cdrt'swvan ♦♦ /y / S_ / t�• q southwm! Quarteq a dletance of 111.72 feet to the norlhedy right of wa I'ne of fhe Henn �4 I/ f^" +ASE 9l / 'o L�Ja d3:•, 11„Y AeMUrf / / /-s -� y RaAraad Authorit Y Pa epingCoun9Yofacaid 'and A/ eorzidor u]y]y l^'a d ,z• t • / d, to be described; thence eanitnuingyNorih 00 d rp es 04sminutmis 3 ....Ad. West, along acid wilt Iina of the 7 mvstRVaT•. -) _ �. / gT,r,,rt� / ) ♦ /-- �--`� eoutheaat Warier of the southwest Quarter, a distance of 415.27 feel• thence North 89 do 1 / / / _ _ ) Y / f 3 �• y y a greed 21 minutes 4z o•Ir i`\rys��Y r ♦ Jk: ♦ t ` �"''S'' condo East, a distance of 483,29 feet to said nerthad r' 15 of way Lin thence south 48 degrees 55 minutes - y 52 seconds Wect, along said northerly right at way IIn4 a distance of 64029 feet to said Pafit of beginning. N a ,/',,�J ,,��?,T i,C?� .• /- "" -/ 1 -EA4l] \ \\ 3 .4,r, // /: --- f Y (�; ,y, / /; sue% / Th ot rt of the South...t Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Sectlon 32, T-111 117, Range 23, described as W 1 i1 ", /Y: 9? ��•, / /��� fol = i � Je Lam'.''•: ` iE �.'•` 1 � �` 1 �� �+aA.;�' \ w✓"' `.. ' ` r / / v •• e � , _ _ p Y == . / // 1 \ Commencing at the southeast coma of aotd Sou beast Wo ter of he Sou hwaet Qua ter, !halts South 89 degreaa rh ,Ion' \ / i 6� / q,A �I MAPLE 21 minute. 19 Seconds West, a assumed bearfn9 slang the sou h Ilne err Satd Southeast Quart err the Southwest < ` L�,:r J J z • yy y / / AiFNU Quarter, o dlatanca of 1320.39 feet to In. aauthxeat comer of said South Duo tart the so of the t Quart er, x jjj =t,- -, thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 aecmds Wast, along the west line of sold Southeast Quarto of the _ a♦ , R I "" ,(?T y �h" / - southwest Warier, a distance of 111.72 lack (o ,he northerly right of xay tine of the Hennepin County Regional ♦* l a'! , .�'.�"1',C�'f' / /t ` _ 4J \ W / / JJ�"^ i ) minuted 23 eeconda Walt, ajoo"'rrL edy the Mlnnoapdfa and sL Laub Ratiroad: thence conttnuIDS North 00 degrees 04 r 3E ��J .• / 4:.y'L:i / l•� = i \ Sr J i e / z-.'' 9 paid weal I" of fhe Southaaat Worter of the Sauthweat Quarter, a dinfan_ of P ` ` ` •1 - y_' -.f=? :, '�, ,.a, 1 Els�,��± j / 4n1527 {set to iha point of beginning of sold fund io be desafied; thence North 89 degraea 21 mtnutea 42 '� lt•. it" / �A�,��l sJ C4+f' / _ 1[� )(t � nds Eaaf, o dl, A_ of 483,29 foot la said northedy nigh! of way tine; thantt North 48 d real 55 minutes art `''�' + // t VY; Y\ t Y L` ¢ \' f�/ ��•%?. <`� �a / + C -� � }SA , o" minutaa 42 eecandaolY at, la diatancey f 716.06 f°eta(ofasoidC..1 11.. of fee" Last Quanta of El rho 3roufheoat / Z ' 1 �j _ Quarter thence South DO dagress 04 mnutes 3 seconds dart along sold xect Ifns, a distance of 200.01 fee! to ti •-�.�Y ��Ja - --N8971%F2'E 450.29,: --s- x • J '.N :,1.�� / / ya f o'a'Ea•' l {.! -_ td point of beginning, - • tJ RL w�-• '-�:�Y- _ . //., _ N8921_42' _483.29 -- - 3l " t, 'M�-`.-a __.w:."'v -�r�a .`y'rg9,�ea / A2j QThe orientation of this bear,n 9 d-1b d based is 220 Hn in Count 'The total arao of tha property daserioad hereon Is 220,277 square feet or 5.0569 (NAO 03 -96 Adj). °� B ��Y` i({ t 3. The legal descdptIon used to the preparoUm of this aloe ,s hosed on the Wa ant Oeed :1 8367200. Y y per Document Number vl s / .1 4. E>usi(n9 utilities, sav'f.- and underground afrucfurea shown hereon was located based upon Observed evidence. v ' : , . • 1 s / . ,: �_ _Ll ' f Y Ix i V- dffcation and location of dl utilities and services should be obI.IA.d from the --- of the r -p.01- 0flitles prior to any dm(gn, planning a ezcawGon. YY �T,/ o> y/ �9t+ •MlFit` / 5. The �a �s7 / 6v 0 ' 5. i i Property described hereon Ilea I,Nhin Flood Zone X Area. detamfnad to be outslde of the 0.2% annual than_ /s t ,( �f / E, September 2, 2004. `� I % V �� � •. �� 9 \/ . �, �_' �� \��•L� t,l, , __ ° _- � y(T(� Pan) pa Fedad Insurance Rate Map No, 27053 C 0 }f3 dated 6 S. BENCHMARK; To nut of the h' roof l-.Ai d - the north aide of Mopte Avenue approzlmoiefy 320 feet went of 1 �;>� A =� 1 �'e�"`�, ?.1�'♦..y1 9 .,i:' a o� g� ..�'G, i.`') � / p 7d Slrawherty Lane, el -tion - 978.60 feet ' I , /y + _ Q•° R /` ` (City of Shorewood datum). m P` < 0 1 .r4 .f 4'``f S J 7. This aurw to booed on on aziat'. E �'' YqAl1�� V� r l '� • >.' ' �``�' J/ Perf-ed m fhe ra 9 San, Fldd k Hoxak aurwy dated July 19, 2004. No current fidd work was 'L_ " (' F`" y aC r.. t e - J �� Atc{�• /', I j 1 �' /' P Paration of this aurwy. ♦ E- I' a•yp ' .so �.1 (., %;' �1' 5�,* y A c�• •r t"`ll a We depicted hereon were delineated by AquaU. E- O.Uor,% Ina and field fowled January 9, 2004. � 9. •The combined area of xa8anda lo_ted on the property h 3 3,790 bqumn feet mere or Its. 10. The Ixa loY for 17 o5by are dllain { •f OI = ?izxiz:,-'•- _ -- :•1 // �' // Q% �` ° 1 \ ' Provided to us b the CIt o 9s situated outside of the property floes xae taken Vern infonnatlon or / r -- : / \ _ rJ/ ��y s• o / / ICATION - s 3' "7 CERTIF ` ... 4 PPPVV a , �" ' '� 'g,G•, -,R. ^ \ .(1` 'o �� /` -, / ` ^ \ /' ya -�� t:. y L .pm{aton and that I am a duty Licrosea Lana _ s:>J /! •' r / `v e fVVV �•o�' , i Survnbr under that the State of MHnaoto. Y Y P pared by me a undo m direct su fn F / Dale of survey, danuorY 5, 2004. Data of aignatura Febmary 28, 2014. �9 S m m / =e�� \A O'ANEFh JOHN P. KUCK �ryyGG�rtt , F ` ' L'.'• c r�'�/ '.� \ ) a ` NtnncsoRta Li sloe No. 44123 4 7 _ ` �' LEGEND WO MANHOLE } - .fi,'s // /na; T .�• / I\ J ' lI l S\ % ✓ �`'�a•_L� / ¢• HYDRANT N 0 GATE VALVE \} ;h�� dJ •:r 1 1 ° 1; PROPOSED AREAS '" 0 ;,� -Q UTILITY POLE i s I♦ _ %/� y (�\` / , l 1 Q•.w� 9 `Jy f t F t "J�g:• ROPO¢LT PARCET 1 r, - rJ`+ (+ F-- GUY PARE G� 99 AIR CONDITIONER '°w°y TOTAL PARCEL. AREA = 100,342 eq.ff. / 23035 acres ® ELECTRIC MEIEN Ba I I t•y ..:' -f `� / -� ! l�"' °sti ` J: 1 I ' v '�T',,� CATHCART DRIVE R.O.W. = 13.236 sq.ft / 0.3039 arrea Q GAS METER ro / �_ ` % ! F4'u'��'t' - ° PARCEL AREA LESS RO.W. = 87,106 SQ.Fr / 1.9997 ACRES CHAIN LINK FENNCE- L'° 2 pROPOSFD PARlEI STONEWALL �a � // j\' _�. / ;_fi4 g- ' ; / / / iJ { -J I 1 1 ' f • f I / ' I o � w'v o " v , TOTAL PACE ARE = 11 9,935 - SANITARY S ESER ATHCART D RIVE R.D.W. - 6,600 aq.ft / 0.1515 vaea WAlFR1AIH 1 o 0 S0 PARCEL A R.O.W. = sOT. /26018 ACRES _UNDERGROUND EL 100 ECTRIC (SO OVERHEAD YNRE UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE SCALE IN FEET -T UNDERGROUND GAS rwv-v"YY"rvh TRFELINE FOUND IRON MONUMENT i SPOT ELEVATION FOUND CAST IRON MONUMENT �s2o/ Fa15T NC CONTOUR LINE O SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED .', 1N7N LICENSE NUMBER 44723 OR TREE '-7 (- �$'�- SET PK NAIL 11Y -7z- { - -� -_ =>` '` - -� BINMINOUS SURFACE SE CORNER OF NX SE 1/4 OF SOUTH El- SF /4 #�flE SW 1/4 or SEC. 32, T. 117, R. 23 7HE SW 1/4 OF SEC 32 - - --I CONCRETE SURFACE (FOUND a1 U-) 1 SB921'19'W 1320.39 C /T7' OF S%10?EIYOOD - NENNEP /N COUNTY _ =�;1 GRAVEL SURFACE 40.78 /\ E 7Y OF CHAYMWSSEN REVISIONS MINOR SUBDIVISION CARDER COUNTY SURVEY FOR: Janie Korin PROPERTY ADDRESS: 6135 Cathcart Drive Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 _ ....._ .. _ WEILAND AS DELINEATED BY AQUATIC ECOSOLURONS, INC Exhibit D RECOMMENDED DIVISION Egan ®® FQRQ ..I CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR STEVE AND JANE KORIN WHEREAS , Steve and Jane Korin (Applicants) are the owners of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have agreed to deed to the City a public right-of-way easement legally described in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to record a wetland conservation easement legally described in Exhibit E, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the two parcels described in Exhibit B will share a common driveway, the Applicants have agreed to record a Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements as provided in Exhibit F, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the subdivision requested by the Applicants complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described herein is divided into two parcels, legally described in Exhibit B. 2. The City Clerk shall furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. 3. The Applicants shall record this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, the deed for public right-of-way easements legally described in Exhibit D, and the conservation easements legally described in Exhibit E, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. -1- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of July 2015. ___________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -2- EXISTING PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of the right-of-way of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad 108 feet North of the Southwest corner of the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼ of said Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, thence North 619 feet; thence East 716 feet to the right-of- way of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence Southwesterly along line of said right-of- way 947 feet more or less to the point of beginning. Exhibit A -3- PROPOSED PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel 1: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad, and the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence South 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 578.61 feet to said point of beginning. Parcel 2: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet to the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence North 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East, along said northerly right of way, a distance of 370.07 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 716.06 feet to said west line of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 240.01 feet to said point of beginning. Exhibit B -4- PROPOSED DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENTS Parcel 1: A drainage and utility easement over, under and across the easterly 10 feet of the westerly 50 feet; the southeasterly 10 feet lying easterly of the west 50 feet; and the northerly 10 feet lying easterly of the west 50 feet of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad, and the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence South 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 578.61 feet to said point of beginning. Parcel 2: A drainage and utility easement over, under and across the easterly 10 feet of the westerly 50 feet; the southerly 10 feet lying easterly of the west 50 feet; the northerly 10 feet lying easterly of the west 50 feet; and the southeasterly 10 feet of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet to the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence North 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East, along said northerly right of way, a distance of 370.07 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 716.06 feet to said west line of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 240.01 feet to said point of beginning. Exhibit C -5- PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT (CATHCART DRIVE) Parcel 1: An easement for public right-of-way purposes over, under and across the westerly 50.00 feet of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad, and the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence South 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 578.61 feet to said point of beginning. Parcel 2: An easement for roadway purposes over, under and across the westerly 50.00 feet of the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet to the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence North 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East, along said northerly right of way, a distance of 370.07 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 716.06 feet to said west line of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 240.01 feet to said point of beginning. Exhibit D -6- CONSERVATION, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT Parcel 1: A conservation, drainage and utility easement over, under and across the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad, and the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence South 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds West, along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 578.61 feet to said point of beginning. Said easement lies northerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad, thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East along the north line of the above described property, a distance of 346.28 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South 38 degrees 54 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 16.08 feet; thence North 85 degrees 06 minutes 05 seconds East, a distance of 36.56 feet; thence South 35 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds East, a distance of 21.13 feet to said northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor and there said line terminating. Parcel 2: A conservation, drainage and utility easement over, under and across the following described property: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the Exhibit E -7- northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad; thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 375.26 feet to the point of beginning of said land to be described; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 436.73 feet to said northerly right of way line; thence North 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East, along said northerly right of way, a distance of 370.07 feet; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 716.06 feet to said west line of Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds East, along said west line, a distance of 240.01 feet to said point of beginning. Said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 19 seconds East, an assumed bearing along the south line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 1320.39 feet to the southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 111.72 feet to the northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor, formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad, thence continuing North 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds West, along said west line of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 615.28 feet to the north line of the above described property; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East along said north line of the above described property, a distance of 96.28 feet to the point of beginning of said easement to be described; thence South 32 degrees 25 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 38.93 feet; thence South 23 degrees 13 minutes 46 seconds West, a distance of 15.76 feet; thence South 39 degrees 22 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 15.17 feet; thence South 89 degrees 17 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 9.49 feet to the east line of the west 50.00 feet of the above described property; thence South 00 degrees 04 minutes 23 seconds East, along said east line, a distance of 151.33 feet ; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 24.64 feet; thence North 55 degrees 43 minutes 31 seconds East, a distance of 43.63 feet; thence North 74 degrees 48 minutes 04 seconds East, a distance of 43.87 feet; thence North 38 degrees 43 minutes 10 seconds East, a distance of 59.25 feet; thence North 55 degrees 12 minutes 24 seconds East, a distance of 30.82 feet; thence North 03 degrees 37 minutes 03 seconds East, a distance of 32.63 feet; thence North 29 degrees 20 minutes 36 seconds East, a distance of 20.77 feet; thence South 88 degrees 18 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 14.07 feet; thence North 01 degrees 44 minutes 01 seconds West, a distance of 17.62 feet; thence North 85 degrees 56 minutes 07 seconds East, a distance of 28.16 feet; thence South 17 degrees 25 minutes 24 seconds West, a distance of 62.04 feet; thence South 20 degrees 53 minutes 40 seconds East, a distance of 41.77 feet; thence South 49 degrees 34 minutes 05 seconds East, a distance of 15.47 feet; thence South 15 degrees 15 minutes 49 seconds East, a distance of 28.71 feet; thence South 33 degrees 02 minutes 42 seconds East, a distance of 25.43 feet; thence South 44 degrees 47 minutes 12 seconds East, a distance of 26.72 feet; thence South 63 degrees 38 minutes 09 seconds East, a distance of 22.59 feet; thence South 38 degrees 54 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 13.46 feet the south line of the above described property; thence North 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds East, along said south line, a distance of 90.45 feet to said northerly right of way line of the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority corridor; thence North 48 degrees 55 minutes 52 seconds East along said northerly right of way line, a distance of 370.06 feet to the north line of said above described property; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds West, along said north line, a distance of 157.77 feet; thence South 18 degrees 38 minutes 48 seconds West, a distance of 35.54 feet; thence South 59 degrees 29 minutes 56 seconds East, a distance of 5.23 feet; thence South 12 degrees 12 minutes 06 seconds East, a distance of 31.10 feet; thence South 16 degrees 14 minutes 59 seconds West, a distance of 17.97 feet; thence South 38 degrees 46 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 16.96 feet; thence South 55 degrees 54 minutes 32 seconds West, a distance of 31.79 feet; thence South 32 degrees 19 minutes 56 seconds West, a distance of 44.31 feet; thence North 69 degrees 15 minutes 52 seconds West, a distance of 41.41 feet; thence North 80 degrees 24 minutes 03 seconds West, a distance of 16.82 feet; thence North 41 degrees 12 minutes 57 seconds West, a distance of 47.72 feet; -8- thence North 18 degrees 39 minutes 29 seconds West, a distance of 22.99 feet; thence North 28 degrees 16 minutes 27 seconds East, a distance of 15.60 feet; thence North 02 degrees 53 minutes 28 seconds West, a distance of 61.92 feet to said north line; thence South 89 degrees 21 minutes 42 seconds West, along said north line, a distance of 306.21 feet to the point of beginning. -9- #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvement Project, City Project 14-10 Meeting Date: 7/13/15 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen Attachments: Resolution, Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize Advertisement for Bids Background: The City Council authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvement Project, City Project 14-10 on December 8, 2014. The proposed sidewalk improvement extends along the south side of Smithtown Road from the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail to Country Club Road. WSB has completed plans, and has made submittals to MnDOT State Aid and the MCWD for approval and permitting. Final project specifications and opinion of probable construction cost will be available after MnDOT review comments are received. Staff requests authorization to advertise for bids to maintain the project schedule for beginning construction this fall. The advertisement will be placed in the City Official Publication, Finance and Commerce and QuestCDN.com. The bid opening is scheduled for August 21, 2015. Land Acquisition is nearly complete. Staff is awaiting one signature from a land owner for a temporary construction easement. Financial or Budget Considerations: The Feasibility Report project opinion of project cost was $1,043,000, excluding land acquisition. Plans have been prepared to State Aid requirements in order to request partial MSAS funding for the project. The project is proposed to be funded from the trail fund, supplemented by MSAS funds, as available. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends Council approval of the attached Resolution to Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids. 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. 15-___ A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR SMITHTOWN ROAD SIDEWALK EAST EXTENSION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT 14-10 WHEREAS , the City of Shorewood authorized preparation of plans and specifications for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvement Project, City Project 14-10, on December 8, 2014; and WHEREAS , the City Engineer has prepared Plans and Specifications for the Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Improvement Project, City Project 14-10. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1.The Plans and Specifications were prepared by the City Engineer for such improvement. Said Plans and Specifications are hereby approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and according to MN State Law an advertisement for bids, upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published for 3 weeks, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened and considered by the city at the specified time and date, in the City Hall Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5 percent of the amount of each bid. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13 day of July, 2015. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Freeman Park Area Drainage Study – Draft Report Discussion Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Map 1 and Map 2 Figures Policy Consideration: Should the City fund a large drainage improvement project as part of the Capital Improvement Plan to construct drainage improvements for Freeman Park and surrounding area? Background: The City Council authorized a feasibility study/preliminary design report for the drainage area in the Freeman Park area. WSB has prepared a preliminary draft report that discusses existing conditions, proposed improvements, and estimated project costs (excluding land acquisition costs). Staff has reviewed the preliminary draft report and asked WSB to hold progress on the project in order to discuss the issue further with the City Council. The proposed project will require significant funding to construct an improvement that will provide benefit to properties in the study area. The following is from the preliminary draft report for discussion purposes: This report summarizes our evaluation of options to address the flooding within the Freeman Park subwatershed (Map 1) within the City of Shorewood. City Staff described issues with the following locations: 1.Shorewood Oaks Development – property flooding due to surcharge of storm and drainage system. 2.Channel erosion along Grant Lorenz Road – water level and erosion issues, driveway culvert damage. 3.Strawberry Lane – flat terrain and standing water adjacent to roadway corridor. The following sections describe the issues and proposed improvements for each location. SHOREWOOD OAKS Residents in the Shorewood Oaks development, have expressed concern with street and structure flooding after the spring rainfall events in 2014. The flooding is due to heavy precipitation events and storm sewer capacity in the development. The storm sewer has surcharged during heavy rainfall events such as the event in the spring of 2014. Shorewood Oaks has private draintile connections to the City’s storm sewer and the surcharge in the system creates pressure in the sewer that can result in the inability for sump pumps to discharge to the system. We recommend the following measures to address these issues within Shorewood Oaks: 1.Televise City storm sewer in this neighborhood 2.Modify the downstream drainage outlet to reduce surcharge in the storm sewer system 3.Disconnect private draintile as feasible from City storm sewer 4.Install backflow preventers on remaining draintile connections 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 GRANT LORENZ ROAD CHANNEL The channel along Grant Lorenz Road begins west of the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail and meanders under Smithtown Road, under several driveway culverts on the west side of Grant Lorenz Road and ends at Noble Avenue (Map 2). There is a culvert that had collapsed (and temporarily repaired) in this channel just south of Smithtown Road. The overall channel is approximately 2,000 feet long and conveys runoff from the entire Freeman Park subwatershed, approximately 369 acres. Velocities and flows in the channel are as follows:  For a typical 2-year (2.8-inch) rainfall event, which has a 50% probability of occurring each year, flows exceed 47 cfs (cubic feet per second) and velocities exceed 5 fps (feet per second).  For the 100-year event, flows exceed 220 cfs and the velocity exceeds 11 fps. The high velocities (5 feet per second and greater) result in erosion in the channel and frequent sediment transport to the receiving wetlands. During high flow events water levels in the channel impact private property, overtop the driveways and historically have destroyed several culverts. Several options were evaluated for reducing the peak discharge in the channel to improve water quality and address high water levels and discussed later in the report. Freeman Park Retention/Wetland Creation In 2008, WSB completed a wetland enhancement plan for Freeman Park upstream of the outlet control structure at the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail. This analysis builds on the previous work to evaluate the benefit of additional flood storage in the park on downstream flooding. The existing outlet (Appendix B) is an inverted 18-inch pipe with a large capacity overflow that conveys runoff from 163 acres. WSB modeled the impacts of closing the 18- inch pipe and completely storing the runoff from the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall event behind the trail within Freeman Park. This option only provides minimal benefits due to the large upstream tributary area to the channel, within the Strawberry Lane area subwatershed. The peak discharge is reduced in the channel by 5 cfs for the 100- year event and lowers the high water levels in the channel between 0.2-feet to 0.0-feet. The reason for the small reduction in peak discharge is the timing of the peak runoff flows from tributary subwatersheds. The discharge from Freeman Park is attenuated due to the existing storage upstream of Freeman Park. Therefore the flow reaches the channel after the peak flow has occurred. Additionally, the 48-inch stormwater outlet for the Shorewood Oaks development discharges into Freeman Park. Any increase in the high water level in Freeman Park impacts the capacity of the 48-inch pipe. The park high water level creates a tailwater condition that doesn’t allow the 48-inch pipe to discharge until the water level in the park recedes. The high water level in Freeman Park contributes to the surcharging of the Shorewood Oaks storm sewer and reduces its capacity. Due to the limited hydraulic benefit downstream and potential to exacerbate upstream flooding, we do not recommend retention in Freeman Park. We do recommend reconstructing the existing outlet control structure in Freeman Park. It poses significant and ongoing maintenance issues for Public Works Staff. The debris and plugging at the outlet structure impacts the water level in Freeman Park. Redesign of the outlet structure must balance reducing the high water level affecting the Shorewood Oaks area without increasing discharge downstream. Smithtown Retention Approximately 222 acres are tributary to the dual 42-inch culverts under Smithtown Road. WSB evaluated the addition of additional flood storage upstream of Smithtown Road. Map 2 generally shows the 2 acre footprint of the proposed pond. The pond provides 8.1 ac-ft of flood storage. This location was selected for the following reasons:  It collects runoff both from Freeman Park and from the west under Strawberry Lane  Existing culvert failures prompt the need for work in this area  It is located upstream of the channel that follows Grant Lorenz Road Table 1 lists the existing and proposed discharge rates at Smithtown Road with the addition of a pond. Table 1 – Smithtown Road Outflow Comparison Storm Event Existing Discharge (cfs) Proposed Discharge (cfs) 2-year (2.8”) 29.5 28.2 10-year (4.2”) 96.5 79 100-year (7.3”) 188.9 150 The most significant reduction in peak discharge with the retention pond at Smithtown Road is for the 100-year rainfall event. Under existing conditions the 100-year HWL upstream of Smithtown Road is approximately 956.8, which is 0.2-feet below the adjacent low properties. After construction of a pond in this location the high water level is reduced to 955.8, increasing the freeboard to the adjacent properties. In addition to hydraulic benefits, retention at Smithtown Road also has water quality benefits. The 2.0 ac-ft of wet volume removes total phosphorus and total suspended solids that otherwise reaches a downstream wetland and eventually Lake Minnetonka. Low Flow Bypass As shown with Table 1, even with additional flood storage upstream of Smithtown Road, the discharge in the channel still exceeds the channel capacity. WSB evaluated conveying the low flows in the channel and bypassing high flows (greater than 2-year) through a large diameter pipe. The low flow bypass was modeled both with and without retention upstream at Smithtown Road. The bypass pipe is shown under Grant Lorenz Road to provide adequate cover and within City right-of-way. This option also includes:  Re-stabilization of the channel  Lowering the driveway overflows in subwatersheds D, E and F to provide one foot of separation to the properties  Pipe extension at the first driveway north of Smithtown road to collect additional runoff in the bypass pipe Grant Lorenz Road is scheduled for a sealcoat in 2019 based on the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Constructing the storm sewer bypass pipe will require complete reconstruction of the road. Table 2 and 3 show the existing and proposed discharge and high water levels in the channel. The channel information was measured in the first section of channel after it crosses under Grant Lorenz Road near Smithtown Road. Table 2 – Channel Discharge Comparison Location 2-year 10-year 100-year Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed E 46.7 19.3 105.8 38.9 221.1 75.7 Table 3 – Channel High Water Level Comparison Location 2-year 10-year 100-year Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed E 943.5 942.6 946.7 943.3 951.4 945.3 As shown in Table 2, the peak discharge in the channel is reduced by approximately 65% for the 100-year event and 59% for the 2-year event. The reduction in peak discharge reduces the high water level 6.1 feet for the 100-year event. There is not a significant difference in high water levels or peak discharge in the channel with or without Smithtown Road retention. The additional rate control provided with the Smithtown Road pond does however impact the size of the downstream bypass pipe. There are also water quality benefits to the proposed low flow bypass. The existing high velocities in the channel have led to significant erosion. Re-stabilization of the channel would eliminate the ongoing erosion. The low flow bypass would also provide bio-retention within the channel for small storm events. STRAWBERRY LANE – This area will require additional review to determine alternatives to convey storm water to the downstream system. Financial or Budget Considerations: The estimated cost of the improvements in the preliminary draft study is as follows: 1.Storm sewer system bypass pipe option without retention at Smithtown Road $ 725,000 2.Storm sewer system bypass pipe option with retention at Smithtown Road $ 860,000 3.Reconstruction of Grant Lorenz Road (to City Standard Section) $2,275,000 Notes a.Project costs do not include acquisition of land for the pond. b.In addition to Land acquisition, project costs will include the combination of items 1 plus 3 ($3,000,000) or items 2 plus 3 ($3,135,000). Recommendation / Action Requested: The preliminary costs of the project are significant and staff requests Council input before continuing with the study. Drainage improvements discussed in the draft preliminary design report are currently unfunded in the Capital Improvement Plan. Staff is requesting Council direction whether to continue work on the study or to take other action, due to the potential project costs. #9C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Request for Change in the Posted Speed Limit, Cathcart Drive Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments MN Statute, Petition, Site Location Map, Policy Policy Consideration: None Background / Previous Action: Changes in the State Statute 169.14 permit cities some discretion to lower the posted speed on residential roadways from 30 Miles per hour (mph) to 25 mph for residential roadways, as shown in Attachment 1. The City Council has recently utilized this change for a speed posting along Strawberry Lane. Attachment 2 to this memorandum is a petition requesting such a revision to the posted limit along Cathcart Drive. Attachment 3 is a site location map for the subject roadway. The City Council adopted a policy to consider such requests. This policy is included as Attachment 4. As cited in the policy, the first order of business is for the City Council to accept a petition for the change in the posted speed. If sight lines or roadway conditions do not immediately suggest an immediate change in the limit, it is recommended that the City Council order the City Engineer to deploy, or have deployed, speed counting devices to record the speed, times of travel, and volume of traffic along the subject roadway. Once data has been collected, WSB and Associates will make recommendation regarding the posted speed limit, based upon the recommendation of a Professional Traffic Engineer. In turn, the data and recommendation will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the petition be accepted and that the City Engineer is to deploy traffic counters on Cathcart Drive. Financial or Budget Considerations: Costs for the study will include approximately six hours of consultant time to deploy counters, gather traffic data, analyze the data, and make recommendation. If the City Council determines that the posted speed limit is to be changed, the costs of four speed limit signs amounts to $160, in addition to staff time for installation. 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 Options: 1. Accept the petition, as outlined and proceed as documented. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option 1 that accepts the petition be approved, with direction to the City Engineer to deploy traffic counters on Cathcart Drive. [©©är .­;7š“¦©;ÝzšÒ­-š“Ý;©­·zš“­rw;©;z­’äšEEz-zŒ;’zŒu aäE’zŒä“7L©;Œš“m·z’;©;­z7;“·­· /·w-©·5©zÝ;z“{wš©;ޚš7u L’©;¨Ò;­·z“m·w··w;¦š­·;7{¦;;7[z’z·š“/·w-©·5©zÝ;,;©;7Ò-;7E©š’ atI·š atI·š’z©©š©{·©Þ,;©©ä[“;Þwz-wLwÝ;¦;©­š“ŒŒäš,­;©Ý;7 ¦š­z·zÝ;­E;·äz’¦-·E©š’·w·©;7Ò-·zš“z“­¦;;7Œz’z·u w“‰äšÒr W;EE‘­­;“©  /·w-©·5©zÝ; {wš©;ޚš7rab ATTACHMENT2 w;¨Ò;­· InfrastructureEngineeringPlanningConstruction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 Memorandum To: Larry Brown Public Works Director 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 From: Sean Delmore, PE, PTOE Date: June 18, 2015 Re: Speed Limit Policy for the City of Shorewood Purpose This policy was created to define the process used to set speed limits along local streets in the City of Shorewood, MN. The City of Shorewood will address speed limit related concerns based upon guidelines from Minnesota Statutes, MnDOT policies, the MUTCD and engineering judgement. The city will be proactively reviewing existing speed limit signing within the city limits to ensure that they are correctly posted. Speed limits that are not supported by Minnesota State Statutes, Council approval, or MnDOT Commissioner’s Order will be planned for replacement. Background The City of Shorewood has local streets with speed limits ranging from 25-40 mph. The basis for setting a speed limit follows the Minnesota State Statutes and the MN MUTCD. The following segments of information were taken from the MN Statutes and MUTCD, those of which apply to the city of Shorewood. A blurb from the FHWA discussing best practices is also included showing how engineering studies are used to set new speed limits or change existing ones. 2014 Minnesota Statues: 169.011 DEFINITIONS Subdivision 64. Residential Roadway A “residential roadway” is a city street or town road whose length is up to a half-mile. 1|Page InfrastructureEngineeringPlanningConstruction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 169.14 SPEED LIMITS, ZONES; RADAR. Subdivision 1. Duty to drive with due care. No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions. Every driver is responsible for becoming and remaining aware of the actual and potential hazards then existing on the highway and must use due care in operating a vehicle. In every event speed shall be so restricted as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on or entering the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care. Subdivision 2. Speed limits. (a) Where no special hazard exists the following speeds shall be lawful, but any speeds in excess of such limits shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful; except that the speed limit within any municipality shall be a maximum limit and any speed in excess thereof shall be unlawful: (1) 30 miles per hour in an urban district; (Subdivisions 2.2-2.6 do not apply here, therefore were excluded) (7) 25 miles per hour in residential roadways if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the residential roadway; and (8) 35 miles per hour in a rural residential district if adopted by the road authority having jurisdiction over the rural residential district. (b) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (7), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the residential roadway on which the speed limit applies. (c) A speed limit adopted under paragraph (a), clause (8), is not effective unless the road authority has erected signs designating the speed limit and indicating the beginning and end of the rural residential district for the roadway on which the speed limit applies. MnDOT MUTCD: 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign A Standard: Speed zones (other than statutory speed limits) shall only be established on the basis of an engineering study that has been performed in accordance with traffic engineering practices. The engineering study shall include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles. 2|Page InfrastructureEngineeringPlanningConstruction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 The speed limit (R2-1) sign shall display the limit established by law, ordinance, regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency based on the engineering study. The speed limits displayed shall be in multiples of 5 mph. Speed Limit signs, indicating speed limits for which posting is required by law, shall be located at the points of change from one speed limit to another. An Option: Other factors that may be considered when establishing speed limits are the following: Road characteristics, shoulder condition, grade, alignment, and sight distance The pace speed Roadside development (nearby school) and environment Parking practices and pedestrian activity (mainly children) Reported crash experience for at least a 12-month period Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report by the FHWA Safety Program Most engineering approaches to speed limit setting are based on the 85th percentile speed—the speed at which 85 percent of free-flowing traffic is traveling at or below. The typical procedure is to set the speed limit at or near the 85th percentile speed of free-flow traffic. Adjustments to either increase or decrease the speed limits may be made depending on infrastructure and traffic conditions. The 85th percentile speed method is also attractive because it reflects the collective judgment of the vast majority of drivers as to a reasonable speed for given traffic and roadway conditions. This is aligned with the general policy sentiment that laws (i.e., speed limits) should not make people acting reasonably into law-breakers. Setting a speed limit even 5 mph below the 85th percentile speed can make almost half the drivers illegal; setting a speed limit 5 mph above the 85th percentile speed will likely make few additional drivers legal. Under the operating speed method of setting speed limits, the first approximation of the speed limit is to set the speed limit at the 85th percentile speed. The MUTCD recommends that the speed limit be within 5 mph of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic. The posted speed limit shall be in multiples of 5 mph. While the MUTCD recommends setting the posted speed limits near the 85th percentile speed, and traffic engineers say that agencies are using the 85th percentile speed to set speed limits, in reality the speed limit is often set much lower. At these locations, the 85th percentile operating speeds exceed the posted speed limits; and, in many cases, the 50th percentile operating speed is either near or exceeds that posted speed limit as well.Many agencies deviate from their agency's written guidelines and instead post lower speed limits. According to an ITE Engineering Council Technical Committee survey, these reduced speed limits are often the result of political 3|Page InfrastructureEngineeringPlanningConstruction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763-541-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 However, it is important to note that setting speed limits lower than 85th percentile pressures. speed does not encourage compliance with the posted speed limit. Implementation The City of Shorewood has established this policy to define the process for setting a speed limit and to what extent they can be modified. To make a request for a speed limit change, one must send a formal written document to the city. The local road authority can either determine the speed limit acceptable, not acceptable, or perform a speed study or engineering investigation. Streets that drive relatively similar should be set to the same speed limit for consistency, whether they are 25, 30, 35, or 40 mph. Speed limit evaluations should only take place when specific concerns are raised, and not on a regular basis. When final decisions are made they are not to be requested upon again unless a situation occurs (i.e., a large development is being constructed, or multiple accident occurs). If further monitoring needs to occur on a street, driver feedback signs or physical changes may be considered. The flowchart below shows a simple example of how this process goes: Requestgets{¦;;7Œz’z·m;·­ Approved-w“m;7 Studyshowsthe speedshouldbe Sendaformalwritten Requestrequires Engineeringstudy changed requesttotheCityof anengineering takesplace Shorewood study Studyshowsthe speedshouldNOT bechanged Requestgets {¦;;7Œz’z·7š;­ declined bhm;·-w“m;7 4|Page #9D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Request for Change in the Posted Speed Limit and No Outlet Sign Request, Lake Virginia Drive, and Blue Ridge Lane Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments Petition, Site Location Map, Speed Policy Policy Consideration: None Background / Previous Action: Similar to the previously considered item on the City Council agenda, a petition requesting that the posted speed limit for Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane be considered by the City Council. Attachment 1 is the request received, and Attachment 2 is a site location map for the subject roadways. The request received, also requests the addition of a No Outlet sign for Lake Virginia Drive, where it intersects with Smithtown Road. As noted in the previously considered item, the City Council adopted a policy to consider such requests. This policy is included as Attachment 3. As cited in the policy, the first order of business is for the City Council to accept a petition for the change in the posted speed. If sight lines or roadway conditions do not immediately suggest an immediate change in the limit, it is recommended that the City Council order the City Engineer to deploy, or have deployed, speed counting devices to record the speed, times of travel, and volume of traffic along the subject roadway. Once data has been collected, WSB and Associates will make recommendation regarding the posted speed limit, based upon the recommendation of a Professional Traffic Engineer. In turn, the data and recommendation will be presented to the City Council for consideration. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the petition be accepted and that the City Engineer is to have deployed traffic counters on Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane. Financial or Budget Considerations: Costs for the study will include approximately six hours of consultant time to deploy counters, gather traffic data, analyze the data, and make recommendation. 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 If the City Council determines that the posted speed limit is to be changed, the costs of four speed limit signs amounts to $160, in addition to staff time for installation. In addition, the costs for the No Outlet sign to be added to the street nameplate sign equals $55. Options: 1. Accept the petition, as outlined and proceed as documented. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff is recommending Option 1 that accepts the petition be approved and that the City Engineer is to deploy traffic counting devices on Lake Virginia Drive and Blue Ridge Lane, with data and analysis to be brought back to the City Council, for consideration. #9E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Boulder Bridge Storm Water Pond Outlet Discussion City Project 14-14 Meeting Date: July 13, 2015 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Feasibility Report prepared by WSB, February 23, 2015 Background: The City Council received the feasibility report for the Boulder Bridge Pond Outlet Improvements on February 23, 2015, and directed staff to speak with the interested property owner that brought the issue to the City’s attention, and have them initiate a petition for the proposed improvements. This property owner found that in general, area residents were in favor of the improvements, but did not want to be assessed for the improvements. As a result, a petition for the improvements was not delivered to the City. The Boulder Bridge Pond project and potential assessments were to be discussed at the April 9, 2015, Council and staff retreat, but due to other priorities, this item was not discussed at that meeting. The th Mayor requested this item be brought back to the Council for further discussion at the June 8 Council meeting. Information provided to the Council on February 23, 2015, provided the following project summary: The Boulder Bridge Pond was constructed as a stormwater storage and treatment pond with the nd Boulder Bridge 2 Addition development and is located north of Smithtown Road and west of Howards Point Road. Its east shoreline is accessible from Howards Point Road, and the remainder of the pond is nd accessible through the rear yards of the adjacent lots in Boulder Bridge 2 Addition. The Boulder Bridge Pond was constructed as an infiltration basin receiving runoff from approximately 10.29 acres. The pond does not have a dedicated outlet requiring the City periodically pump to discharge overflow from the pond to Smithtown Road after heavy rainfall periods. Pumping of the pond takes a considerable amount of effort from Public Works and complaints about the noise when the pump is running have been received from homeowners within close proximity of the pumping operations. Three pond outlet options have been investigated for a pond outlet to improve area drainage and meet City design standards, including the requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District:  Option 1: Gravity storm sewer to the existing storm system located within Smithtown Road.  Option 2: Gravity storm sewer to the existing wetland located east of Brentridge Drive. 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  Option 3: Stormwater lift station and forcemain to the existing storm system located within Boulder Bridge Lane. Based on the feasibility report, it is recommended that the City proceed with constructing the improvements as outlined in Option 1. The storm sewer improvements proposed in Option 1 are the most economical, reduce long-term maintenance and operations costs, provide benefit to the neighboring properties, provides minimal impacts to surrounding properties or streets, and the ability to keep construction confined to those properties that will directly benefit, make this option the most cost effective. The project schedule proposes construction beginning in July 2015 with substantial completion in September 2015, and final completion and restoration is slated for June 2016. However, this schedule is dependent upon funding of the project and neighborhood petition for the project improvements. Financial or Budget Considerations: Total estimated project costs for the proposed improvements range from $193,740 to $239,250 for the options provided in the report. These costs incorporate 2014 construction costs projected to a 2015 cost basis, including 10% construction contingency and indirect costs in the amount of 27% of the estimated construction costs. The indirect costs include legal, engineering, administrative, and financing considerations. Feasibility Report funding scenarios for the project provide the following alternatives: 1.100% assessment to benefitting properties (the City is also a benefitting owner for the streets) 2.Partial assessment to benefitting properties (50% of the project costs)and the City Storm Water Fund (accounts for public right of way contributing to the runoff) 3.City Storm Water Fund (100% City funded) 4.Other funding resources as may be directed by Council Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council discuss the proposed improvements and consider the following action alternatives: 1.Take no action at this time since a petition has not been received by benefitting owners. 2.Set a date for a Council and Resident project informational meeting. 3.Request staff prepare a Resolution for Council consideration of approval to set a date for a Public Hearing under MN Statutes Chapter 429. 4.Consider this improvement for the 2016 CIP budget discussion. 5.Other action as directed by Council. Next Steps and Timelines: Staff will perform action as authorized by the Council. Correspondence received by staff from the HOA and residents follows (names and addresses have been removed from the correspondence): April 21, 2015 Dear Mr. Hornby, The Boulder Bridge Farm Homeowner's Association discussed the topic of the gravity overflow drainage project at our annual meeting on April 18th. After discussion, a vote was taken, as if our BBF community property represented one vote to the city. The results of this vote were added to votes previously submitted by proxy for those unable to attend. There were three choices: 1. Petition in favor of the project 2. Petition against the project 3. Submit no petition The overwhelming result was that we should submit no petition. While I am informing you of our voting results, as promised in an earlier conversation, this is not a petition for or against the project. April 21, 2015 Dear Mr. Hornby, This is my personal petition in favor of the project. I feel that it is unfortunate that, in the event on unusually heavy rain, the city has to arrange for a pump to regulate the water level of this pond. It would be preferable to have the increased water level dealt with immediately and automatically. I hope that the city will find sources of funding to at least partially cover the construction costs. If the city does assess properties at some level, I will be responsible for only a small percentage, my 1 in 44 share of what would be assessed to BBF common property. I certainly understand if that doesn't provide my petition with the weight of those whose individual properties would sustain a large assessment. Paul, I know we have spoken and I understand your position but I want to go on record that I don't agree that my lot should be assessed for the outlet project in discussion for Boulder Bridge Farms. There are lots and a road between my lot and this pond and my lot drains away from this pond not towards it. I understand my potential assessment is low so my objection is really based on the principal of the issue i.e. what is really right. I don't know where this project is at this point but wanted my position to be clear. I would suggest you drive over to my lot and see for yourself where my lot is in comparison to the pond and I think it will be clear my lot does not contribute any water to this pond. Thanks, Dear Mayor Zerby and Members of the City Council: As you may recall, on February 23, 2015, the City Council in Resolution 15-018 received a feasibility report for Boulder Bridge Pond Outlet Improvements (City Project 14-14). To recap, this storm water drainage pond overflows during high rainfall periods, threatening property values. Subsequent pumping by the City, which can last several weeks, creates noise pollution in surrounding neighborhoods. A workable solution to the overflow problem exists, as specified in the report. As owners, we sincerely request that the project move forward. Thank you for your consideration. Dear Paul, Per our conversation the other day I'm writing to express our concern for this project. Our properties are on this pond and, like all of us who live on the pond, we love the beauty and natural feel to it. Over the years we have lived here, there has only been several times this pond has risen to a height that even came near a couple of the homes on the pond; but never flooded their lower levels. I don't believe any damage from this pond capacity has affected any home here on the pond. It was a little inconvenient a few times, but Shorewood city personnel pumped the excess off. It certainly was not a "big" issue. We feel the cost of doing this project is much too high, and would not justify the expense. The way this pond is today, is beautiful and charming, and serves us (and the wildlife) all, the way it is. Thank you for your efforts and consideration, Paul. Sincerely, #10A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Hazardous Structures/Premises – 28015 Woodside Road Meeting Date: 13 July 2015 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Letter to Record Owners Order to Repair or Remove Order to Secure Site Photos Policy Consideration: Should the City commence condemnation proceedings against the property at 28015 Woodside Road? Background: Based on neighborhood complaints, staff inspected the above-referenced property and found it to be in an unhealthy, unsafe and unsecured condition. Details of its condition are described in the attached order to repair or remove. Immediately, Public Works was directed to provide minimal securing of the property, on an emergency basis, particularly the swimming pool. This property has a history of violation, dating back to 2007. At this time, staff believes the property to be beyond repair and condemnation is in order. The City Council is asked to authorize two documents: the order to repair or remove, and the order to secure. These are required by Minnesota Statutes 463 and will be served next Tuesday morning. Obviously, due process allows the property owners to appeal, in which case we will schedule their appeal immediately upon receipt of it. Should there be any doubt as to the seriousness of this matter, we have attached some sample photos take at the site and in the building. Financial or Budget Considerations: If the owners of the property fail to correct the violations within the prescribe deadline, the City will take further action to correct them, including removal of the buildings and swimming pool and restoration of the site. The statute for hazardous building allows the City to recoup its expenses as an assessment against the property. Up-front costs will include legal consultation with the attorney, staff time and ultimately demolition and restoration. Options: Authorize staff to commence condemnation proceedings. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff does not take lightly the act of requiring someone to demolish their home. However, given the potential for harm and the history of violation on this property, it is recommended that the City aggressively pursue condemnation of the property. Next Steps and Timelines: If Council directs, the notices will be served the morning after the City Council meeting on Monday night. Connection to Vision / Mission: Healthy (and safe) environment. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 9 July 2015 CD and DPB Campbell 1525 Lincoln Circle #417 McLean, VA 22102 Re: Hazardous Building at 28015 Woodside Road, Shorewood, MN P.I.N. 31-117-23-13-0003 CD and DPB Campbell: This is to advise you that the City of Shorewood has received complaints regarding your property located at 28015 Woodside Road in Shorewood. The property has been inspected and the abandoned house located there has been determined to be hazardous. The purpose of this letter is to provide notice to you that the following items will be considered at the 13 July 2015 meeting of the Shorewood City Council:  Order for Removal or Repair  Order to Secure Hazardous Building Drafts of these orders are included herein. Upon adoption by the City Council, the orders will be immediately served on you. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 952-960- 7912. CITY OF SHOREWOOD Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Mayor and City Council - D-R-A-F-T- ORDER FOR REMOVAL OR REPAIR CITY OF SHOREWOOD IN THE MATTER OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND PREMISES LOCATED AT 28015 WOODSIDE ROAD Legally described as “Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 0122, Hennepin County, Minnesota”. To: Record Owners, CD and DPB Campbell: 1) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, the Council of the City of Shorewood, having duly considered the matter, finds the above-described building and premises to be a hazardous building and property for the following reasons: (a)Water-damaged wood and structural deficiencies, including rafters, floors, headers, studs, siding sheathing and joists. Fallen, rotting sheet rock. (b)Building is dilapidated, windows broken in accessory building, building has extreme water damage and mold and is a hazard. Rotted boards on boardwalk and outside deck and stairs. (c)House and accessory structures are unsecured and provide rodent harborage. (d)House is not secure from entry and is an attractive nuisance. (e) Swimming pool is full of water, vegetation on pool cover, and area is unsecured. (f) Electrical and gas services appear to remain connected; well has not been properly abandoned. (e)Trash and brush in and around premises. 2) Pursuant to the foregoing findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, the Council hereby orders the record owners of the above hazardous building and premises to repair and make such building safe and not detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety by making the following necessary repairs: (a)Secure the building and premises. (b)Obtain a building permit to make those repairs required to bring the building into conformance with all applicable building and health codes. Either such -1- repairs shall be completed by 9 September 2015 or the building shall be razed or removed before that date. 3)The Council further orders that unless such corrective action is taken or an answer is served upon the City of Shorewood and filed in the office of the Clerk of District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota by 5 August 2015, a motion for summary enforcement of this order will be made to the District Court of Hennepin County. 4) The Council further orders that if the City of Shorewood is compelled to take any corrective action herein, all necessary costs incurred by the City will be assessed against the real estate concerned and collected in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 463.21. 5) The Mayor, City Clerk, City Attorney and other officers and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action, prepare, sign and serve such papers as are necessary to comply with this Order and to assess the costs thereof against the real estate described above for collection along with taxes. th Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 13 day of July, 2015. CITY OF SHOREWOOD By:_______________________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor ______________________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -2- - D-R-A-F-T- ORDER FOR TO SECURE HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND PREMISES CITY OF SHOREWOOD IN THE MATTER OF HAZARDOUS BUILDING AND PREMISES LOCATED AT 28015 WOODSIDE ROAD Legally described as “Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 0122, Hennepin County, Minnesota”. To: Record Owners, CD and DPB Campbell: 1) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.15 to 463.261, the Council of the City of Shorewood, having duly considered the matter and finding the above-described building to be a hazardous building and premises does hereby order the building and premises to be immediately secured. 2) Pursuant to the previously adopted findings and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 463.251, the Council hereby orders the record owners of the above hazardous building to secure the building and premises from open access or trespass and make such building safe and not detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety. The record owners are hereby advised that the City has minimally secured the property on and emergency basis. Either such additional repairs to secure the premises shall be completed within ten days of the service of this Order or the building shall be secured by the City of Shorewood and all costs related thereto shall be assessed against the property. th Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 13 day of July, 2015. CITY OF SHOREWOOD By:_______________________________________ Scott Zerby, Mayor ______________________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -1- CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Re: Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule – PROJECT IS POSTPONED TO 2016 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report Survey (30 days) – May  Feasibility Report (30 days) – June  Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk – July  Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report  Council approves Feasibility Report  Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days) 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14  MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14  CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14  Open Bids 8/19/14  CC consideration of Award 8/25/14  Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications o Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required o Reduces project schedule o 10/30/14  Neighborhood post-bid meeting N/A  City possession of easements/letter of compliance  Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD  Begin Construction TBD  Construction substantially complete – Phase 1 Construction TBD  Construction substantially complete – Phase 2 Construction TBD  Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD  Restoration complete TBD Page 2 Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule 6/03/14 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/23/14 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report /14/14 – 9/10/14  Survey (30 days) – (In Process) 7 /18/14–10/10/14  Feasibility Report (30 days) – 8 10/21/14  Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14  Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/27/14 Council approves Feasibility Report 10/30/14 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 12/08/14 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications 12/11/14 - Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (95% complete) 5/31/15 2/1/15 -  Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) 8/31/15 Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions o Review proposed easements with staff/attorney o Letters to property owners regarding survey staking o Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent o Easement viewing – parcel owner and RW Agent on-site o Appraisal information o Appraisal review o Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule o Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners o 3/23/15 Begin eminent domain action  /03/15 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15  8/21/15 Receive bids for construction 8/24/15 City possession of easements/letter of compliance Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15  8/27/15 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting Groundbreaking Ceremony 8/27/15  9/07/15 Begin Construction 6/30/16 Construction substantially complete Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16  6/15/16 Restoration complete