Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
06-27-16 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 27,2016 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 Regular Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2016 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. Appointment of Two Seasonal Employees in Director of Public Works' Public Works memo C. Participation in Local Performance Measures Finance Director's memo, Resolution 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING A. 7:10 P.M.Public Hearing—Vacate Right-of-Way Planning Director's memo, Applicants: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon Resolution Location: 28170 Woodside Road 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. 2015 Audit Report by Abdo, Eick and Meyers Finance Director's memo, Audit Report 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Robert Bean on the June 21 Minutes Planning Commission meeting CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA—June 27,2016 Page 2 B. C.U.P. for Removal of Over 400 Cubic Yards of Soil and Planning Director's memo Depositing Over 100 Cubic Yards of Fill Resolution Applicant: Tom Wartman Locations: 27135 and 26985 Edgewood Road C. Appeal of Administrative Determination of Number of Boats Planning Director's memo Allowed at Nonconforming Dock Appellant: Radisson Road Easement Holders Location: 5540 Shore Road(Lot 11) 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Trail Clearing Equipment Director of Public Works' memo B. Receive Feasibility Report, Order Improvements, and Authorize Engineer's memo, Preparation of Plans and Specifications—2016 Watermain Extension, Resolution City Project 16-04 (Oppidan) C. Enchanted Lane Improvements Discussion Engineer's memo D. Smithtown Road East Trail Extension Work Order 91 Engineer's memo 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trails Schedule Trail Schedule 2. Monthly Budget Report Finance Director's memo 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.mmus•cityhall @ci.shorewood.mmus Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, June 27, 2016 7:00 p.m. 6:30 PM—Executive Session Agenda Item 42A: Approval of Minutes from the June 13 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Item 43A: Approval of the verified claims list. Agenda Item 4313: The City Council may recall that a single appointment was made for one of the two seasonal positions last regularly scheduled City Council meeting. However, that employee left the position, due to personal family matters. Since that appointment, staff has been able to interview and select two employees to fill the regular seasonal positions. Mr. Erick Schneider and Mr. Tyler Jordahl are the successful candidates for the positions. Agenda Item 43C: This resolution commits the city to participate in the Council on Local Results and Innovation performance measures program for 2015. The benefits are a cash payment of approximately $1,000. Agenda Item 44: Matters from the floor—no council action will be taken. Agenda Item 45A: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon have requested a partial vacation of excess right-of-way in front of their property at 28170 Woodside Road. Woodside would still have a minimum 50 feet of width, the standard width for local streets in Shorewood. A resolution approving the request is included in your packet. Agenda Item 46A: The 2015 Audit Report will be provided by Abdo, Eick and Meyers staff. Agenda Item 47: There are no Parks items this evening. Agenda Item 48A: Report by Planning Commissioner Robert Bean on the June 21 Planning Commission meeting. Agenda Item 4813: Tom Wartman has requested a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to place approximately 3000 yards of fill on two lots he owns on Edgewood Road. Approximately 1200 yards of that will come from excess material generated by a new home being constructed one-half block to the west. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at which the City Engineer addressed drainage concerns from nearby property owners. The Commission voted to recommend the CUP for approval. Executive Summary—City Council Meeting of June 27, 2016 Page 2 Agenda Item 48C: Paula Callies, representing easement holders on Lot 11, Christmas Lake, has appealed the Planning Director's determination that the number of boat slips on the property is limited to two. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter and recommended the appeal be denied. The Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for adoption at the 11 July meeting. Agenda Item 49A: Staff is recommending approval of a motion that authorizes the expenditure of funds from the equipment replacement fund in the amount of$65,059.28 for trail cleaning equipment. Agenda Item 4913: Staff is recommending Council approve the resolution Receiving the Feasibility Report, Ordering the Project and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project 16-04. This action is contingent upon a written request for the project to progress to the final design phase and escrow by the developer, Oppidan. Agenda Item 49C: Staff requests Council discuss the potential improvements to the island roadways and provide direction to staff. Agenda Item 491): Staff recommends approval of a resolution Approving Work Order No. 1 for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14-10. Payment for this work order will be made under payment request 4 at the second council meeting in July. Agenda Item#10A: There are no General/New Business items this evening. Agenda Item 411A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Acting Mayor Siakel called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Siakel; Councilmembers Labadie, 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: Mayor Zerby B. Review Agenda Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes of May 31, 2016 Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of May 31, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Labadie abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 31, 2016 Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 31, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0/1 with Labadie abstaining due to her absence at the meeting. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Acting Mayor Siakel reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-041, “A Resolution Appointing Election Judges and Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board.” C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-042, “A Resolution Approving a Temporary ‘On- Sale’ Liquor License to the Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association.” Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 2 of 15 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Report by Robert Bean on the June 7, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. Planning Commissioner Bean reported on matters considered and actions taken at the June 7, 2016, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Sundberg thanked Commissioner Bean for doing a good job summarizing a very long meeting. She noted that during the meeting Director Nielsen suggested that amending the City Ordinance to address wind energy systems should be done sometime in the future. Acting Mayor Siakel thanked Commissioner Bean for his report. B. Minnetonka Country Club Final Plat and Final Plan Director Nielsen explained Mattamy Homes has submitted its final plat and final plan for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD). The final plan is for the whole project. The final plat is for the first phase of the project. The plans are consistent with the Concept Stage and Development Stage approvals. Mattamy had been given approval for early grading of the site. The next step in the project is to begin putting in underground utilities. The developer will end up paying to the City $730,000 in water connection fees, $780,000 in park dedication fees and $87,600 in local sanitary sewer access charges. The developer will get a refund that equals their cost of getting watermain to the front of the individual lots. He noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution approving the final plan and final plat. The words “Final Plan and” need to added to the heading of the resolution. The packet also contains a copy of an ordinance rezoning the property to a PUD district. That ordinance includes the Development Agreement for the MCC property which lists all of the details of the various requirements that were imposed as part of the Concept Stage and Development Stage plans. He then noted Rick Packer and Brian Theis representing Mattamy Homes were present. Nielsen went on to note staff recommends approval of the final plan and final plat. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if the approval is for the first phase of the final plat. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the Traffic Committee had made recommendations to slightly move one of the entrances onto the site off of Smithtown Road. She asked if approving these items would prevent taking action on those recommendations. Engineer Hornby noted the Committee was CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 3 of 15 not allowed to change anything in the plat. He explained the owner across from the east access point on to the site had asked that the access point be shifted slightly so lights from vehicles leaving the site would not shine into his living room. That was done. Director Nielsen noted as part of the PUD the City obtained additional right-of-way (ROW) along Smithtown Road and Country Club Road. That was included in the Development Stage approval. Councilmember Woodruff stated the staff memorandum for this item indicates the materials for this include a copy of the City Engineer’s recommendations. He asked where in the final document for the PUD does it say the developer has to adhere to those recommendations. Director Nielsen explained that in the Development Agreement under the Improvements Installed by Developer section it states consistent with the plan and specifications approved by the City Engineer. Woodruff asked if the memo from Engineer Hornby dated June 8, 2016, is what is being referred to. Nielsen responded yes. Woodruff noted the on page 5, Item 8 at the end of the sentence two Develop needs to be changed to Developer. Woodruff explained that in the Planting Plan & Maintenance Manual under Item 1 Native Vegetation Areas in Item B. Establishment and Maintenance Plan in Year 2, Year 3 and Year 4 evaluation all say the plantings should not include more than 50% invasive species. He has a problem with 50%; it is over the top from his perspective. He asked why it is 50%. He noted he could accept 10%. Director Nielsen noted he would research that. Woodruff noted that in Year 2 evaluation in the second bullet there are repeated words that need to be deleted. Acting Mayor Siakel asked Councilmember Woodruff what he would consider to be a reasonable amount of invasive species. Woodruff stated he does not have a technical recommendation. He would like there to be no invasive species but that is not practical. Siakel stated the City’s goal is to eliminate to a large extent invasive species. Woodruff noted the City has an obligation under state law to manage that process. Acting Mayor Siakel asked Mr. Packer if he would accept changing the evaluations to say “should not include invasive species.” Mr. Packer stated he needs to find out from Mattamy’s consultant if that means non-native species or invasive species noting they are not the same. He then stated if it is 50% invasive that is too high yet none is practically impossible. He noted that City staff and Mattamy’s consultant should be able to come up with an acceptable amount. Administrator Joynes recommended Council adopt the resolution approving final plan and final plat contingent upon staff coming back to Council with the developer’s recommendation on invasive species and justification for that recommendation. Mr. Packer stated he would support that. Mr. Packer stated the landscape plan indicates a lot of native areas yet it is his recollection the discussion was about more natural plants than native plants. That is because as time goes on the maintenance of the native plantings becomes extreme. The only way to treat it is to kill everything and then replant the area. Councilmember Woodruff stated there is no need for all native plants and explained that natural plantings may not be native to Minnesota. Acting Mayor Siakel suggested adopting the resolution contingent upon an agreement to the type of plantings. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 4 of 15 Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought invasive species are more defined and they can be controlled. Buckthorn and garlic mustard can be controlled. Her greatest concern is about invasive species. Councilmember Labadie stated that Item 3.D in the Development Agreement Special Conditions of Approval states “Total impervious surface on each lot within the plat shall not exceed 40 percent.” She asked what the maximum impervious surface is for the surrounding areas. Director Nielsen stated that for non-shoreland properties it is normally 33 percent. He explained that because the City is going to get 40 percent of the site as open space the City has allowed a higher percentage of impervious surface per lot. Labadie asked if there is any concern about allowing an extra 7 percent from an engineering perspective. Engineer Hornby explained that the drainage systems and the stormwater facilities that would be constructed as part of the project would handle the stormwater flow. The offsite discharge would satisfy the criteria. Labadie then stated Item 3.E states “It is anticipated that the Developer will purchase the easterly portion of the property located at 5985 Seamans Drive and incorporate it into the final plat for the third phase of the development.” She asked if the owner of that property and the developer are still in the process of negotiating that. Mr. Packer explained the property owner approached Mattamy about purchasing a portion of their property. The parties are in the process of finalizing the purchase agreement. Mattamy anticipates closing on the purchase during July 2017. At that time there will need to be a lot split and combination. The property owner wants to run their nursery on the property this year. Mr. Packer explained there are a couple of land swaps that would be accomplished with plat to adjacent properties. Mattamy is giving some of the Outlots to property owners. Those are listed in the Development Agreement. Mr. Packer asked if there are still going to be 7.5 foot setbacks for the age-targeted lots on the east side of the site. Director Nielsen responded yes and stated he assumes that is what is shown on the setback map. Nielsen noted the base requirement is what the R-1C zoning district requires and the exceptions are shown on the setback map. Director Nielsen stated the final plat shows 5-foot drainage and utility easements on the lots. The City Ordinance requires 10 feet. The City asks that the plat be revised to reflect that. The easements can remain 5 feet on the age-targeted lots on the east because they only have 7.5 foot setbacks. Mr. Packer noted that Mattamy Homes is going to build the age-targeted units. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she thought the age-targeted lots on the east were moved south because the builder who was going to build those age-targeted units wanted the units to be either walkout or lookout units. Mr. Packer stated that after assessing the market it was determined that those units needed to be walkouts. Mattamy’s marketing people originally thought they did not need to be walkout lots. That move was not done for Charles Cudd who was close to being the builder for those units. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-043, “A Resolution Adopting the Final Plan and Final Plat of Minnetonka Country Club (PUD) subject to the resolution of the invasive species question in the Planting Plan & Maintenance Manual and the revision of the final plat to show 10 foot drainage and utility easements for the traditional lots and 5 feet for the age-targeted lots. Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 5 of 15 Sundberg moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 529, “An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.09 Subd. 2 of the Shorewood Zoning Code – the Shorewood Zoning Map (Minnetonka Country Club PUD).” Motion passed 4/0. C. Oppidan Investment Company Final Plat and Final Plan Director Nielsen explained that Oppidan Investment Company has submitted its final plat and final plan for its Shorewood Senior Living planned unit development (PUD) near Chaska Road. Oppidan intends to combine the three parcels involved in the project. As part of the project additional right-of-way would be dedicated along Chaska Road. Drainage and utility easements would be provided consistent with the City Ordinance. Oppidan’s project is dependent on tax increment financing (TIF). That will be discussed under Item 10.A on the agenda and the decision on TIF will be made in July 2016. As a result of this project the developer will end up paying the City $400,000 toward the extension of watermain, $88,400 in park dedication fees and $16,320 in local sanitary sewer access charges. One of the key issues early on was the sparseness of the proposed landscaping plan. The sparseness was to a large extent because of the lack of room to do the type of landscaping and screening the City wanted. Part of the TIF proposal for the project includes burying the overhead power lines and installing a storm sewer to replace the ditch currently along Chaska Road. Doing those two things would provide room for more landscaping. The revised landscape plan reflects much better screening of the parking lot and it softens the building mass as viewed by residents living on the other side of Chaska Road. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the final plat and final plan. Councilmember Labadie stated she thought the revised landscape plan is a great improvement over the original plan. Councilmember Woodruff asked where in the final document for the PUD does it say the developer has to adhere to the City Engineer’s recommendations which are specified in his memorandum dated May 18, 2016. Is it included in the Development Agreement? Director Nielsen responded it should be. Woodruff stated that could be added to the resolution when it is adopted. Nielsen noted the off-site improvements would be done by the City. Councilmember Sundberg stated she supports what has been submitted. She asked Council not to forget about dealing with the existing issue of the exit off of Highway 7 to Chaska Road. Director Nielsen stated Item 8 Standards of Construction refers to plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer. Councilmember Woodruff stated in the future he would prefer that the City Engineer’s memo be referred to by date. Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-044, “A Resolution Adopting the Final Plan and Final Plat of Shorewood Senior Living (PUD) subject to it including the requirements stipulated in the City Engineer’s report dated May 18, 2016. Motion passed Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 6 of 15 Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 530, “An Ordinance Amending Section 1201.09 Subd. 2 of the Shorewood Zoning Code – the Shorewood Zoning Map (Shorewood Senior Living PUD).” Motion passed 4/0. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Discussion of Smithtown Road Trail Project and Minnetonka Country Club Project Director Brown explained the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project is well under way. That has at times disrupted traffic along Smithtown Road. There have been flag people along Country Club Road because of things related to the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) redevelopment project. He had received complaints over the last few weeks from drivers who were upset about having traffic disrupted on both roadways at the same time. Staff met with representatives of both contractors to discuss if there was a way to provide drivers with some relief. The contractor for the Smithtown Road sidewalk project offered to delay for two weeks having the crew start work on the actual sidewalk. That would allow traffic to flow in both directions without disruption during those two weeks while the closure occurs on Country Club Road. The intent had been to present that solution to Council. After the meeting packet was published he again received phone calls from that same group thanking people for the efforts to try and help with the traffic disruptions and requested that the work go on as originally planned. They preferred to endure the inconvenience of both roadways being impacted at the same time instead of stopping work on the sidewalk for two weeks. Therefore, there is no need for Council to take action on this. Acting Mayor Siakel asked how long Country Club Road would be closed for and if it is because of the MCC project. Director Brown stated the contractor for the Country Club Road project has estimated it would be closed for 2 – 3 days. Staff is planning for 2 – 5 days because of potential rain delays. Director Brown stated a segment of Yellowstone Trail west of Country Club Road will be closed for about two weeks. Brown noted the Country Club Road closure is required because of the MCC project. There is a need to relocate a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) sanitary sewer line. The Yellowstone Trail closure is in part because of the MCC project and because MCES wants to replace a segment of its sewer line. Brown also noted the official detour in that area is Country Road 19. Residents living in the area are likely aware of other routes that can be taken. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Draft Tax Increment Financing Plan (Oppidan Project) Administrator Joynes explained Council had approved a schedule of events for creating a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Plan and a TIF District relating to Oppidan Investment Company’s proposed Shorewood Senior Living project during its May 31, 2015, meeting. Earlier during this meeting Council approved the land use issues for the Oppidan’s Shorewood Senior Living planned unit development (PUD). Council is now being asked to consider adopting a draft TIF Plan for the project (a copy of the draft Plan was included in the meeting packet). Once the draft Plan is approved it can be sent to the Minnetonka School District and Hennepin County for comment; something required by state law. The actual approval of the TIF District is within Shorewood’s jurisdiction. The financing is something Council decides. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 7 of 15 He provided a high level summary of the TIF Plan. The Tax Increment District is the Oppidan project site (the three lots that will be combined). When developed Shorewood Senior Housing will generate new taxes. The Tax Increment Project Area will be designated as the entire City. The City can spend a percentage of taxes generated by the Oppidan project outside of District to make improvements in the City (e.g.; dealing with the exit off of Highway 7 onto Chaska Road). The current value of the three parcels for tax purposes is $985,000 and the value after the project is complete is projected to be $17,194,320. The current tax collected for all of jurisdictions on the existing three parcels is $21,955 and the amount after the project is complete is projected to be $214,929. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by Shorewood from those three parcels will increase from $4,383 to approximately $83,315. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by the School District will increase from $3,218 to approximately $63,084. In nineteen years the tax revenue received by the County will increase from $6,578 to approximately $125,016. During the time of the existence of the TIF District the City would capture the increase in taxes and use them to do improvements to support the project as well as public improvements the Council deems appropriate. What is being proposed is considered a pay-as-you-go TIF Plan. The project is repaid on an annual basis from the increment generated by the property. The City is not offering to issue debt on this project. If the owner pays less in taxes than estimated the returned increments is also less. That would reduce the risk to the City and the bank that finances the project. It is the least risky way to do TIF. It is speculated that all of the risk would be gone in the first year and a half once the project is constructed and put into the tax rolls. The extension of Shorewood watermain is quite costly. Council gave preliminary approval to finance the extension though cost sharing. Oppidan will contribute $400,000; $300,000 will be used from the Water Fund; and, water hookups should occur along the new line and bring in approximately $300,000. Oppidan originally proposed contributing $200,000. TIF project benefits to the City include things like installing a stormwater pipe to replace the stormwater ditch. That allows power lines to be buried. As a result the landscaping setbacks could be increased and the height limitations for new trees would be eliminated. There will be funding available for some local traffic improvements which are yet to be determined. Council is being asked to adopt the draft TIF Plan this evening. If that is done then a copy of the draft Plan will be sent to the Minnetonka School District and Hennepin County for comment on June 14. The Planning Commission will review the daft Plan during its June 21, 2016, special meeting. There would be a special City Council meeting and an Economic Development Authority meeting scheduled for July 14 for final approval of the Plan. During that 30-day period staff and Springsted will be working with the proformas from Oppidan to refine the numbers and prove that the but-for test is met. Joynes stated the draft TIF Plan is very viable. It is shorter than the 25 years allowed. Staff believes the proposed project would be the best use of the three lots. Given the soil conditions and the location of the three properties staff does not think there is any other project that would work. The project would give the City more diversity in its housing mix; that has been talked about for years. The senior housing project would benefit Shorewood residents and residents in the surrounding communities. Joynes noted that staff recommends approval of the draft TIF Plan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 8 of 15 Councilmember Labadie asked if a City representative was going to meet with someone from the School District and Hennepin County or will they just be notified. Administrator Joynes clarified they will be notified and noted both are very familiar with the TIF process. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought burying the power lines would be a great thing to do. He asked how that would impact the residents in that area. Engineer Hornby explained another power pole may have to be put up on the other side of the roadway. Service would have to be run across to the other side of the road and then up the pole. Woodruff asked how the pay-as-you-go would work from the City’s cash flow perspective. For example, contractors will want to be paid for extending the watermain. He asked how the City will finance that. Director DeJong stated it would be financed with an inter fund loan with the fund yet to be determined. Woodruff stated that means there is no external money. The City would borrow from itself and then pay itself back with tax revenues. Administrator Joynes concurred. Woodruff stated the $300,000 in revenue from water hookups is just an opportunity number. The City’s record on getting property owners to hookup to existing watermain has not been that good. That number may never be achieved. Administrator Joynes stated there are 22 properties that hooked up to the Excelsior water system that could hook up to the Shorewood system once the extension is cone. There would be no additional cost to them. Those who are not currently on municipal water but would like to hook up to it when available would have to pay the hookup charge. Woodruff stated he would be more comfortable if the City did not depend on getting the $300,000. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she has heard from some of the 22 property owners that they do not want to switch to the Shorewood system because Excelsior softens its water. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she thought the City may require more cash up front then presented. She then stated she thought the numbers presented are best case numbers. She went on to state something needs to be done with the exit from Highway 7 to Chaska Road. She explained the staff report states there is $62,000 included in the Plan for traffic improvements. She thought that is not enough for a project that is going to require more engineering. She questioned if that is enough to make the needed improvements. Administrator Joynes suggested viewing this similar to approving the maximum tax levy in September. The levy can be reduced but not increased before the final levy is adopted. What is being proposed is framed the same way. He stated the City has the ability to decide where it wants to put the money. It is designed to be the best case scenario for what the City could spend yet staff expects it to be somewhat less. Acting Mayor Siakel stated per State Statute the maximum life of a TIF District is 25 years but what is being proposed is for 19 years. Administrator Joynes stated that is based on the analysis done to date. It should close around year 19 and noted that tax values can change and the economy can change. Councilmember Woodruff asked if Council would be provided with a detailed cash flow analysis for its July 14 meeting when it will be asked to approve the final TIF Plan. Councilmember Sundberg asked Administrator Joynes to comment on resident concerns that the City may be subsidizing a private enterprise. Administrator Joynes explained TIF is designed to encourage a public private partnership. It has been abused at times and therefore the law has been adjusted to try and stop that. The project entails combining three lots which have significant soil problems that would make it impossible for someone to do the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 9 of 15 project without financial help. TIF financing allows the City to help make the properties developable like they would be in any other situation. The City will help pay some of the extraordinary cost of soil remediation. Shorewood watermain has to be extended a long way; that is another extraordinary cost. The project does fit in with what the City wants. It would be a good project there and it provides housing diversity. That is the public private partnership. The City also has the opportunity to create an opportunity to request some planning changes that the City would like to see that a developer may not normally do. For example, there would be better screening and landscaping because it has some skin in the game. The developer is driven by profit margin and the City is driven by public interest. Oppidan is not responsible for the traffic improvements; the City is. The value of the project can be increased by the City making some improvements. It is good for the developer because it gets to do a project it could not otherwise do. It is good for the City because it gets somethings it would not otherwise get. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought the proposed project fits on a very difficult piece of property. If it did not move forward it would be a lost opportunity for the City. She thanked Administrator Joynes for explaining the rationale for entering into this joint venture with Oppidan with TIF. Director DeJong explained that once the TIF District is decertified and the project is back on the full tax rolls the City will collect more in taxes in one year than it would have collected over the 19 years the District was in place. The development would not happen without TIF assistance because it would not be economical for the developer to do all of the things the City would like done including extending watermain to the south side of Highway 7. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 16-045, “A Resolution Adopting the Draft Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 2 (Oppidan Senior Housing).” Motion passed 4/0. B. 2016 Deer Management Program Director Nielsen explained representatives from Metro Bowhunters Resource Base (MBRB) contacted staff to find out if the City was interested in continuing its Deer Management Program in 2016. The City had an aerial deer survey done on January 15, 2016. The snapshot survey map showed the counts are up (particularly in the southeast part of the City) when compared to the aerial survey done in 2014. The MBRB has suggested four weekends plus a backup weekend for the harvest. The dates are: September 23 – 25; October 14-16; November 4 – 6; November 25-27; and the backup date is December 9 – 11. For this year MBRB spread the dates out to have three weeks between each harvest. MBRB hopes that would help attain a better result. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the program has been well received by the residents. The results have been reasonable and the costs have been very reasonable. He then stated that residents living along Smithtown Road had told him that the activities on the Minnetonka Country Club redevelopment site have driven deer out of there and the deer have come on to their properties. Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, establishing the dates for the 2016 Deer Management Program with Metro Bowhunters Resource Base conducting the harvesting. In response to a comment from Acting Mayor Siakel, Director Nielsen stated that it would be better if there would be more sites on the east side of Christmas Lake. They were hoping for an additional site between Galpin Lake and Christmas Lake. There are three good ones but adding one more would be better. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 10 of 15 Motion passed 4/0. C. Crescent Beach Maintenance Agreement Administrator Joynes explained the City received a request from the City of Tonka Bay a few months ago to revise the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two Cities regarding the funding and maintenance of Crescent Beach. The bulk of the Beach is in Tonka Bay. The 2007 MOU calls for the Cities to alternate the maintenance of the Beach every other week. That has been found to be unworkable. Representatives from the two Cities discussed having just one of the Cities maintain the Beach. In the proposed Agreement Tonka Bay is willing to provide all of the maintenance at no cost to Shorewood provided Shorewood would be willing to pay for one-half the cost of future equipment and improvements. The new equipment and improvements would be at Tonka Bay’s sole discretion. Director Brown stated Shorewood Public Works provides $6,000 – $7,000 a year in labor costs for maintenance and improvements to the Beach. The last life guard services agreement was approved for $3,039 per year. That also factors into the new Agreement. Acting Mayor Siakel stated a few days ago the beach was closed due to E. coli. She asked what is causing that. Director Brown explained the prevailing winds blow in feces from geese and ducks. That is what causes the high E. coli levels. Many times the wind is blowing in the direction of the Beach. Last week the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) had people out harvesting Eurasian Watermilfoil. The next morning the beach was inundated with milfoil and dead fish because the wind blew it in. Siakel asked if Tonka Bay is doing enough to clean up the beach and to ensure it is not contaminated. She stated she would like there to be some assurance that the Beach would be kept neat and orderly. Administrator Joynes asked how much money Shorewood has spent annually on equipment and improvements to the beach. Director Brown stated it averages out to be about $1,000 – $2,000 a year. Joynes noted that he thought from a financial perspective what is being proposed is a good deal for Shorewood. It is also a good deal because in the past there have been issues about which City is supposed to be maintaining the Beach some weeks. Acting Mayor Siakel suggested placing a limit on the amount Tonka Bay can spend on equipment without consent from the Shorewood Council as a way of controlling Shorewood’s cost. Councilmember Sundberg stated she is not worried about the current Tonka Bay Council. But, members of councils change. She noted that she supports Acting Mayor Siakel’s idea. Councilmember Labadie concurred. Councilmember Labadie stated last year she brought up the issue of lifeguard services ending before school began the Tuesday after Labor Day. Beaches are highly used over Labor Day weekend. Last year she suggested extending those services through Labor Day weekend. She asked if that has been discussed with Tonka Bay. Director Brown stated he was not aware of any progress on that and noted it could be brought to Tonka Bay’s attention. Labadie stated she thought the contract for the services was started on June 1; children were still in school then. She suggested taking 10 days away on the front end and adding them to the end of summer. Administrator Joynes clarified that Minnetonka Community Education sets the schedule for the Beach. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 11 of 15 Councilmember Siakel stated that in the past that the end date may have been somewhat be influenced by college start dates; a lot of the lifeguards are college students. She then stated because public schools cannot start before Labor Day without approval now it may be appropriate to revisit the close date. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Brown clarified the lifeguard services agreement is a two-year agreement and therefore it covers this year. Councilmember Woodruff agreed with Acting Mayor Siakel’s suggestion to put a limit on how much Tonka Bay can spend on equipment or improvements without approval from the Shorewood Council. He offered up the idea of setting a $2,000 limit. He noted he really dislikes open ended agreements. In response to a comment from Acting Mayor Siakel, Administrator Joynes clarified that Shorewood would not have to pay for any of the routine maintenance labor costs. It would only have to pay one-half of the equipment and improvement costs. Administrator Joynes noted that the Agreement contains a cancellation clause that would allow either City to terminate the Agreement without cause. He thought that was enough good faith to go forward with the Agreement. He explained the intent of the Agreement is to streamline the maintenance of the Beach. Councilmember Woodruff asked if Council wants to put a limit on the cost of equipment and improvements that can be made without approval from the Shorewood Council. He noted he does. Administrator Joynes stated if it gets to be onerous Shorewood can terminate the Agreement. He asked if the proposed Tonka Bay maintenance include Tonka Bay clearing the ditch. Director Brown responded yes. Siakel moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the Agreement Regarding the Maintenance and Improvement of Crescent Beach subject to limiting the amount Tonka Bay can spend on equipment and beach improvements without Shorewood Council approval to $2,500 for Shorewood’s share. Motion passed 4/0. D. Assessment Services Agreement Director DeJong explained the meeting packet contains a copy of renewed Assessment Services Agreement between Shorewood and Hennepin County. The City has used Hennepin County for assessments services since the 2000 assessment year. The cost for those services is estimated to go up 4.2 percent for 2017. He noted that he thought it was in the City’s best interest to renew the agreement for another four years rather than contracting with a private assessment firm to assess properties in Shorewood. Contracting with a private firm would put the burden back on Council to act as the Board of Equalization rather than having the open book process the City currently has. DeJong noted staff recommends Council authorize Mayor Zerby to sign the Agreement as presented. Councilmember Woodruff stated it was his recollection that when he joined Council the City’s cost for those services was about $80,000 annually. That means the cost has increased about 50 percent in 10 years. The memorandum from Hennepin County states that it is “…. making every effort to try and keep the costs to a minimum while still providing the best possible customer service …” Gas prices are down and labor is likely up but he does not think the County is giving its assessors a 4.5 percent salary increase. He noted that he does not like the agreement but he does not think the City has a choice. He does not like the idea that the County can increase the cost 7.5 percent annually while the City has no recourse. He thought that is nonsensical. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 12 of 15 Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, authorizing Mayor Zerby to sign the Assessment Services Agreement with Hennepin County as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trail Schedule Acting Mayor Siakel noted the meeting packet contains a copy of the Trail Schedule. Engineer Hornby explained the City contracted with WSB & Associates to prepare a 2016 Regional Solicitation Grant Application and Supporting Documentation for Galpin Lake Road Trail Improvements. That effort is in progress. The City is going to request letters of support from the Cities of Chanhassen and Excelsior, Carver and Hennepin Counties, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) this week. The pedestrian facility would connect to Chanhassen’s pedestrian facility and to a trail in Excelsior on the south side of Highway 7. MnDOT would be involved because part of the facility would be in its right-of-way. The facility would get pedestrians off of the Highway. He then explained the storm sewer pipe has been put in along Smithtown Road. The next phase for the Smithtown Road east sidewalk extension involves grading. After that curb and gutter would be put in. Acting Mayor Siakel asked in which direction the surface of the sidewalk would be put down. Engineer Hornby stated he anticipates it would be done from west to east based on the work that the contractor has already done. 2. Update on Administrative Search Administrator Joynes explained the city administrator application deadline was the close of business on June 10. A total of 26 applications were received. The Personnel Committee received copies of all 26. The Committee is scheduled to meet on June 20 to discuss them. The applications were separated into four groups based on experience levels. The intent is to come back to the full Council on June 27 with some recommendations on how to move forward. Councilmember Sundberg asked what the overall quality of the applications was. Administrator Joynes stated he thought about one-half of them should be discarded right away based on clear cut experience in municipal government. There are five or six applicants who have relevant significant experience; they are in different stages of their careers. Good judgements will have to be made about their reasons for applying. A number of applicants are nontraditional candidates; they have relevant experience but not traditional in how the position has normally been filled. The applicant pool is weaker than those in the past. 3. Update on Tonka Splash Event Director Brown stated the Tonka United Soccer Association Tonka Splash traveling tournament was held June 3 – 5, 2016. The Association reduced the number of teams participating just as it said it would. He and the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) both report there were no issues. He thought this year’s event was managed well. If the Association applies to have the event again next year in Freeman Park staff would recommend the City approve it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 13 of 15 Councilmember Labadie explained she attended one game on Friday evening and two on Saturday. Members of her family participated on Saturday. There was no problem finding parking. The event was well organized. Volunteers directed drivers on where to park. She heard comments throughout the event of people expressing how surprised they were about the event being so well organized and well run. The 2015 event was not that way. She encouraged the City to keep the event in Shorewood. Director Brown thanked Councilmember Labadie for scheduling the initial meetings with members of the Association. He stated Mayor Zerby had received some complaints from people who were not pleased because there was no access to Highway during that time. He spoke with SLMPD representatives and they are adamant that keeping drivers off that entrance on to Highway was critical. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she thought the signage was good at directing people where to drive to get on to Highway 7. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was ambushed last weekend by people asking why the City allowed the event to take place in Freeman Park this year because it caused so many problems in the past. He asked staff to put something on the City’s website and to publish something in the newsletter explaining the changes that were made for this year’s event and that the SLMPD thought it was a much better event. Councilmember Labadie stated this year several neighborhoods in the cul-de-sacs bordering the trail had no parking signs put up. That made it easier for residents in that area to leave and return to their properties. Other Director Brown noted the June 10 Music in the Park event was postponed. Director DeJong stated 2017 department budgets will be sent out this week. He then stated the survey the City a few years ago regarding local performance measures is somewhat dated. He intends to work with the Communications Coordinator on a small survey that can be emailed out to residents. The updated local performance measures have to be sent to the Office of the State Auditor by June 30. Director Nielsen stated the first round of the annual park tours was postponed from June 14 to June 28 due to anticipated rain. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie noted the annual Excelsior Firefighters Relief Association (EFRA) fundraising dance is scheduled for July 15 from 5:00 P.M. to midnight. It is a great fundraiser and a fun evening. She encouraged people to attend. Councilmember Sundberg stated she attended the June 8, 2016, Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting. There was a lengthy discussion about the EFRA’s Investment Policy. The discussion centered to a large extent on the volatility of the market. From her vantage point the Policy is very conservative. For an organization like the EFRA it is best to have a conservative policy and stick with it. It was noted that having a policy that achieves higher earnings benefits the firefighters because their per-year-of-service (PYOS) increases. She noted there is a joint meeting of the EFD member cities scheduled for June 22 at 6:00 P.M. to discuss the 2017 EFD Operating Budget, 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the 2017 Building Projects Improvement Program (the BPIP). Acting Mayor Siakel stated it is good for other members of the member City Councils to come to the joint meeting; not just those on the EFD Board. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 14 of 15 Councilmember Woodruff stated that more than one year ago the EFRA decided to have Parr McKnight Wealth Management Group of Wells Fargo manage about one half of the EFRA’s investment portfolio. It was his recollection that last fall the first annual report reflected less than stellar performance by Parr. He thought it was significantly less than what he termed “the unmanaged portion” of the portfolio. He asked if the EFRA is considering changing how their investments are managed. Acting Mayor Siakel explained that former EFD Boardmember and former Shorewood Councilmember Jeff Bailey had been asked to come and speak to the EFD Board about the EFRA’s Investment Policy because he helped the EFRA craft the Policy. When the EFRA decided to put half of its portfolio with Parr it left the other half with the State Board of Investment (SBI). The EFRA decided to again basically put its entire portfolio back with the SBI. Mr. Bailey chairs the SBI Investment Advisory Council. When there is a significant loss in the EFRA’s fund for pension because of a significant market downturn and the fund becomes underfunded the EFD member cities are required to make a mandatory contribution to that fund. EFD Boardmember Greg Miller has expressed concern that as the balance in that fund continues to grow and potentially reaches $10 million, for example, the potential liability for the member cites increases significantly. The EFD Board has discussed the possibility of increasing the level in its Fund Balance Policy. That Policy current recommends reserves of 20 – 30 percent. Another way to prepare for a shortfall in the fund for pensions would be to put funds aside at the EFD level to help offset the impact of a mandatory contribution. Yet another way to prepare for a shortfall is for the EFD member cities to set money aside for that eventuality or increase its reserve. There are differing perspectives about the EFRA’s defined pension plan and continuing with it as it is. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she is going to attend the Keep the Hives Alive Tour event on June 14. Communications Coordinator Moore is going as well. Attorney Keane stated he is going to attend the Legislative Update for Minnesota Attorneys before Council’s next meeting. He will give an update on legislative changes during Council’s June 27 meeting. Councilmember Woodruff stated there was a recent ruling against the City regarding the purchase of the Southshore Center. He thought there is a period during which the City can appeal the ruling. He asked what the next step is for the City. Attorney Keane noted Council did direct filing the appeal. The notice of the appeal and the statement of case have been prepared and will likely be filed June 14. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she had received calls from a couple of residents about power outages. One resident told her that her power had gone out at least twice over the last couple of weeks. That resident did call Xcel Energy and was told by the individual who answered the call that they could not direct her to anyone that could help her. She suggested staff contact one of the people who came and spoke to Council about outages. Director Brown stated the power outage that impacted the largest area was due to circuit failure at the substation in the City of Excelsior. He has not heard about what caused the outage that impacted parts west. Siakel stated Xcel should not be telling residents no one at Xcel can help them. Siakel and Councilmember Woodruff both suggested staff invite Xcel representatives to again come to a Council meeting to talk about outages. Siakel then stated that she assumes Lake Minnetonka Conservation District representative Ms. Zorn was not able to make it this evening. Administrator Joynes confirmed that. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES June 13, 2016 Page 15 of 15 12. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of June 13, 2016, at 8:53 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk ® #3A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 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. 62633-62636&ACH 53,293.50 Checks 62638—62671 &ACH 95,398.01 Total Claims $148,691.51 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending June 12,2016. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: Mnguyen C!Batch: 00001.06.2016-PR-06132016 City Of CITY OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101-00-1010-0000 0.00 52,476.05 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101-11-4103-0000 1,716.64 0.00 PART-TIME 101-11-4122-0000 131.31 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4101-0000 6,754.91 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-13-4103-0000 306.00 0.00 PART-TIME 101-13-4121-0000 506.62 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4122-0000 539.09 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4131-0000 1,088.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-13-4151-0000 86.79 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-15-4101-0000 4,394.34 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-15-4121-0000 329.56 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4122-0000 310.35 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4131-0000 500.88 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-15-4151-0000 25.09 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-18-4101-0000 5,374.30 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-18-4121-0000 403.07 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4122-0000 395.83 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4131-0000 855.80 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-18-4151-0000 33.77 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-24-4101-0000 4,103.20 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-24-4121-0000 307.76 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4122-0000 258.43 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4131-0000 500.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-24-4151-0000 25.27 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-32-4101-0000 10,350.78 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-32-4102-0000 174.12 0.00 OVERTIME 101-32-4105-0000 289.90 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY 101-32-4121-0000 811.10 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4122-0000 763.97 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4131-0000 1,812.10 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-32-4151-0000 482.73 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-33-4101-0000 24.14 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-33-4121-0000 1.81 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-33-4122-0000 1.59 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE PR-G/L Distribution Report(06/13/2016- 1:54 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101-33-4151-0000 0.28 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-52-4101-0000 4,950.65 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-52-4103-0000 1,105.50 0.00 PART-TIME 101-52-4121-0000 454.22 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4122-0000 437.17 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4131-0000 898.48 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-52-4151-0000 243.14 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-53-4101-0000 596.48 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-53-4121-0000 44.73 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4122-0000 44.57 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4131-0000 21.68 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-53-4151-0000 19.90 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 52,476.05 52,476.05 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201-00-1010-0000 0.00 911.79 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201-00-4101-0000 422.65 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 201-00-4102-0000 63.90 0.00 OVERTIME 201-00-4103-0000 322.50 0.00 PART-TIME 201-00-4121-0000 31.69 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4122-0000 53.74 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4151-0000 17.31 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 911.79 911.79 FUND 601 Water Utility 601-00-1010-0000 0.00 6,723.86 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601-00-4101-0000 4,790.94 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 601-00-4105-0000 192.24 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601-00-4121-0000 373.75 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4122-0000 357.50 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4131-0000 871.55 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 601-00-4151-0000 137.88 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 6,723.86 6,723.86 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611-00-1010-0000 0.00 5,486.92 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611-00-4101-0000 3,573.42 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 611-00-4102-0000 152.20 0.00 OVERTIME 611-00-4105-0000 192.24 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611-00-4121-0000 293.85 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4122-0000 290.28 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4131-0000 871.55 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY PR-G/L Distribution Report(06/13/2016- 1:54 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 611-00-4151-0000 113.38 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,486.92 5,486.92 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621-00-1010-0000 0.00 814.19 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621-00-4101-0000 648.99 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 621-00-4121-0000 48.68 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4122-0000 43.75 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4131-0000 68.48 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 621-00-4151-0000 4.29 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 814.19 814.19 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,827.12 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631-00-4101-0000 1,163.97 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 631-00-4102-0000 332.44 0.00 OVERTIME 631-00-4121-0000 112.22 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4122-0000 101.13 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4131-0000 96.56 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 631-00-4151-0000 20.80 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,827.12 1,827.12 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700-00-1010-0000 68,239.93 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2170-0000 0.00 33,503.12 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700-00-2171-0000 0.00 7,717.32 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700-00-2172-0000 0.00 4,217.70 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2173-0000 0.00 1,827.65 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2174-0000 0.00 7,457.42 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700-00-2175-0000 0.00 6,942.27 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2176-0000 0.00 2,305.00 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700-00-2177-0000 0.00 1,210.63 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700-00-2181-0000 0.00 1,074.60 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700-00-2183-0000 0.00 1,149.92 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700-00-2184-0000 0.00 426.30 DENTAL DELTA 700-00-2185-0000 0.00 408.00 DENTAL-UNION FUND Total: 68,239.93 68,239.93 Report Total: 136,479.86 136,479.86 PR-G/L Distribution Report(06/13/2016- 1:54 PM) Page 3 Accounts Payable b � Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 06/13/2016- 3:34PM w city of Shorewood Check Number Check Date Amount 4-AFSCMF CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 Inv June-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Dental-Union 700-00-2185-0000 408.00 Inv June-2016 Total 408.00 0 Total: 408.00 4-AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND Total: 408.00 3-DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 Inv June-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Dental-Non Union 700-00-2184-0000 426.30 Inv June-2016 Total 426.30 0 Total: 426.30 3-DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Total: 426.30 731-DONNAY HOMES,INC.Line Item Account 62633 06/13/2016 Inv 4815Suburban Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 Escrow Refund-4815 Suburban Drive 880-00-2200-0000 11,250.00 Inv 4815Suburban Total 11,250.00 62633 Total: 11,250.00 731-DONNAY HOMES,INC.Total: 11,250.00 5-EFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 AP-Check Detail(6/13/2016- 3:34 PM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 06132016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Federal Income Tax 700-00-2172-0000 4,217.70 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 FICA Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 3,021.97 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 FICA Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 3,021.97 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Medicare Employee Portion 700-00-2174-0000 706.74 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Medicare Employer Portion 700-00-2174-0000 706.74 Inv 06132016 Total 11,675.12 0 Total: 11,675.12 5-FFTPS-FEDERAL W/H Total: 11,675.12 6-HEALTH PARTNERS-GROUP Line Item Account 62634 06/13/2016 Inv June-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/01/2016 PR Batch 00003.05.2016 Health Ins-CoPay 700-00-2171-0000 2,036.08 06/01/2016 PR Batch 00003.05.2016 Health Insurance-HSA 700-00-2171-0000 5,681.24 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Health Ins-CoPay 700-00-2171-0000 2,036.08 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Health Insurance-HSA 700-00-2171-0000 5,681.24 Inv June-2016 Total 15,434.64 62634 Total: 15,434.64 6-HEALTH PARTNERS-GROUP Total: 15,434.64 2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Line Item Account 62635 06/13/2016 Inv 06132016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Deferred Comp Flat Amount 700-00-2176-0000 2,305.00 Inv 06132016 Total 2,305.00 62635 Total: 2,305.00 2-ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-302131-457 Total: 2,305.00 686-KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 Inv 20323-June-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Long Term Disability 700-00-2181-0000 492.94 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Short Term Disability 700-00-2181-0000 581.66 AP-Check Detail(6/13/2016- 3:34 PM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 20323-June-2016 Total 1,074.60 0 Total: 1,074.60 686-KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Total: 1,074.60 11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 Inv 06132016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 0000 1.06.2016 State Income Tax 700-00-2173-0000 1,827.65 Inv 06132016 Total 1,827.65 0 Total: 1,827.65 11-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Total: 1,827.65 9-PERA Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 Inv 06132016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 MN-PERA Deduction 700-00-2175-0000 3,223.21 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 MN PERA Benefit Employer 700-00-2175-0000 3,719.06 Inv 06132016 Total 6,942.27 0 Total: 6,942.27 9-PERA Total: 6,942.27 353-THE SHALO LEE BAND Line Item Account 62636 06/13/2016 Inv 2016-MIP-Event Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 2016-Music in The Park-Deposit 101-53-3479-0000 800.00 Inv 2016-MIP-Event Total 800.00 62636 Total: 800.00 353-THE SHALO LEE BAND Total: 800.00 1-WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Line Item Account 0 06/13/2016 AP-Check Detail(6/13/2016- 3:34 PM) Page 3 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 06132016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 PR Batch 00001.06.2016 Health Savings Account 700-00-2183-0000 1,149.92 Inv 06132016 Total 1,149.92 0 Total: 1,149.92 1-WELLS FARGO HEALTH BENEFIT SVCS Total: 1,149.92 Total: 53,293.50 AP-Check Detail(6/13/2016- 3:34 PM) Page 4 Accounts Payable b � Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 06/23/2016- 10:40AM w city of Shorewood Check Number Check Date Amount 732-AUER,MAEVE Line Item Account 62638 06/27/2016 Inv ManorParkCancel Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/19/2016 Picnic Shelter-Manor Park-Cancel 101-00-2081-0000 1.82 06/19/2016 Picnic Shelter-Manor Park-Cancel 101-00-3471-0000 25.00 Inv ManorParkCancel Total 26.82 62638 Total: 26.82 732-AUER,MAEVE Total: 26.82 U13*00067-Birrenkott,William&Kate Line Item Account 62639 06/27/2016 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 92.87 06/22/2016 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 39.80 06/22/2016 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 39.81 Inv Total 172.48 62639 Total: 172.48 U13*00067-Birrenkott,William&Kate Total: 172.48 544-BNR IRRIGATION SERVICES,INC.Line Item Account 62640 06/27/2016 Inv 87912 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Watermain Break Repair 601-00-4400-0000 480.32 Inv 87912 Total 480.32 62640 Total: 480.32 544-BNR IRRIGATION SERVICES,INC.Total: 480.32 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Amount 125-BOYER TRUCKS PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER Line Item Account 0 06/27/2016 Inv 198060 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/14/2016 Utility Truck Repair-Freightliner M2-Lic#935157 101-32-4221-0000 1,185.76 Inv 198060 Total 1,185.76 Inv 286737 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/15/2016 Utility Truck Repair-Ford-F450-Lic#904894 101-32-4221-0000 2,891.15 Inv 286737 Total 2,891.15 0 Total: 4,076.91 125-BOYER TRUCKS PARTS DISTRIBUTION CENTER Total: 4,076.91 129-BROWN,LAWRENCE Line Item Account 62641 06/27/2016 Inv AbsoluteCoating Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Paint for SE Water Plant 601-00-4221-0000 126.15 Inv AbsoluteCoating Total 126.15 Inv AlumLine Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Hinges Boxes for Utility Truck 101-32-4221-0000 114.69 Inv AlumLine Total 114.69 Inv BestBuy Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Computer for Water Meter Read 601-00-4680-0000 300.36 Inv BestBuy Total 300.36 Inv BoardAelslagid Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 PE Licensure Renewal 101-32-4331-0000 122.00 Inv BoardAelslagid Total 122.00 Inv RedVector Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Continuing Ed Class Ethics-Partl 101-32-4331-0000 39.95 06/22/2016 Continuing Ed Class Ethics-Part2 101-32-4331-0000 29.95 Inv RedVector Total 69.90 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 2 Check Number Check Date Amount 62641 Total: 733.10 129-BROWN,LAWRENCE Total: 733.10 508-BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS,INC.Line Item Account 62642 06/27/2016 Inv 14553 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 05/15/2016 Ag Line 101-52-4245-0000 1,059.10 Inv 14553 Total 1,059.10 62642 Total: 1,059.10 508-BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS,INC.Total: 1,059.10 134-CARQUEST AUTO PARTS Line Item Account 62643 06/27/2016 Inv 6974-272396 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/02/2016 Fuel Tank 101-32-4221-0000 1,457.44 Inv 6974-272396 Total 1,457.44 Inv 6974-272926 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/09/2016 Reman Fuel Injector 101-32-4221-0000 218.69 Inv 6974-272926 Total 218.69 Inv 6974-272927 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/09/2016 Toro Werch 101-32-4240-0000 45.99 Inv 6974-272927 Total 45.99 Inv 6974-273115 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 Fittings 101-32-4221-0000 3.52 Inv 6974-273115 Total 3.52 Inv 6974-273253 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/14/2016 Brake Parts 101-32-4221-0000 456.77 Inv 6974-273253 Total 456.77 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 3 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 6974-273485 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/17/2016 Brake Parts Return 101-32-4221-0000 -114.00 Inv 6974-273485 Total -114.00 Inv 6974-273510 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/17/2016 Brake Parts 101-32-4221-0000 365.23 Inv 6974-273 5 10 Total 365.23 Inv 6974-273529 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/17/2016 Brake Fluid 101-32-4221-0000 6.06 Inv 6974-273529 Total 6.06 62643 Total: 2,439.70 134-CARQUEST AUTO PARTS Total: 2,439.70 137-CENTURY LINK Line Item Account 62644 06/27/2016 Inv 6128451785-JE16 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/01/2016 612-845-1785-Bldr Brdg 601-00-4396-0000 294.00 Inv 6128451785-JE16 Total 294.00 Inv 6128458019-7816 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/01/2016 612-845-8019-SE Areas 601-00-4398-0000 220.50 Inv 6128458019-JE16 Total 220.50 62644 Total: 514.50 137-CENTURY LINK Total: 514.50 150-CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY Line Item Account 62645 06/27/2016 Inv 23787 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/08/2016 City Hall Monthly Svc 101-19-4400-0000 574.00 Inv 23787 Total 574.00 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 4 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 23788 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/08/2016 Public Works Monthly Svc 101-32-4400-0000 295.00 Inv 23788 Total 295.00 62645 Total: 869.00 150-CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY Total: 869.00 201-GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Line Item Account 62646 06/27/2016 Inv 0123003-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/07/2016 Bruce DeJong-Membership-2016 101-15-4433-0000 170.00 Inv 0123003-2016 Total 170.00 62646 Total: 170.00 201-GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Total: 170.00 436-HODGES,MARK Line Item Account 62647 06/27/2016 Inv 05-31-2016 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 05/31/2016 Video Tape Service-05/31/16 101-11-4400-0000 70.00 Inv 05-31-2016 Total 70.00 62647 Total: 70.00 436-HODGES,MARK Total: 70.00 608-HYDRO KLEAN Line Item Account 0 06/27/2016 Inv 55155 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 Clean&Televise Line to Determine Integrity of the Main 611-00-4400-0000 2,755.00 Inv 55155 Total 2,755.00 0 Total: 2,755.00 608-HYDRO KLEAN Total: 2,755.00 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 5 Check Number Check Date Amount 227-INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INCORPORATED Line Item Account 62648 06/27/2016 Inv 220225A Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/15/2016 Mutt Mitt 101-52-4245-0000 431.96 Inv 220225A Total 431.96 62648 Total: 431.96 227-INTELLIGENT PRODUCTS INCORPORATED Total: 431.96 243-KLM ENGINEERING, INC.Line Item Account 62649 06/27/2016 Inv 6017 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/03/2016 AT&T Antenna Modification-Old Market Rd Tower 101-00-3414-0000 1,500.00 Inv 6017 Total 1,500.00 62649 Total: 1,500.00 243-KLM ENGINEERING, INC.Total: 1,500.00 260-LOCATORS&SUPPLIES,INC.Line Item Account 0 06/27/2016 Inv 0246609-IN Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/16/2016 Safety Vests 101-32-4245-0000 138.62 Inv 0246609-IN Total 138.62 Inv 0246683-IN Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/20/2016 Flags 601-00-4245-0000 66.48 06/20/2016 Flags 611-00-4245-0000 66.48 Inv 0246683-IN Total 132.96 0 Total: 271.58 260-LOCATORS&SUPPLIES,INC.Total: 271.58 UB*00069-McConnell,Brian Line Item Account 62650 06/27/2016 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 6 Check Number Check Date Amount 06/22/2016 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 39.56 06/22/2016 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 16.95 06/22/2016 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 16.95 Inv Total 73.46 62650 Total: 73.46 UB*00069-McConnell,Brian Total: 73.46 UB*00068-Meldahl,John&Ann Line Item Account 62651 06/27/2016 Inv Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 Refund Check 611-00-2010-0000 58.53 06/22/2016 Refund Check 621-00-2010-0000 25.08 06/22/2016 Refund Check 631-00-2010-0000 25.09 Inv Total 108.70 62651 Total: 108.70 UB*00068-Meldahl,John&Ann Total: 108.70 302-MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Line Item Account 62652 06/27/2016 Inv 10000013426 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/01/2016 2016-Hazardous Waste Fees 101-32-4437-0000 261.58 Inv 10000013426 Total 261.58 62652 Total: 261.58 302-MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Total: 261.58 473-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Line Item Account 62653 06/27/2016 Inv 660154 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 Statewide Hospitality-2016 for License No.FA0002205 201-00-4437-0000 35.00 Inv 660154 Total 35.00 62653 Total: 35.00 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 7 Check Number Check Date Amount 473-MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Total: 35.00 456-MINNESOTA PIPE&EQUIP Line Item Account 62654 06/27/2016 Inv 357267 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/09/2016 Water System Parts 601-00-4221-0000 2,180.40 Inv 357267 Total 2,180.40 62654 Total: 2,180.40 456-MINNESOTA PIPE&EQUIP Total: 2,180.40 291-MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE Line Item Account 62655 06/27/2016 Inv 6098 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/24/2016 Program at Freeman Park on 06/24/16 101-53-4248-0000 325.00 Inv 6098 Total 325.00 62655 Total: 325.00 291-MINNESOTA ZOOMOBILE Total: 325.00 322-OFFICE DEPOT Line Item Account 62656 06/27/2016 Inv 84589329001 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/17/2016 Supplies 101-13-4200-0000 241.94 Inv 84589329001 Total 241.94 62656 Total: 241.94 322-OFFICE DEPOT Total: 241.94 325-ON SITE SANITATION-TWIN CITIES Line Item Account 62657 06/27/2016 Inv 269447 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/18/2016 Badger Pk-5745 Country Club Rd 101-52-4410-0000 53.00 Inv 269447 Total 53.00 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 8 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 269448 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/18/2016 Cathcart Park-26655 W-62nd ST 101-52-4410-0000 53.00 Inv 269448 Total 53.00 Inv 269449 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/18/2016 Freeman Park-6000 Eureka Rd 101-52-4410-0000 159.00 Inv 269449 Total 159.00 Inv 269450 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/18/2016 Silverwood Pk-5755 Covington R 101-52-4410-0000 53.00 Inv 269450 Total 53.00 Inv 269451 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/18/2016 SS Skate-5355 St Albans Bay Rd 101-52-4410-0000 53.00 Inv 269451 Total 53.00 Inv 269452 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/18/2016 Christmas Lk Rd-5625 Merry Ln 101-52-4410-0000 233.20 Inv 269452 Total 233.20 62657 Total: 604.20 325-ON SITE SANITATION-TWIN CITIES Total: 604.20 333-PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC Line Item Account 62658 06/27/2016 Inv 3100256708 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/04/2016 Quarterly Meter Lease Postage 101-19-4410-0000 197.00 Inv 3100256708 Total 197.00 62658 Total: 197.00 333-PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC Total: 197.00 699-S.M.HENTGES&SONS,INC.Line Item Account 62659 06/27/2016 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 9 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv PV#3-P01459-94 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 05/31/2016 P.V.#3-Project No.01459-94-Smithtown Road Bast Sidewalk 406-00-4620-0008 47,063.08 Inv PV#3-P01459-94 Total 47,063.08 62659 Total: 47,063.08 699-S.M.HFNTGFS&SONS,INC.Total: 47,063.08 346-SAFETY SIGNS Line Item Account 62660 06/27/2016 Inv 16001164 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/14/2016 Road Closed Signs 101-32-4400-0000 729.80 Inv 16001164 Total 729.80 62660 Total: 729.80 346-SAFETY SIGNS Total: 729.80 734-SCIFNCF EXPLORERS,INC.Line Item Account 62661 06/27/2016 Inv 3633 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/20/2016 The Mechanic of Gizmos-Gravity-at Freeman Park 101-53-4248-0000 125.00 Inv 3633 Total 125.00 62661 Total: 125.00 734-SCIFNCF EXPLORERS,INC.Total: 125.00 354-SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Line Item Account 62662 06/27/2016 Inv 129643 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 Plumbing 101-32-4223-0000 10.57 Inv 129643 Total 10.57 Inv 129645 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/13/2016 Pison Ivy Spray 101-52-4245-0000 46.97 Inv 129645 Total 46.97 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 10 Check Number Check Date Amount Inv 129672 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/14/2016 Bypass Pruner&Lopper 101-52-4240-0000 45.98 Inv 129672 Total 45.98 Inv 129685 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/15/2016 Safety Equipments 101-52-4245-0000 22.98 Inv 129685 Total 22.98 Inv 129711 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/16/2016 Herbicides 101-52-4245-0000 26.99 Inv 129711 Total 26.99 Inv 129791 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/21/2016 Parts 101-32-4245-0000 39.98 Inv 129791 Total 39.98 62662 Total: 193.47 354-SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE Total: 193.47 355-SHRED-N-GO INC Line Item Account 62663 06/27/2016 Inv 56936 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/11/2016 Shredded Svc 101-13-4400-0000 35.00 Inv 56936 Total 35.00 62663 Total: 35.00 355-SHRED-N-GO INC Total: 35.00 379-THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Line Item Account 62664 06/27/2016 Inv 48597 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 Geocaching Program at Freeman Park-08/05/2016 101-53-4248-0000 200.00 Inv 48597 Total 200.00 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 11 Check Number Check Date Amount 62664 Total: 200.00 379-THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT Total: 200.00 432-UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE Line Item Account 62665 06/27/2016 Inv 20-807220 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 05/11/2016 Oil 101-32-4245-0000 44.98 Inv 20-807220 Total 44.98 62665 Total: 44.98 432-UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE Total: 44.98 621-UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION NEMO Line Item Account 62666 06/27/2016 Inv Nemo Wkshop Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 NBMO Workshop-Registration-Jennifer Labadie 101-11-4331-0000 20.00 06/23/2016 NBMO Workshop-Registration-Deb Siakel 101-11-4331-0000 20.00 Inv Nemo Wkshop Total 40.00 62666 Total: 40.00 621-UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA EXTENSION NEMO Total: 40.00 392-VALLEY-RICH CO.INC.Line Item Account 62667 06/27/2016 Inv 22828 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 05/19/2016 Watermain Break-Eureka Rd&Wildrose Ln 601-00-4400-0000 3,673.01 Inv 22828 Total 3,673.01 Inv 22852 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 05/24/2016 Watermain Break-27125 Noble Road 601-00-4400-0000 8,267.13 Inv 22852 Total 8,267.13 62667 Total: 11,940.14 392-VALLEY-RICH CO.INC.Total: 11,940.14 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 12 Check Number Check Date Amount 733-VANG,DEREK Line Item Account 62668 06/27/2016 Inv RoomRental Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/17/2016 Class Reunion Event Rental Refund 201-00-3410-0000 715.00 Inv RoomRental Total 715.00 62668 Total: 715.00 733-VANG,DEREK Total: 715.00 421-VERIZON WIRELESS Line Item Account 62669 06/27/2016 Inv 9766337349 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/01/2016 Sewer&Water-Acct8 420 173 8 6-Svc 05/02/16-06/01/16 601-00-4321-0000 50.41 06/01/2016 Sewer&Water-Acct8 420 173 8 6-Svc 05/02/16-06/01/16 611-00-4321-0000 50.40 06/01/2016 S&W Lines-Acct8 420 173 86-Svc 05/02116-06/01/16 631-00-4321-0000 50.39 Inv 9766337349 Total 151.20 Inv 9766973270 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/12/2016 Brad's Cell-612-865-3582-Svc-05/13/16-06/12116 101-18-4321-0000 66.80 Inv 9766973270 Total 66.80 62669 Total: 218.00 421-VERIZON WIRELESS Total: 218.00 408-WM MUELLER&SONS INC Line Item Account 0 06/27/2016 Inv 213695 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/02/2016 Road Maint 101-32-4250-0000 902.40 Inv 213695 Total 902.40 Inv 213991 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/09/2016 Road Maint 101-32-4250-0000 2,711.15 Inv 213991 Total 2,711.15 Inv 214099 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 13 Check Number Check Date Amount 06/13/2016 Road Maint 101-32-4250-0000 902.40 Inv 214099 Total 902.40 0 Total: 4,515.95 408-WM MUELLER&SONS INC Total: 4,515.95 411-XCEL ENERGY,INC.Line Item Account 62670 06/27/2016 Inv Stmt#504482429 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/09/2016 5655 Merry Lane-Svc-05/09/16-06/08/16 101-52-4380-0000 24.21 Inv Stmt#504482429 Total 24.21 Inv Stmt#505797824 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/22/2016 C.H.Svcs-Statement on 06/20/16 101-19-4380-0000 406.73 06/22/2016 P.W.Bldg Svc-Statement on 06/20/16 101-32-4380-0000 415.15 06/22/2016 P.W.Street Lights Svc-State on 06/20/16 101-32-4399-0000 3,103.74 06/22/2016 Parks-Statement on 06/20/16 101-52-4380-0000 352.58 06/22/2016 Amesbury Svc-Statement on 06/20/16 601-00-4394-0000 584.21 06/22/2016 Boulder Bridge Svc-Statement on 06/20/16 601-00-4396-0000 1,164.80 06/22/2016 S.B.Area Svc-Statement on 06/20/16 601-00-4398-0000 2,948.86 06/22/2016 Street Lights-Statement on 06/20/16 611-00-4380-0000 510.91 Inv Stmt#505797824 Total 9,486.98 62670 Total: 9,511.19 411-XCEL ENERGY,INC.Total: 9,511.19 Total: 94,929.36 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-10:40 AM) Page 14 Accounts Payable b � Check Detail User: Mnguyen Printed: 06/23/2016- 11:19AM w city of Shorewood Check Number Check Date Amount 306-MOORE,JULIE Line Item Account 62671 06/27/2016 Inv Amazon-06/16 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 SSCC Projector Bulb 201-00-4245-0000 74.00 06/23/2016 SSCC Projector Bulb 201-00-4245-0000 67.05 Inv Amazon-06/16 Total 141.05 Inv Cosco-06/16 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 SSCC-Volunteers Lunch 201-00-4245-0000 164.88 06/23/2016 SSCC-Volunteers Lunch-Mileage 201-00-4331-0000 14.04 Inv Cosco-06/16 Total 178.92 Inv Feb-Jun2016Mile Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 Mileages from Feb to Jun-2016 101-13-4331-0000 105.84 Inv Feb-Jun2016Mile Total 105.84 Inv OfficeMax-06/16 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 Council Recording DVD 101-11-4245-0000 25.55 Inv OfficeMax-06/16 Total 25.55 Inv Spring-06/16 Line Item Date Line Item Description Line Item Account 06/23/2016 Spring Cleanup-Cub Foods 621-00-3732-0000 3.99 06/23/2016 Spring Cleanup-Lakewinds 621-00-3732-0000 13.30 Inv Spring-06/16 Total 17.29 62671 Total: 468.65 306-MOORE,JULIE Total: 468.65 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-11:19 AM) Page 1 Check Number Check Date Amount Total: 468.65 AP-Check Detail(6/23/2016-11:19 AM) Page 2 ® 313 MEETING TYPE Ity of Shorewood nl Meeting l Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Appointment of Two Seasonal Employees, Public Works Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments None Policy Consideration: Should the City appoint two temporary seasonal workers to meet maintenance needs for the Department of Public Works? Background:Traditionally, the City hires two temporary seasonal employees annually, to assist with park maintenance and roadway patching. This year is no exception. The City Council may recall that a single appointment was made for one of the positions last regularly scheduled City Council meeting. However, that employee left the position, due to personal family matters. Since that appointment, staff has been able to interview and select two employees to fill the regular seasonal positions. Mr. Erick Schneider and Mr.Tyler Jordahl are the successful candidates for the positions. These seasonal positions have been budgeted as part of the normal operating budget. Staff is recommending that these temporary positions will be compensated at the hourly rate of $11.00 per hour, with the position expiring at the end of the business day on October 28, 2016. Financial or Budget Considerations:These appointments have been budgeted as part of the approved 2016 operating budget for Public Works. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff is recommending approval of a motion that appoints Mr. Erick Schneider and Mr.Tyler Jordahl to the positions of Seasonal Employee at a rate of$11.00 per hour, through October 28, 2016. 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 ® #3C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title/ Subject: Local Performance Measures Meeting Date: 6/7/16 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Policy Consideration: Should the City participate in the Local Performance Measure program? Background: The Council on Local Results and Innovation was created by the Legislature to set benchmarks for city and county operations. The group adopted measures which are relatively easy to get using a citizen survey. The legislation comes with two incentives to participate. There is an appropriation for participants equal to 14 cents per capita or about $1,000. The program does not require us to levy any more or less than whatever the City Council decides during budget deliberations. We are setting up a new survey to validate results as our previous survey information is getting dated. A Survey Monkey -type survey run through our own web site and email contact list can continue to qualify for the program. Financial or Budget Considerations: Adoption of this resolution will allow Shorewood to receive approximately $1000 in state aid in 2016. Options: The City Council may choose to: Decline to participate in the program; Adopt the attached resolution to participate. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council adopt the resolution as submitted. Next Steps and Timelines: This resolution will be transmitted to the Office of State Auditor. Connection to Vision / Mission: This program contributes to sound financial management. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION ADOPTING PERFORMANCE MEASURES WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature created a Council on Local Results and Innovation ; and WHEREAS, benefits to the City of Shorewood for participation in the Minnesota Council on Local Results and Innovation's comprehensive performance measurement program are outlined in MS 6.91 and include eligibility for a reimbursement as set by State statute; and WHEREAS, The City Council of Shorewood has adopted and implemented at leastl0 of the performance measures, as developed by the Council on Local Results and Innovation, and a system to use this information to help plan, budget, manage and evaluate programs and processes for optimal future outcomes; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood desires to participate in the program; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Shorewood will continue to report the results of the performance measures to its citizenry by the end of the year through publishing, direct mailing, posting on the city's web site, or through a public hearing at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input will be allowed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, The City of Shorewood will submit to the Office of the State Auditor the actual results of the performance measures adopted by the city /county. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June, 2016. ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Scott Zerby, Mayor #5A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Woodside Road—Request for Partial Street R.O.W.Vacation Meeting Date: 27 June 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Site Location Map Property Survey Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City vacate a portion of the public right-of-way for Woodside Road? Background: Mike and Elizabeth Cannon own the property at 28170 Woodside Road (see Site Location map, attached). When they rearranged the property line between their lot and the one to the south of it,they were required to dedicate 17 feet of R.O.W. to make Woodside Road 50 feet wide at that location. Woodside Road was originally platted 66 feet wide down to the point where it came to the southerly lot(see Survey, attached),where it narrowed to 33 feet. The Cannons wish to square off their property with the southerly lot. In doing so,the resulting R.O.W. would be 50 feet wide adjoining their property. They have requested a partial vacation of 1231 square feet of R.O.W. It is worth noting that the paved surface of Woodside Road is situated on the easterly side of the R.O.W. Even after the vacation, the paved surface will be 17 feet from the new R.O.W. line. The additional property also increases the conformity of the Cannon property with respect to lot area. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The amount of property value increase is negligible in terms of tax revenue. Options: Approve the partial vacation or deny the vacation. Recommendation/Action Requested: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the partial vacation. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants must record the resolution with the Hennepin County Recorder within 30 days of their receipt of a certified copy of the resolution. Connection to Vision/Mission: Sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 a> o (D o 0 0 I- C) LO cn 0 U L U co �L O .Y U_ 4-- O U Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Cannon Property — Woodside Road \ J I a Itreet (Woodside Road) on the Easterly side of Lots 1 ` U - 1 7 North, Range 23 West, and said point being 31.19 id centerline and the South line of said Government 0 we>7unent Lot 2; thence West to the intersection of North line of Lot 10, Scott's Subdivision 111 0 CO ' - -- I wQ 0, Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section 31, - - -_ -- - - - -�— — -- - - - - -- ---- _- - - - - -_ I stant 89.36 feet westerly from the point of beginning .ing a Southwesterly angle of 85 degrees 36 minutes r. N\1 —7 r —7 1); thence to the point of beginning. > .� �y r 4- ,�, �� N ! `� r �" \„ r; `� I v <i . / ` I / S 89'57'40" W -SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 32.98 FEET OF LOT 10 ' C9 49t — 382.52 _ 17.0 w I i N 0 DECK `t `t' C Oj L'i SOUTH LINE OF LOT 10, SCOTT'S SUBDIVISION (S 89'57'40" W) ° 9' h Miw W W F I 1� 14.3 yoF- Y EXIS G WELLI A A Tr —r-\ ^T�)r -r —T 200 jW V r -\Ur -\ \L_L_ I h a I / a O pca� SOUTH LINE OF GOVT LOT 2 /NORTH LINE 197 a 2 s AF 6 GOVT LOT 3 PER R.L.S, 757 -`�' A / ttt 3 M (eE�wHniaa9R - 17.21- ku� rte, N_ 30. K) {SELL — @ c_.Winatt� H /" I 2 U> g / N 85 31'39" N/ (� `p: NO O 17 —4 o^I Z v r v c�A I M o °o ' N :7 i 833 1 1 al -I I Ilk) I 1 � I of � f Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF WOODSIDE ROAD WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of the public right-of-way for Woodside Road in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was published in the Excelsior/Shorewood edition of the SUNSAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 16'' and 23rd days of June 2016, and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on the 18'' and 25h days of June 2016; and WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 27th day of June, 2016, in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the portion of Woodside Road, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby is vacated, subject to the portion of vacated street described in Exhibit A being legally combined with the property legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR STREET VACATION: That part of Woodside Road described as follows: Commencing at a point on the Southerly extension of the centerline of the Street (Woodside Road) on the Easterly side of Lots 1 to 10 inclusive of Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, and said point being 31.19 feet Southerly along said Southerly extension from the intersection of said centerline and the South line of said Govenunent Lot 2; thence Northerly along said extension to the South line of Government Lot 2, Section 31, Township 117; thence Westerly along said South line, a distance of 17.21 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing Westerly, a distance of 16.50 feet, to the intersection of said South line with the Southerly extension of the Easterly line of Lot 10, Scott's Subdivision of Lot 2, Section 31, Township 117 North, Range 23 West; thence Northerly on said extended line and said Easterly line of said Lot 10, a distance of 75.9 feet to a point 42.5 feet Northerly from the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 10; thence Easterly parallel to the South line of said Lot 10, a distance of 16.52 feet, thence Southerly and parallel to the Easterly line of Lot 10, a distance of 75.9 feet, to the point of beginning. Contains: 1,231 Sq. Ft. Exhibit A #6A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title/Subject: Accepting the 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Meeting Date: 6/27/16 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Bill Joynes, City Administrator Attachment: Draft Management Letter Draft Other Required Reports Draft Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Policy Consideration: Should the City Council accept the 2015 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report? Background:The 2015 audit has been completed and Abdo, Eick& Meyers, LLP will be here to present the results. The report is presented in draft form as in previous years to allow for City Council input into the final report. This audit results in an unqualified ("clean") opinion. There were two findings by the auditors. The first is that several adjusting journal entries were determined to be necessary by the auditors. These were related to allocations of cost between years and funds. When we have a large project, like Star Lane and Star Circle,that span multiple years, reporting expenses in one year or the next may be challenging to determine. Likewise,there are several fund involved in the project, and allocations of expense to each can be challenging. The second finding is that timely cash reconciliations need to be completed. While this finding was there last year, I worked on the reconciliations through the year. I was unable to get them balanced on a monthly basis. Joe Rigdon,from BerganKDV, assisted me during the audit preparations but we were still unable to determine the cause of the change in monthly variance. The only thing that changed significantly during the year was the credit card payments for utility bills which started in January, 2015. We ultimately added $2,223 to the financial system to balance the cash, so it is clear that there was no cash missing. This anomaly is very puzzling and I am continuing to work with Mr. Rigdon to determine the reason for changes and to design a process that will allow monthly balancing on a timely basis. Overall operating results for the governmental funds were positive with an increase in net position of $8,333. We have used fund balance in the capital projects funds, but added fund balance in the General Fund. The General Fund increase was estimated at$437,280 at the end of February and the actual amount after audit adjustment was$416,696. The enterprise fund operations were about as expected. The Water Fund had a negative year with a decrease in net position of$923,117 based primarily on expenses for the west water tower rehabilitation and the Star Lane/Star Circle water project. The Sewer Fund decreased its net position by $666,291 driven primarily by a $500,000 transfer to the Storm Water Fund. We increased the net position in the Recycling and Storm Water Management funds, $52,985 and $378,672 respectively. Without the$500,000 transfer to the Storm Water Fund the cash would have been in deficit at year end. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Financial or Budget Considerations: This report will be used as the basis for preparing the budget and Capital Improvement Program information for the City Council's consideration starting in July. Options: The City Council may choose to: 1. Accept the annual financial report as presented. 2. Recommend changes to the report and accept the amended report. Recommendation/Action Requested: Finance Staff recommends that City Council accept the annual financial report. Next Steps and Timelines: We will use this information as a base for future budget and capital plans. Connection to Vision/Mission: This contributes to sound financial management. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Bean, Maddy and Riedel; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Hornby; and, Council Liaison Sundberg Also present: Commissioner Johnson Absent: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Bean seconded, approving the agenda for June 7, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 3, 2016 Maddy moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 3, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REMOVAL OF OVER 400 CUBIC YARDS OF SOIL AND DEPOSITING OVER 100 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL Applicant: Thomas Wartman Location: 27135 and 26985 Edgewood Road Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She explained the Planning Commission is composed of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for removal of over 400 cubic yards of soil and depositing over 100 cubic yards of fill. Director Nielsen explained Tom Wartman has requested a C.U.P. for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for his property located at 26985 Edgewood Road. He is proposing to bring in about 3000 cubic yards of fill to improve the buildability of the property. During its May 9, 2016, meeting Council approved a subdivision of that property into two lots but it has not been recorded yet. There is a new house being built on the property located at 27135 Edgewood Road and that necessitates the removal of 1200 yards of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 2 of 16 fill away from that site. That fill will be brought to the Wartman property. Removal of more than 400 cubic yards of fill also requires a C.U.P. Both C.U.P.s are being handled as one matter. Because this is more of an engineering matter he asked Engineer Hornby to come to this Public Hearing to answer any questions the people may have. Hornby had provided comment on both of the items. Some owners of properties located near the Wartman property have expressed concern about bringing in the fill. He thought Hornby’s review addresses those concerns. The 26985 property is zoned R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential and contains 88,202 square feet of area. The land is surrounded by single-family residential development, also zoned R-1A/S. The 27135 property is more than an acre in size. The most significant issue with this type of application is drainage. Where is the water going to go? Would it adversely impact the surrounding properties? Engineer Hornby has been working with Mr. Wartman and his engineer to make sure drainage issues are resolved. The meeting packet contained a copy of the grading plan for the Wartman property. The front of both of the two (the subdivided) lots will be filled to accommodate the buildings on the two lots. The property has a fair amount of water flowing through it mostly coming from the east and mostly going toward the west. Water is stored in the area marked with yellow on the grading plan. Engineer Hornby’s recommendation is that both the rate and volume of the water flowing off of the site has to be controlled. He displayed a drawing (distributed to the Commission that evening) showing how that area would accommodate the same amount of water storage as the current lot does. Drainage is not an issue on the 27135 lot; the lot where the fill is being removed from. Commissioner Bean asked Engineer Hornby to describe what the arrows on the drawing are attempting to show. Engineer Hornby explained on the grading plan included in the meeting packet the yellow outer ring contour indicates where water is currently stored on the site. There is a private storm drain that drains to the northeast across another property and into the lake. He had told the developer that can remain but it has to be relocated because of the location of where the building pad would be. For the proposed scenario the developer has been told that he needs to maintain the same amount of volume on site as the current site has. He also needs to provide a one inch rain fall event for 25 percent impervious surface on the lot. That is the maximum amount of impervious surface allowed in a shoreland overlay district. The developer increased the size as shown on the drawing Nielsen distributed; it provides that volume. As a requirement the developer needs about 12,200 cubic feet of storage; they are providing 12,300 cubic feet. The lot grading has to maintain the drainage for Edgewood Road which currently flows into the low area. An attempt has been made to account for the amount the lot currently stores as well as the future impervious surface that would be generated on the lot. Commissioner Riedel asked if the water is stored in the form of a marshy area. Engineer Hornby stated it is a low area and he assumes there is some infiltration that occurs now. He has not found standing water there. A water service was put in for a new house on a property a few lots to the west near some very sandy soils. There may be a layer of sand where the storage infiltrates. It looks like there was an area that was excavated as a pond on the property to the west. It is somewhat an extension of a larger low area that would overflow to Noble Road if it overflowed. Riedel then asked if the lot that is located between the subject lot and Noble Road is higher in elevation. Hornby stated the lot directly to the west is about the same elevation. Chair Davis stated the owners of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 3 of 16 properties along Noble Road behind the subject property have concerns about drainage. Hornby stated based on what the developer’s surveyor found the emergency overflow from the subject property overflows on to Edgewood Road before it goes over the lots to the south. He clarified that after a heavy rain event there may be some water that is stored. Per the City Ordinance the development cannot make the drainage worse. Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:11 P.M. Julie Scheurer, 26930 Edgewood Road, noted she and her husband live across from the Wartman property to the north. Their property is downhill across from the lake. She stated they have concerns that the drainage off of the Wartman property will increase because of the proposed project. She has not heard anything about the height of the property after the fill has been added to the site. Will the fill be spread out or will there be a big mound of fill? Depending on what is done it will make a big difference on drainage. She is concerned because there is a manhole on the Wartman property and she does not know where it goes. It may come down through her property. She is not aware of there being any easement obtained by anyone that allows for drainage to flow over her property. She explained she and her husband did a project about 15 years ago that involved putting in a retaining wall and a cement pad down by their home and built an attached garage. They saw a clay pipe in the retaining wall. They asked the builder at the time what that pipe was. Everything was fine for a while and then one year later there was a lot of water flowing out of that pipe across their driveway pad near their home then across their lawn into the lake. She expressed concern that it could be from the manhole. She remembered seeing Mr. Wartman coming on to their property and looking at the pipe. She does not know what he concluded. That was the only time they observed drainage flowing across their property. When water first started flowing out of the pipe they went across the street to find out where the water was coming from; that is when they saw the manhole. It was an old manhole that was not secured. There was a torrent of water going into it. Sometime later they went over there to look at the manhole again. It had been secured with a new cover and it had been relined with new brick. She asked where the drainage goes from the easterly most lot of the two subdivided lots that are directly across the street from her property. Her concern is only about damage to her property that could occur if the volume and rate of flow increase. She stated if a couple of mounds were placed on flat land it seems like a creek or moat would be created that would direct that the flow into the manhole. It visually looks like it will always be the lowest point. She expressed concern about lake quality because it is unwise to have unfiltered water flow into the lake. Currently the relatively flat area of the two Wartman lots have acted as somewhat of a filtration area for the water coming from the surrounding contiguous area which she thought was higher. That was the low point of the neighborhood other than the lots along the lake. Visually to her all of the properties drain onto the Wartman lot. She is concerned that the water may end up flowing on to her property instead. She asked what the maximum height of the added fill can be in any one place. Director Nielsen stated for the westerly of the two Wartman lots it goes up about six feet and for the easterly lot it would be close to five feet. That would be at the steepest points. Ms. Scheurer then asked if there have been calculations made to determine how much fill is needed to achieve those heights. The staff memo states the C.U.P. is for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards. Nielsen stated the amount of fill that would be brought onto the sites would be a total of about 3000 cubic yards. She stated she would like to have a map of the drainage of the surrounding properties and the pipes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 4 of 16 In response to a comment from Chair Davis, Engineer Hornby noted there is no City storm sewer in that area and stated he thought that Ms. Scheurer was talking about the storm drain on Mr. Wartman’s property. He thought there was a beehive or a catch basin grate. Ms. Scheurer asked how much responsibility the City would take by allowing that much fill to be brought onto the site and creating a moat that ultimately directs the water to the manhole if the water does in fact come through her property. Tom Wartman, 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive, noted his uncle moved to the 26985 Edgewood Road property in 1939/1940 with his wife. He explained that Ms. Scheurer is referring to a grate on a storm drain that had been installed sometime during the 1920s. It is a 6-inch or 8-inch clay pipe. It has a flat grate on it which has never been changed. The brick is the original as far as he knows. Water drains to the grate from the 26985 lot. The drain only takes extra water. The elevation there is approximately 944. The houses to the south, based on the grading plans he has looked, at are approximately 9 – 10 feet above that elevation (about 954). The overflow to Noble Road to the west is at a 946. The overflow on Edgewood Road is 948. His engineer and Engineer Hornby have worked to show that after the two new houses are built on the two lots created by the subdivision the area of drainage is going to remain the same; in fact, it would be able to take an additional inch of water during a storm. The 26985 lot is 88,202 square foot (or about 2.2 acre) lot and was recently subdivided. The house on the westerly new lot will be a rambler look-out style. The house on the east would be a two story look-out style. Both would be custom homes. The builder of the the house on 27135 Edgewood Road will build the two custom homes. They each have wanted to build on the lots for over six years but that did not work out because of the poor housing market. The additional fill that would be brought to the site would be used where the house footprints will be. Wartman stated when his uncle lived on the 26985 property there was a house, garage and storage building on the site. Those were removed because they were in a state of disrepair. From an impervious surface perspective only one new house is being added. The clay drain pipe has been working in excess of 80 years and it will continue to drain some of the water. That storm pipe does come out across the Scheurer’s driveway. It was there when previous owners lived there during the 1950s. He stated the clay drain pipe is not going to be expanded. It would be on the northwest corner of the easterly lot. There is enough drop in elevation there. The pipe would be extended toward the rear of the house; to the south. It would do the same thing as it has done for more than 80 years. No more water would be added to that drain. There is no other hard surface being added. The fill that would be brought to the site would not increase anything from a drainage pattern. Water does not overflow the road toward the Scheurer’s property because the elevation of Edgewood Road there is about 950/951. The low point is near the northwesterly corner of the lot. There is a swale between the new construction built a couple of years ago and the old Steben’s home which has been remodeled. The swale takes the water down to the lake. Water that comes to Edgewood Road at 948 drains to the swale then in to the lake. Any water that goes westerly across the Bell’s lot drains into the lower area on that lot and it overflows at 946. Wartman stated he is trying to be a good neighbor. He commented the home values would be in excess of $1 million. He noted his company does quality work; it developed Boulder Bridge Farms. He no longer builds homes. He noted he met with the property owners to the south. Mr. Wartman offered to entertain questions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 5 of 16 Commissioner Maddy stated if the 948 elevation does get reached because of significant rainfall that would result in 2 – 4 feet of water column going into the private clay pipe. Mr. Wartman stated that overflow at that point would be going in both directions and noted if that happened today the same thing would happen. Maddy stated he agrees with what has been presented. But, the problem that is of concern is an existing problem. Mr. Wartman stated there is no existing problem. The clay drain pipe has been there for more than 80 years and there has been a house on the Scheurer’s property for possibly just as long. He noted that the water in the catch basin will not be increased at all. Chair Davis stated that theoretically the water should be decreased because it is going back into the retention area. If the grading plan is correct and the contours work the way they should almost all of the water should flow to the back. Mr. Wartman noted his 26985 property has been taking on water for years. He stated it is the last site to be redeveloped. He does not think he and the builder should be penalized for that. They are meeting all of the specifications the City Engineer has requested. Engineer Hornby stated from an engineering perspective the developer cannot change the drainage pattern and what is being proposed will not. All of the water from Edgewood Road and from the lots flow to the back as it does today. He noted Mr. Wartman has explained the overflow correctly. He stated the overflow is to the north; not to the south. It goes through the property where the house built two years is. Because the storm drain is there today they are allowed to maintain that on the site from an engineering perspective. Ms. Scheurer explained the drainage has not historically flowed over their property. It was a new development because of their retaining wall going into that clay pipe. It is now an open pipe that faces toward their home. It is only separated from their home by a cement pad. Therefore, any water flowing out of that pipe flows towards their house. The pipe is about 2.5 feet above the cement pad. The one time that water flowed out in a torrent it dropped down like a waterfall. The pipe had been buried in the ground previously. She assumed it had been connected to something. There must be another pipe somewhere on their property. She knows there is some type of a culvert to the lake. She does not know if that was originally connected. When they had the retaining wall constructed it interrupted that pipe. She is concerned about the integrity of their home because when water comes out of the pipe it is shunted at their home. She noted they got a permit to construct the retaining wall. The City did not have any problem with their plan. They did not know the pipe was there and they do not know if the City knew it was there. She asked if there could be a dyke on the easterly Wartman lot to mitigate some of the water that would come from that area which is supposed to be absorbing the water. If it is not it would be coming into her yard, flowing across her yard, and then into the lake. That would be unfiltered water. She stated she agrees with what Mr. Wartman stated. It seems that properties contiguous to his lots drain onto his lot. When they looked at the manhole it was in the northeast corner of the easterly new lot. It was not far from Edgewood Road. Ms. Scheurer asked the City and Mr. Wartman to reconsider the drainage plan. She stated because of the amount of fill proposed for the new lots she assumes they could protect her property somewhat if potentially all of the properties are going to drain across her yard. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 6 of 16 Commissioner Maddy asked Ms. Scheurer how long they have lived in their home. Ms. Scheurer responded about 30 years. Maddy then asked how long she has seen a drainage problem. Ms. Scheurer stated they have never had any issues. She explained their home has a basement. She remembered one year the lake level was so high they ended up with a little water in their basement. Their home is about 4.5 above the lake level. A basement is probably not a good idea for a house that is fairly low to the lake. She expressed concern about the structural integrity of her house and the possibility of the concrete cracking because of an open drain pipe facing her house. Maddy asked if water pools on Mr. Wartman’s property. Ms. Scheurer stated a few times she has seen standing water. A few times she saw water collect behind Mr. Wartman’s uncle’s house if there was a lot of spring thaw or a lot of rain. They never knew how the uncle drained the property. The water just disappeared in a day or so and it did not come across their yard. She commented it looked like swamp vegetation where water drains to on Mr. Wartman’s property but they never went back there to look at the area. Ms. Scheurer again expressed hope that Mr. Wartman would protect their property from unintended consequences from raising the two lots where the two houses would be built. Building the houses will result in there being a smaller area for water to drain into. Engineer Hornby explained the City requires the developer to mitigate the amount of volume that would be increased by the fill brought on to the site. That is what the developer has proposed. That is what the revised plan Director Nielsen provided the Commission this evening shows. If there is a drain in place it can still go there. The property owner to the south did not modify the pipe to the north. It sounds like the Scheurers did when they had the retaining wall constructed. The pipe was cut off and it is now draining on to their property. He does not know how long it has been exposed there. Hornby then explained the developer has proposed to mitigate the existing volume of water that would be held on the site in the new design and they have added storage to compensate for the impervious surface which has a maximum amount of 25 percent. The City required an additional 25 percent of storage. Even though the developer is going to build the lots up for the building pads and even if the water drains towards Edgewood Road the water would flow down the common property line between the two new lots and on to the back. Chair Davis stated the plan indicates there is a swale down the middle. Hornby explained the swale extends from the low point, which would be the emergency overflow to the north if it gets that high, and captures the water from the road and sends it to the back. Hornby noted there were a number of very heavy rainfall events in 2014. Water came out of many areas that it normally does not come out of all around the City mainly because of the terrain. That may be why that was the only time the Scheurers saw water come out of the drain. He assumes it was in June 2014. Mr. Wartman stated he thought Engineer Hornby addressed some of the things he was going to address. He clarified there is no swamp on the 26985 property. There is a low natural area somewhat to the southwest. There is pampas grass up front; it is not cattails. His father and uncle planted the pampas grass. Unfortunately, that would be covered because that is where the driveway would go. Mr. Wartman explained he understands that Ms. Scheurer and her husband have lived there for 30 years. He knows where the storm drain comes out in their retaining wall and empties out onto their driveway. It does exit to the lake to the east of their house. Before they cutout their driveway the pipe was buried there. He used to maintain the previous owner’s yard when he was a teenager. He knew there was a low spot down by the lake and there was always drainage. He also knew his uncle had a storm drain in his yard. He thought that in the spring the Scheurers would likely find the drain pipe frozen; there would not be excessive water in the spring time. There is some percolation that happens. He reiterated he and the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 7 of 16 developer are trying to be good neighbors by not changing the drainage pattern. What currently happens is going to continue on. There will end up being two beautiful houses on the two new lots which require fill being brought on to the lots. Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Commissioner Bean asked what would happen if the drain was plugged up so it basically ended on the 26985 property. Engineer Hornby stated it would likely overflow the roadway at the newer house that was built just east of Noble Road on the north side. Hornby explained he thought there is about three feet difference between the inlet to the pipe and the roadway overflow point. Bean stated if the private clap pipe were severed he asked what the water lift would have to be before it would flood across the street. Hornby stated there would be just under four feet of storage. Bean asked how much rain would be required to get four feet of lift. Hornby stated a hydraulic model would have to be run for that. Bean stated he assumes it would take a lot. Hornby concurred. Hornby stated if the pipe were plugged it could adversely affect the two new properties. He then stated if the developer wanted to cut the pipe off he could do that. The developer’s engineer would have to provide a hydraulic model to show that it would not adversely affect his properties or other properties. Chair Davis asked Mr. Wartman if he would want to do that. Mr. Wartman reiterated the clay pipe has been in place for more than 80 years. He stated Ms. Scheurer has lived there for about 30 years and the conditions are not going to change. He noted there has not been a problem for all of those years and stated he does not want to do something that would affect his properties or other properties. Commissioner Maddy noted he thought the engineers have done a great job showing that there would not be any change in the drainage pattern. Therefore, he does not think there is a reason to recommend denial of the C.U.P. He expressed concern about the condition of the pipe in Ms. Scheurer’s yard if there were to be a significant rain event. He recommended the Scheurers hire a professional to figure out a way to reconnect the pipe or find a way to shield their property in the event there were two or four feet of water on top of the drain on the Wartman property. He noted it is a private property issue. Commissioner Riedel noted he agreed with Commissioner Maddy that the argument has been made that the drainage pattern would not be changed and therefore there is no reason to recommend denial of the C.U.P. He stated stormwater running into lakes is a negative because of the health of the lake. He thought the number one priority is to reduce stormwater directly running into lakes. If a change could be made to capture and filter the water before it flows into the lake that would be better for the health of the lake. For this particular drainage pipe it depends if it is intended for unusual rainfall like that in 2014 or routine rainfall. Engineer Hornby clarified the existing clay pipe is for an overflow when the water gets up to a certain level. He explained that after looking at the site and at aerial photos and considering the fact that there is no indication of wetland on the site it appears that the water infiltrates in to a sand layer. It is very healthy for a lake to have the water infiltrate. When the developer builds the two new houses he would have to apply for an erosion control permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The MCWD would review the drainage pattern as well. Maddy moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for removal of over 400 cubic yards of soil and depositing over 100 cubic yards of fill for Thomas Wartman for the properties located at 27135 and 26985 Edgewood Road. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted Council will consider this item during its June 23 meeting. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:47 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 8 of 16 2. PUBLIC HEARING – APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF BOATS ALLOWED AT NONCONFORMING DOCK (continued from May 3, 2016) Applicant: Radisson Road Easement Holders Location: 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11) Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:47 P.M., noting the hearing was continued from May 3, 2016. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to continue its consideration of an appeal of administrative determination of number of boats allowed at a nonconforming dock at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11). She stated because this is a continuation the Commission will not take public testimony unless someone has new information to present. Chair Davis opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:48 P.M. Paula Callies, 20465 Radisson Road, expressed concern about the letter from Shorewood Attorney Keane (a copy of the letter was included in the meeting packet). She stated Keane’s letter references correspondence submitted to the DNR (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources). That was not included with the copy of the letter she received or in the meeting packet. There was no way to tell from Keane’s letter what was being referred to and what was actually stated. Director Nielsen did send her that correspondence on June 6, 2016. That correspondence was referring to shoreland regulations and that is a different section of the City Code. That is different than the issue being considered by the Planning Commission this evening. She stated that many of the people interested in this situation have spent a lot of time preparing, gathering and submitting materials to the City and ultimately to the Commissioners. She expressed disappointment with the brevity of Attorney Keane’s memorandum. The letter basically recites what the DNR letter states. The letter does not do any analysis of it and from her perspective it is incorrect in that regard. She explained the issue before the Planning Commission is a legal issue. In a way it is not something the Commission should be weighing in on with regard to what happened years ago. The matter went through the Minnesota Court of Appeals in terms of determining the easement and the scope of that easement. The matter was sent to the Minnesota Supreme Court which denied review. That means the Court of Appeals decision stands. She stated some of the easement owners are asking that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the four boats be allowed at Lot 11. There has not been a conclusion that the DNR has ever approved Shorewood’s regulations regarding the docks and boats on Christmas Lake. Ms. Callies thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:51 P.M. Commissioner Bean stated it was his recollection that the issue at the end of the May 3 hearing was about jurisdiction. Albeit Attorney Keane’s letter was brief he understands it to say that Shorewood submitted its shoreline and shoreland regulations to the DNR for its review and acceptance. He asked if it is the City’s position that the DNR’s acceptance gives Shorewood the ordinance authority. Director Nielsen responded yes. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 9 of 16 Director Nielsen noted he had spoken with Attorney Keane about this. He explained the City’s shoreland regulations are just one section of the City Zoning Ordinance; the regulations are not a standalone ordinance. There are definitions in the front of the Zoning Ordinance. The shoreland district itself is an overlay district. There is a base zoning map and Lot 11 is zoned R-1C. There is a shoreland overlay for it. The requirements for the shoreland district are superimposed over the R-1C district. If there is a conflict between those two parts of the Ordinance the more restrictive applies. The uses are addressed in the districts; in this case the R-1C. Every district has a list of allowable uses. There are permitted uses and they do not require any special scrutiny. An example is a single-family home in a single-family zoning district. Accessory uses (e.g.; a garage) are listed. Docks are accessory uses in the R-1C/S zoning district by virtue of Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 14. It specifically states “docks as per regulated in Subd. 14”. The DNR reviewed that whole ordinance and approved it initially in the mid-1980s and again in the 1990s when some of the ordinances were changed. The DNR saw what the City’s Code included in its entirety. He noted that is the thread Keane’s opinion is based on. Commissioner Bean stated based on that thread and by virtue of the DNR’s approval the Shorewood Code prevails. The Shorewood Code adopted the language of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) in its ordinance. Director Nielsen concurred. Bean stated Shorewood adopted the LMCD’s code; it is not asking the LMCD to weigh in on this issue. Shorewood adopted the code to save typing it into the Shorewood Code. Nielsen concurred. Bean stated based on what he has heard Shorewood has established a shoreline ordinance that defines the parameters with one of the parameters being one boat per 50 feet. There is also a nonconforming use because there is no dwelling on Lot 11. Any change that increases the use would expand the nonconformity of the dock usage. Based on that he does not think there is a choice to allow more than two boats at the dock. Commissioner Riedel concurred. Commissioner Riedel stated that two boats are permitted for the length of shoreline easement on the front of Lot 11. The Zoning Code would allow for up to four boats if there was a dwelling on the Lot provided that all four boats were owned by the residents living on the property. He noted from his vantage point it is a nonconforming use of the dock and therefore the regulations should apply. He agreed there is no choice but to limit the number of boats at the dock to two. Commissioner Maddy and Chair Davis concurred. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending denial of the appeal of administrative determination of number of boats allowed at a nonconforming dock at 5540 Shore Road (Lot 11). Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen noted that Council will consider this item during its June 27 meeting. Chair Davis continued the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING ALTERNATIVE ENERGY REGULATION (continued from May 3, 2016) Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing 7:59 P.M., noting the hearing was continued from May 3, 2016. She stated during this Public Hearing the Planning Commission is going to continue an amendment to the Zoning Code regarding alternative energy regulation. Director Nielsen noted the amendment to the Zoning Code is essentially what the Planning Commission recommended approval of for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD) project. He explained there was discussion about PUDs having language that does not prohibit the use of alternative energy. The proposed amendment deals primarily with solar energy. The City’s energy consultant had indicated that wind energy would be an issue for the City but it should be considered on a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 10 of 16 residence by residence basis. The amendment stipulates that for any development there should not be a protective covenant that says solar energy facilities would not be allowed. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to come up with alternatives to traditional electrical and gas utilities that power communities. There are several things the proposed Code amendment would allow that are currently not allowed. He noted the amendment includes provisions from the model provided by the energy consultant as well as from ordnances from other municipalities. He stated the amendment includes a list of nine standards for solar energy systems. He reviewed what the standards are. 1. Height – The maximum height requirements for roof mounted systems are the same as the applicable zoning district. An exception is made for ground-mounted solar energy systems which shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Ordinarily accessory uses are limited to 15 feet in height. 2. Location – In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems are limited to the rear yard. In non-residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems may be permitted in the front yard of any lot or the side yards on corner lots, subject to applicable building setback requirements. 3. Setbacks – Ground-mounted solar energy systems, including any appurtenant equipment, shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines. Roof-mounted systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and cannot not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. 4. Roof mounting – Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be flush mounted on pitched roofs. Generally they will have a 4:12 pitch. Solar collectors may be bracket mounted on flat roofs. 5. Easements – Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage and utility easements in roadways or trails. 6. Screening – Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without reducing their efficiency. Screening may include walls, fences or landscaping. 7. Maximum Area – In residential zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum area of 120 square feet. In other zoning districts, ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be limited to a maximum area consistent with the accessory structure limitations but no more than 25 percent of the rear yard, whichever is less. 8. Aesthetics – Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address glare. 9. Feeder lines – The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. He noted that solar easements were purposely not included in the amendment because for residential properties it would become a choice between one property owner being able to have trees or not and another property owner being able to have a solar system. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 11 of 16 He reviewed the safety elements in the amendment. a. Safety Standards – Electrical 1. All utilities shall be installed underground. 2. An exterior utility disconnect switch shall be installed at the electric meter serving the property. 3. Solar energy systems shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the national electrical code as adopted by the City. 4. No solar energy system shall be interconnected with a local electrical utility company until the utility company has reviewed and commented upon it. The interconnection of the solar energy system with the utility company shall adhere to the national electrical code as adopted by the City. b. Certification – The solar energy system shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., and comply with the requirements of the International Building Code. c. Abandonment – Any solar energy system which is inoperable for 12 successive months shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall be deemed a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after obtaining a demolition permit. He noted that building-integrated solar energy systems shall require a building permit prior to installation. Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall require a zoning permit, pursuant to Section 1201.07 of this Code prior to installation. He stated space has been reserved in ordinance amendment for future use for wind energy systems and ground source heat pump systems. In response to a question from Chair Davis, Director Nielsen explained if a solar system is going to be interconnected to a household electrical system it needs to be approved by a power company. Commissioner Maddy stated that part of the interconnection agreement on solar generators requires a user to go through Xcel Energy. It is a long process. Xcel goes through all of the UL listings. Sometimes Xcel requires a disconnect on the side of the house. If the solar generator does not find a certain UL listing the generator stops generating power. The generator could not be used during a power outage. Xcel would buy the power back. Stopping the generation of power is for the safety of the line people. Council Liaison Sundberg stated utility companies have a lot of incentive now to encourage solar use. They have state mandates they need to reach for renewable energy use among their clients. They are very accustomed to working with small to large solar installations. Chair Davis asked if there are any residents in Shorewood using solar energy. Council Liaison Sundberg noted Mayor Zerby is. Director Nielsen stated he is aware of some small panels. Commissioner Maddy stated there are a couple of ground-mounts on a property in a cul-de-sac near Crescent Beach and noted they would be nonconforming if this ordinance amendment is approved. Council Liaison Sundberg stated she thought there is a lot more interest in solar energy now than there had been in the past. She guessed that the economics for Mayor Zerby’s system are not very attractive. She stated in Shorewood there are limitations because the City is densely populated and there are a lot of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 12 of 16 trees which are valued. She commented that she does not think any solar advocates would encourage cutting down trees so solar panels could be put up. She stated from her vantage point she does not encourage the City take on wind energy. Wind energy is technically viable but it is very controversial in a densely populated area at this time. Commissioner Bean asked if those residents who have solar energy systems that would not comply with the proposed ordinance amendment would be grandfathered in and allowed as an exception. Director Nielsen stated they would have to be and clarified if the systems were noncompliant with safety standards they would have to be addressed. He noted the Ordinance contains language about nonconformity and anything that predates the approval of the amendment would be grandfathered in. Bean then stated if, for example, he had a solar panel and the canopy of his neighbor’s oak tree encroaches into his airspace he asked if he would be allowed to trim that tree. Director Nielsen stated he would be allowed to do that and he has been told that if a tree extends over a property line the canopy can be cut off but a person has to be very certain about where the property line is. He noted that he is not an attorney. Commissioner Maddy stated in his former career he read a legal opinion that stated a person cannot intentionally kill a tree. Chair Davis, as a master gardener, stated gardeners used to think that once two-thirds of the canopy is removed the tree should be taken down. Bean went on to state he has concern that there would be some disgruntled neighbors taking out vengeance against each other because one property owner owns the air space a neighbor’s tree is occupying. Chair Davis concurred. Bean stated he would like there to be something saying that existing trees are entitled to their own airspace. Director Nielsen stated that would be a “can of worms”. Director Nielsen noted that people frequently underestimate how big the tree will grow. They may plant it five feet from the property line and eventually it grows to the point that its canopy is 20 feet over the property line. Chair Davis stated in Shorewood Oaks the houses are very close to the trees. Commissioner Bean stated there is a similar situation in the City of Greenwood along St. Albans Bay Road. Davis stated that hopefully people who embrace solar energy are also tree huggers. Commissioner Maddy asked if the Planning Commission is supposed to move the ordinance amendment forward to Council for its consideration. Director Nielsen stated that is up to the Commission. Nielsen explained the amendment in front of the Commission has been published in the City’s official newspaper. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Davis opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the solar energy systems aesthetics provision was quite subjective. The reflection angles can be adjusted for a ground-mounted system. He questioned how that would be done for a roof-mounted system. He thought it should be less subjective but was unsure how to make it so. Director Nielsen stated screening would be irrelevant if it was roof-mounted. Commissioner Bean suggested the provision should maybe only apply to ground-mounted systems. Nielsen stated he thought the roof-mounted systems are angled toward the sky. Commissioner Maddy stated he supports removing that for a roof-mounted system. There was consensus to change the aesthetics standard to make the reflection angles apply only to ground- mounted systems. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 13 of 16 Commissioner Maddy stated the definition for a flush-mounted solar energy system includes “The pitch of the solar collector may exceed the pitch of the roof up to 5% but shall not be higher than 10 inches above the pitch.” He asked where the 10 inches above the pitched roof restriction came from. Director Nielsen stated he thought it was intended to be more of a limitation to ensure they are not, for example, four feet above the roof. Chair Davis commented there is a house that has been under construction for a very long time that has a roof pitch so steep she does not think solar panels could be put on it. Nielsen stated a roof-mounted system would not work in that instance. Maddy then stated the maximum area standard for ground mounted systems is 120 square feet. He asked if other cities have the same standard. Director Nielsen stated that size is consistent with the size of a normal shed. Chair Davis stated a 10 x 12 foot panel is a big panel. Maddy noted he thought the maximum size is reasonable. Maddy asked if it would be prudent to restrict wind systems before someone wants to put one up. Director Nielsen stated that is typically what has been done in the ordinances he has looked at. They may make some exceptions for vertical turbines. Maddy reiterated his question. Nielsen suggested addressing wind systems separately. Council Liaison Sundberg concurred and noted that technology is rapidly changing. Commissioner Bean asked if there is anything in the ordinance amendment or Ordinance in general that would prohibit wind systems today. Nielsen noted the height requirements would and explained the City’s energy consultant had indicated that it would be difficult to get the systems up high enough in the City. Chair Davis stated someone may want a small system as a novelty. Sundberg stated the wind map for the area the consultant provided showed there was little area, other than the middle of the lake, where wind systems would work. Maddy moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of the ordinance amendment regarding alternative energy systems subject to changing in aesthetics “Reflections angles from collector surfaces…” to “Reflections angles from ground-mounted collector surfaces…” and in screening changing “Solar energy systems shall be screened …” to “Ground-mounted solar energy systems shall be screened …”. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Maddy noted he appreciated the work that was done on this. Director Nielsen noted Council had indicated that this was a high priority. Council Liaison Sundberg thanked people for getting it done and the Planning Commission for supporting it. Nielsen commented that it is finally done albeit it took a long time to do so. Council Liaison Sundberg stated Shorewood is already starting to be recognized as an environmental leader. She noted the results of the last resident survey indicated that 79 percent of the respondents supported clean energy. Commissioner Riedel brought up the idea of municipal tax rebates for residents who install alternative energy systems. Director Nielsen noted there are incentives from other agencies. Commissioner Bean asked if geothermal energy is an option. Nielsen responded yes and noted it is quite expensive. He stated the other alternative energy types will be addressed in the future. Nielsen explained someone has geothermal in a pond and recycles the water. Wells can also be used. Chair Davis noted that when the new visitor center was built at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum a geothermal system was put in. Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 8:33 P.M. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 14 of 16 4. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONE PROPERTY FROM R-2A, SINGLE AND TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. Applicant: John Benjamin Location: 24250 Smithtown Road This item was rescheduled to the July 2016 meeting. 5. MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB FINAL PLAN – REVIEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Director Nielsen stated the Development Agreement for Mattamy Homes’ Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) planned unit development (PUD) final plan was given to the Planning Commission for informational purposes per the Commission’s request. He noted the Agreement has not been approved by Council yet. Council will consider it during its June 13 meeting. The Agreement lays out all of the rules for the development of the MCC property. He explained the base district for the PUD project is the R-1C. The Council meeting packet item for the final plan and final plat will include a setback map for the project showing the setbacks for each lot. Chair Davis asked if Mattamy is still trying to convey Outlots I, J, K and L. Director Nielsen responded he thought those get conveyed to the owners of the adjoining properties on the southeast corner of the site. Chair Davis explained that Item 3.B states “Maintenance and necessary replacement of boulevard trees within the PUD shall be the responsibility of the HOA.” She thought the trees were going to be kept out of the boulevards. Director Nielsen clarified the City initially wanted the trees to be planted in the yards so the City would not be responsible for them. Mattamy wanted the boulevard affect. The solution to that is for the MCC Homeowners Association to be responsible for them. He noted the landscape plan reflects a variety of trees. Director Nielsen noted the total amount of park dedication fees received from this project combined with what the Park Fund has in it should come close to paying for the improvements to Badger Park. 6. DISCUSS SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 21, 2016, REGARDING OPPIDAN INVESTMENT COMPANY TAX INCREMENT FINANCING Director Nielsen explained that Oppidan Investment Company needs Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to help fund its Shorewood Senior Living project in Shorewood. Oppidan found out there are extremely poor soils on the site. The TIF would help pay for the cost of soil remediation. When Oppidan first started discussion of this project with representatives from Shorewood and the City of Excelsior Oppidan was going to be able to connect to the Excelsior water system. Excelsior was going to extend its watermain. Excelsior later decided that its water system did not have the capacity to serve to the Oppidan project. Therefore, the Shorewood watermain will be extended to the site. The TIF will pay for part of the cost to extend Shorewood watermain to the site, Oppidan will pay part of the cost and part of the cost will be funded out of the Water Fund. The extension will allow Shorewood residents currently served by the Excelsior system to then be served by the Shorewood system. The extension to the other side of Highway 7 will eventually allow for the extension of watermain to some properties on that side of Highway 7. He noted the TIF plan has to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and it needs to make a recommendation on the plan. To maintain the timeline of the TIF there needs to be a special Commission meeting on July 21. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 15 of 16 He stated there maybe another item on that special meeting agenda. The State legislature has discussed a law that would ultimately allow people to bring in temporary residents as caretakers. It would basically allow people to bring a small trailer to the site and live in it. There is a provision that would allow cities to opt out of that. He noted that he thought the law is a bad idea. He stated the City has tried to accommodate that with accessory apartments. He then stated he thought the special meeting should be short. 7. DISCUSS JULY MEETING DATE Director Nielsen stated that for the last few years the Planning Commission has had a policy to not hold its regular meeting on the first Tuesday of the month if that Tuesday comes after a holiday. Therefore, he suggested the July meeting be held on July 19. Doing that would not slow down processing any applications. He noted the items considered that evening would considered by Council during its July 25 meeting. The property rezoning for John Benjamin may be on the agenda for that meeting. Peter Lehman has asked for a specific vote on rezoning his property near Christmas Lake so that would be on that agenda. There is a request for a 6-foot-high fence for a property next to Highway 7. To place it in within the required setback to the Highway requires a conditional use permit. There will be a variance request for a shed. Commissioner Maddy asked when food trucks would be discussed. Director Nielsen stated not for a while. Director Nielsen noted that from his perspective short-term rental is a higher priority for discussion because there are two properties where that is a problem with one of them being a significant problem. The City’s rental housing code needs to be strengthened. He stated the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) has been to the very problematic site on a couple of occasions because of noise complaints. The SLMPD has offered to report on the activity at the property such as the number of cars. He expressed his appreciation to the SLMPD with regard to that matter. He thought this issue would be on the August meeting agenda. Chair Davis stated the City of Duluth addressed that by requiring a rental to be a minimum of seven days. It also required a $350 license and inspection. They sold their house there instead of dealing with that. She noted that on the VRBO (vacation rental by owner) website she found three properties in the City of Excelsior and one in the City of Tonka Bay. Director Nielsen noted the meeting agenda for the July 19 meeting should be fairly full. 8. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 9. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS None. 10. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA This was discussed under Item 6 on the agenda. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 7, 2016 Page 16 of 16 11. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Director Nielsen reported on the May 31, 2015, work session during which a presentation was made about a person’s grand vision for the area including Badger Park, City Hall, the Southshore Center and commercial strip on the southeast corner of the Smithtown Crossing Development Area (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). There was ensuing discussion about the vision. • SLUC Director Nielsen stated he still intends to purchase a DVD recording of the April 27, 2018, Sensible Land Use Coalition session which was about park dedication fees. • Other Chair Davis suggested the Planning Commission discusses the liaisons to Council for July through December. Council Liaisons were selected as follows: July 2016 Commissioner Riedel August 2016 Chair Davis September 2016 Commissioner Johnson October 2016 Commissioner Maddy November 2016 Commissioner Bean December 2016 Commissioner Riedel 12. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of June 7, 2016, at 9:10 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder � #sB MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Wartman—C.U.P.for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards Meeting Date: 27 June 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum, dated 3 June 2016 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should Tom Wartman be granted a conditional use permit to place up to 3000 cubic yards of fill on his property at 26985 Edgewood Road, 1200 yards of which would come from the property at 27135 Edgewood Road? Background: See attached Planning Director's memorandum. Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee paid by the applicant covers the cost of processing the permit. The applicant has been advised that he is responsible for any street restoration that may be necessary as a result of erosion into the street or damage to the street surface. Options: Approve the request per the Planning Commission's recommendation; deny the request; or modify the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as recommended by the Planning Commission. Next Steps and Timelines: Erosion control should be required to be in place prior to commencement of any filling or grading. Over-seeding should occur immediately. 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 SHOREWOOI) _5755 Country Club Road ®Shorewood,, Minnesota 5533.1.952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www ci.shorewood.Imn.us • cityhall @ci.shoiewood.inn.us MEMORANDUM r TO: Planning Commission, IVlayor and City Council FROM:' Brad Nielsen DATE -., 3 June 2016 RE: Tom Wayfman - C.U.P.. for Fill in Excess of 100' Cub cYards FILE NO. 405(16.09)' BACKGROUND ,Mr. Tom Wartinan owns the prope'rtyat 26985,Edgewo6d Road 1(see Site Location map — Exhibit'A; attached). Iii the process of subdividing and marketing the property, it was determined that it is necessary 'to raise the grade on, th&front of site(s) to accommodate two.new homes. Mr. Wai-tman.has been worldng with the-,City Engineer to resolve drainage issues associated with the property and the construction of the new homes. The result is the grading'plan shown. on Exhibit B. As shown, the front fourth of so. of the new lot will be raised as much as five feet .at the rear of the building pad, requiring up to 3000 cubic yards'of fill to be brought; in. Shorewood's. Zoning Code.requires a conditional use permit for 'fill in excess of100 cubicyards. The subject property is zoned R -1A/S-- Single - Family Residential`and contains 88,202 square feet of area. The land,is surrounded by single= family residential development, also zoned R 1A/S: Conveniently; a new home being built just west of the subject property, at 27135 EdgewoodRoad, needs to haul approximately 1200 yards of fill away from. that site. Similar to the Wartman CUP, removal'of more than 400 cubic yards also requires a CUP.-, ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The CUP process for fill /grading projects'serves several purposes I) heightened scrutiny on drainage issues; 2) control over traffic patterns for trucks hauling fill; and 3) advising local residents of what can amount to a dramatic change in terrain.' Memorandum Wartman CUP for Fill 3 June 2016 Undoubtedly, the most significant issue with this application is drainage. As mentioned, the applicant has been working with the City Engineer to determine at what elevation the new homes can be set, and where the drainage ultimately goes. h1 this case there is a small drain pipe that extends northward under Edgewood Road, which the Engineer indicates can remain. Site drainage will not, however, depend on that pipe. The Engineer and applicant have determined that drainage will continue to the west in its current pattern. To control both the rate and volume of runoff leaving the site, the Engineer has illustrated the existing storm water storage area shown in yellow on Exhibit B. He will require that grading for the new homes must maintain that same amount of storage on site. In other words, the current low area on the site will be expanded southward and somewhat eastward to makeup for lost storage. Due to the sensitivity of the drainage issue, the City Engineer will be present.at Tuesday night's meeting to answer questions the Commission or residents may have. With respect to the lot at 27135, the excavation is proposed in order to accommodate the home and does not adversely affect neighboring drainage. Subject to the City Engineer's recommendations, staff recommends approval of the CUP. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Joe Pazandalc Tim Keane Tom Wattman -2- Lake Minnetonka ��Amccii to ¢+ O a I C� a i Pine CD_ nmawrL Subject` Properties Y Y Y Y i Y Y Y Noble Rd i Y Y i Y Y Y Y Y Y Mars h4 t Marsh,pt Cir Ct po�nte Y Y Y Q Y (n Y Y (� Q Y 2t Y Y O Y o Rd Y N A 0 350 700 1,400 Feet i Y Y 'ti Y Ridge Valle Y Oa Cir Cir � e Rose_ Arbor Creek �� L it � � � lim � � � � ) ` | & � § , » � \f |@ % e■ r ■j ,! m « � /� m� \ ) \ \ nil. \// \� \ \ t From: Linda Murrell [Iinda @salesandmarketing.com] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 6:36 PM To: Planning Subject: 27135 Edgewood Road and 26985 Edgewood Road Conditional Use Permit Expires: Friday, June 02, 2017 12:00 AM Planning Commission, We intend to write a letter outlining our concerns about drainage issues related to the property identified as 26985 Edgewood Road, and will get that to you in the next three days. However, we are unable to attend the June 7 meeting due to prior commitments. A detailed letter will follow shortly. We just want to make sure we're on the record early as neighbors who have serious concerns about the run -off and drainage as it pertains to our contiguous property. Sincerely, Linda and Mike Murrell 27020 Noble Road Shorewood 612.709.2334 From:Mike Murrell To:Planning Subject:Shorewood Planning Commission ltr #1 Date:Sunday, June 05, 2016 5:19:38 PM planning@ci.shorewood.mn.us Mr. BradleyJ. Nielsen, Planning Director Cityof Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen, This letter is in response to your Public Hearing Notice regarding the request by Mr. Thomas Wartman to deposit soil in excess of 100 cubic yards on his property at 26985 Edgewood Road. We live at 27020 Noble Road. The back of our property adjoins Mr. Wartmans property. Our property is one of five adjacent properties on Noble Road (the backs of two of these Noble Road properties adjoin Mr. Wartmans property) that have experienced drainage issues over the years. , water seepage from the higher elevation at the backs of our lots created pooling and wet areas in the lower areas of our yards. The issue may have caused by the higher ground at the backs of the yards being comprised of rich - but porous - top soil, and the lower yards having been created by having been bulldozed flat leaving them comprised mostly of clay. From: Mike Murrell To: Planning Cc: ThomasWartman@gmail.com; Linda Murrell Subject: Conditional Use Permit -Wartman Date: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:16:15 AM Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen, This letter is in response to the Shorewood Public Hearing Notice regarding the request by Thomas Wartman to deposit soil in excess of 100 cubic yards on his property at 26985 Edgewood Road. We had notified your office last week that we could not attend the hearing on June 7, and would be filing a written request. Our primary concern stems from serious drainage problems that resulted from an apparently significant change in the grades of five adjacent properties on Noble Road during construction and landscaping by Developer Tony Eiden, by removing top soil down to clay along what is now Noble Road. Two of those properties adjoin Mr. Wartman’s property, one of which is our property. Eiden provided partial relief with the installation of buried drain tile that runs nearly the full length of the five properties, roughly along the original top soil and graded clay dividing line, with at least three discharge runs and drains to the Noble Road curb. We purchased our home in December of 1996. To the best of our recollection, snow melt and spring rains provided the first evidence of the drainage issues in 1997 or 1998. While the drain tile alleviated some of the water issues, it didn’t totally resolve the problem. During periods of high rainfall, we ended up with water pooling in our back and side yards and under our sun porch (often more than six inches of standing water). Three years ago, we had a French drain installed – at our own expense – at the lowest point in the aforementioned area. So far, there has not been a reoccurrence of pooling. However, we are wary about any additional changes to the grade that would allow rainfall or snowmelt to run to our property. Mr. Wartman contacted us by phone on Sunday, June 5, to discuss his plans. In the course of that conversation, he mentioned that he is working with Advance Surveying & Engineering, an independent engineering firm, to study the drainage issues affecting our property and those of the contiguous properties. Our original request would have been to invite an independent engineering firm to evaluate our drainage concerns related to the conditional use permit request. Since Mr. Wartman has assured us that this has been done, our only remaining request to the Planning Commission is to receive, in a timely manner, a copy of the engineering report so that we may further understand how these issues will be addressed by either Mr. Wartman or the new property owners’ developer/builder. Thank you for seeking our input. Best regards, Mike and Linda Murrell 27020 Noble Road, Shorewood 952.401.1283 612.709.2334 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO PLACE FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS FOR TOM WARTMAN WHEREAS, Tom Wartman (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 26985, Edgewood Road in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit to place approximately 3000 cubic yards of fill to elevate proposed building pads on the above- referenced property; and WHEREAS, approximately 1200 cubic yards of fill will be taken from the property at 27135 Edgewood Road; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit to place fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and to remove fill in excess of 400 cubic yards; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council dated 3 June 2016, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 June 2106, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 June 2016, at which time the Planner's memorandum, and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant proposes to replace up to 3000 cubic yards of soil in order to create a suitable building pad on the subject property. Approximately 1200 cubic yards will be taken from the property at 27135 Edgewood Road. 2. The slope of the finished grade will not exceed three units horizontal to one unit vertical. CONCLUSION A. The application of Tom Wartman for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth hereinabove be and hereby is granted. B. This approval is subject to the City Engineer's recommendations and approval of the final grading. The City shall document the condition of the pavement in front of the subject property and any damage to the pavement must be corrected, at the Applicant's expense, prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new home. C. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of June, 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -2- Legal Description Exhibit A � #sc MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Lot 11—Appeal Zoning Administrator's Determination as to Number of Boat Slips Allowed Meeting Date: 27 June 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum, dated 29 April 2016 Appellant's Letter, dated 2 May 2016 Berchild Letter, received 3 May 2016 Peterson Letter, dated 3 May 2016 Hittler/Watz'Attorney Letter, dated 17 May 2016 Appellant's Letter, dated 2 June 2016 City Attorney's Second Memorandum, dated 2 June 2016 Seifert Letter, dated 4 June 2016 Policy Consideration: Should the City Council overturn the Planning Director's determination that the number of boats that may be moored at Lot 11 on Christmas Lake is limited to two? Background: See Planning Director's memorandum and other attachments for considerable amount of detailed background information. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter at its May meeting, continuing it to the 7 June meeting, at which time they voted unanimously to recommend denial of the appeal Financial or Budget Considerations: The appellant's application fee should cover the cost of processing the appeal. If not, when the appellant signed the application, she agreed to pay the City's expense in processing the application Options: Deny the appeal as recommended by the Planning Director,the Planning Commission and the City Attorney; or grant the appeal as requested. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends that the Council direct us to prepare a resolution with findings of fact, denying the appeal. The resolution would appear on the next Council agenda. Next Steps and Timelines: Adopt the above-referenced resolution at the 11 July 2016 meeting. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @dshorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 29 April 2016 RE: Lot 11, Christmas Lake — Appeal Zoning Administrator's Determination Regarding Dock Use FILE NO. 405 (16.07) Lot 11 is a vacant lot on the north end of Christmas Lake (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached) that was set aside many years ago for residents of the Radisson Inn Addition for recreational purposes such as picnicking, swimming at the beach and so forth. Exhibit B shows the location of the easement which is still shared by a number of property owners in the Radisson Inn Addition. The recreational use included a dock at which boats of certain easement holders have been moored in the past. In January of this year, staff was asked to provide a formal determination as to how many boats could be kept at the dock (see Callies letter, dated 7 January 2016 — Attachment I). My response to that request is contained in Attachment I1— Planning Director's Response letter, dated 31 March 2016. Ms. Callies has filed a formal appeal of that determination — see Attachment III, for which a public hearing has been scheduled for next Tuesday, 3 May. We have received a considerable amount of correspondence (see Attachment IV) from residents on both sides of this issue. We will forward additional correspondence to you as it is received. Finally, we asked the City Attorney to review the material and his advice is included in his memorandum, dated 29 April 2016 (Attachment V). Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Paula Callies Lake Minnetonka 0 rim cr � 0 rz A� n CD S Christmas Lake N A 0 250 500 1,000 Feet c2 O 11!! %W � VILV 0 � EW 0 1;1.lrq cc 00 -------- S-,Z-S- I Ln �m o & at to CO V7 ° Mygy H16ON 8939 J�JON 81'VZV 3.8s G 4 .68N co 3.zZ,40.ILN-: °00 40 19 99*86', so, u Ln Ala-. M cr U" in ry cp pw s ........................ ................ ....... 0 VT- to vT 0:2; 00 LO 19 Sp 86 911 Ae 0 In l LU LL A, 00 Al 0.9 91,1160. 9r co j L) .96 W 191 ra Sln -Ij ICP I GOV Ul L) Scp 100 001 i S) JNV R�l z 691 t43 NOSS LU CIS - - - - - - - -- "WO ISV3 011 ®r n0s;9-60t, 9 Exhibit B 9 001 ',Ito co .29,1V w SITE PLAN 0\ c 0, Lot 11 01 0 L �;z Ar- '16 1 tj144� (� tl 'It N6 ii January 7, 2016 Brad Nielsen, Zoning Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Easement on Lot 11— Boat Dock Dear Brad; 1 am writing on behalf of several property owners who share an easement over Lot 11 on Christmas Lake. We are requesting a formal determination fi-orn the City of Shorewood concerning the maximum number of boats that may be moored on the dock for the Lot 11 easement. There are currently 14 separate households who hold easement rights to Lot 11, We understand that the easement owners will need to decide amongst ourselves how to allocate the available dock space each season. However, in order to do this and to avoid a potential zoning enforcement action, we first need to know what number of boats the City considers to be permitted on our dock, The history of the Lot 11 easement and dock goes back until at least 1939. For purposes of this letter, J will briefly summarize the history. More information can be found on the website at www. Lot I l .org, Lot 11 is approximately 15,000 square feet with approximately 120 feet of Lakeshore. The easement (the "Lot 11 easement ") is located over a portion of Lot 11 and a single, shared dock is located on the easement, The current easement description is the result of litigation in the early 1990's and a final decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 1993 (review was denied by the Minnesota Supreme Court), Attached are copies of relevant court decisions and documents as follows; • Report of the Hennepin County Title Examiner dated January 6; 1992 • Final Report of Title Examiner dated Mauch 9, 1992 • Hennepin. County District Court Decision filed May 15, 1992 • MN Court of Appeals decision filed March 16, 1993 • Order in proceedings Subsequent June 3, 1998 • Survey of Lot 11 Easement • Map of Lot 11 Easement Location The rights of the Lot 11 easement owners are broad, The easement includes "access to the beach area, for the use of the beach area, for the construction, maintenance and use of dock and general ATTACHMENT I Callies' Letter, dated 7 January 2016 31 March 2016 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 ® (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 ^ www.d.shorewood.mn.us e dtyhall @d.shorewood.mn,us Ms. Paula Callies 20465 Radisson Inn Road ' Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Zoning Determination — Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition P.I.N. 36,117-23-22-0012 Dear Paula: This letter is in response to your request for a determination as to the maximum number of boats that may be moored at the above - referenced property. First, I want to apologize for not getting this out to you sooner. As you are aware, Lot I 1 has a long and somewhat contentious history and I want very much to get this right. In your 7 January 2016 letter, you conclude that four boats should be allowed to be Dept at the dock that has historically occupied the site. As Shorewood's Zoning Administrator, I have determined that the maximum number is two. Following is how I come to my conclusion: L Nonconforming Use. The current zoning of Lot 11 is R -1C /S, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland. Each zoning district contains lists of allowable uses including Permitted, Accessory and Conditional. Lot 11 currently exists as a vacant lot over which several households in the Radisson Inn Addition have easements to use a portion of the lot for recreational purposes. This recreational use of the property is not listed in the R- 1C /S District under permitted, accessory or conditional. Therefore, the use of the property is nonconforming. Nonconforming uses are subject to the provisions of Section 1201.03 Subd. 1. of the City Code. Following are pertinent paragraphs of that section: "a. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity. " ATTACHMENT II ®� Planning Director's Director's Response Letter, dated ®�® PRINTED ON REC 31 March 2016 April 12, 2016 APPEAL OF ZONING DETERMINATION — LOT 11 RADISSON INN ADDITION P.I.N. 36-117-23-22-0012 I. APPLICANTS: Paula Callies & David Downs 20465 Radisson Inn Road Eric and Barb Newhouse 20445 Radisson Inn Road Gary Krebs & Nancy Wellner 20555 Radisson Inn Road Todd & Melissa Nichols 20780 Radisson Inn Road Elaine Hastings 5495 Radisson Entrance Road Steve and Jessie Berchild 20435 Radisson Inn Road Edna & Cyrus Zulghadr 20505 Radisson Inn Road Michael & Janet Cohen 20640 Radisson Inn Road Paul & Carol Seifert 5515 Radisson Entrance Road The above-named parties (hereafter referred to jointly as the "Applicant" or "Applicants ") are each owners of a shared easement on Lot 11 and each has an individual property interest at stake in this matter. II. DATE OF REQUEST FOR ZONING DETERMINATON: January 7, 2016 DATE OF ZONING DETERMINATION: March 31, 2016 III. TYPE OF APPEAL AND APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS This is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination (the "Determination ") that a maximum of two (2) boats is permitted on the dock located on the Lot 11 Easement. The Determination is incorrect because: 1. The Determination did not take into consideration the unique character of Lot 11 with the shared easement as defined by MN Courts and the Final Report of the Hennepin County Title Examiner. 2. Four boats on the Lot 11 dock is in conformance with Shorewood City Code and LMCD regulations. A determination that only 2 boats is permitted is arbitrary and not reasonable under the circumstances. ATTACHMENT III Callies' Appeal IV. DISCUSSION A. Background Documents The Applicant's Request dated January 7, 2016 with attached documents are incorporated by reference and included as part of this appeal. These documents include the following: • Report of the Hennepin County Title Examiner dated January 6, 1992 • Final Report of Title Examiner dated March 9, 1992 • Hennepin County District Court Decision filed May 15, 1992 • MN Court of Appeals decision filed March 16, 1993 • Order in Proceedings Subsequent June 3, 1998 • Survey of Lot 11 Easement • Map of Lot 11 Easement Location B. The Easement on Lot 11 The easement on Lot 11 (the "Easement ") is, "for access to the beach area, the use of the beach area, and for construction, maintenance and use of dock extending from the shoreline of Lot 11 into Christmas Lake and general recreational purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock for the benefit of lands described... ". This easement appears on the property title for each of the Applicants and other homeowners in the Radisson Inn Addition. C. The Historical Use of Lot 11 and the Easement is for Recreational Purposes Lot 11 is approximately 15,000 square feet with approximately 120 feet of lakeshore. The Easement is located over the southerly portion of Lot 11 and extends along the lot's entire shoreline, with a depth of approximately 45 feet and a "hockey stick" shape. See Survey and Map of Lot 11. Access to the Easement is from Shore Road. A single dock, jointly shared by the Easement owners, is located on the Easement. The current easement dimensions are the result of litigation in the early 1990's and a final decision by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in 1993. However, the Easement was first established with the Radisson Inn Addition in approximately 1940. Originally, the parcel was used as the beach for the seasonal cabins and historic Radisson Inn on Christmas Lake. There is a very long history of shared usage of the parcel for beach and associated recreational purposes. This is not a typical residential lot, nor even a typical nonconfolminglot. To date, there has never been a residence on Lot 11. Lot 11 has traditionally been used for recreation. It is critical to understand the history of the Easement and that Lot 11 is subject to the Easement in a determination of the related dock and boat rights. However, the Zoning Administrator did not consider these facts in his determination. The Easement Owners, including the owner of Lot 11, share the same easement rights. In legal terms, the Easement is the dominant estate and Lot 11 is the servient estate because Lot 11 is encumbered by the restrictions of the Easement. A photographic history and other background can be found on the Lot 11 website at www. LotlLor . D. The Zoning Administrator' Conclusion that a Maximum of Two (2) Boats is Permitted on the Easement Dock is in Error. The Zoning Administrator came to an incorrect determination because he ignored important facts regarding historical usage of the Easement and legal precedents. The current zoning of Lot 11 is R-1C /S, Single-Family Residential /Shoreland. As discussed above, Lot 11 is a vacant lot subject to the Easement for a dock and general recreational purposes associated with a beach and dock as described above. The Zoning Administrator mistakenly determined that the use of Lot 11 for recreational purposes makes the lot nonconforming. The Shorewood Zoning Code does not require that every lot in the R-1C district be developed, nor that a vacant lot cannot be enjoyed for its recreational purposes. There is nothing unusual, or nonconforming about lakefront property being used for recreation. The issue in the present case is the number of boats allowed on the Easement dock. The Zoning Administrator has determined that the dock is a nonconforming use because there is no associated principle dwelling on the property, as ordinarily required by City Code Section 1201.03, subd.14. However, Shorewood City Code Section 1201.03, subd.14 (c) specifically states that the "number of restricted watercraft, as defined by the LMCD, that may be docked or moored on a single property is limited to four." More than four boats may be docked by obtaining a multiple dock license if other conditions are met. The Zoning Administrator fails to address City Code section 1201.03, subd.l4 (c) which allows four boats on a dock in his determination. Instead, the Zoning Administrator refers to LMCD Section 2.02, subd.3 for support of his conclusion that only 2 boats are allowed. This is in error. First, Shorewood City Code Section 1201.03, subd.14 (g) provides that docks must comply with the LMCD "unless specified otherwise in the city zoning code." The issue here is the number of boats, not the dock per se. Regardless, city code section 1201.03, subd.14 (c) does "specify otherwise" and states that four boats are allowed. LMCD Section 2.02 is not applicable. 3 Second, even if the LMCD regulation is applicable, Section 2.02, subd.3 allows four restricted watercraft on a lot with no residential structure on the site under certain conditions. It is significant that the underlying conditions refer to "common ownership and unified use of the site" and that the dockage rights are owned by the owners of the parcel. Clearly the intent is to avoid rental or assignment of dock space to persons other than the owners of the dock. The present appeal involves a request by the Easement owners, all of whom share ownership in the dock and own property rights to Lot 11 through the Easement, to use the dock in a manner consistent with their property interest and Shorewood ordinances. A copy of LMCD Section 2.02 is attached. Conclusion The Zoning Administrator's determination takes too narrow an interpretation of City Ordinance and fails to consider its underlying purposes. Moreover, the Minnesota Courts have already established rights to the Easement on Lot 11, including the right to a dock. Four restricted watercraft are allowed on a dock per City Code and should therefore be permitted on the Lot 11 dock. Sincerely, Paula A. Callies 4 r i STAT S OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN In the Matter of the Petition of A0Y EUGENE AHERN, Petitioner, V, LkRSON, ET. Al, and PAUL 0. AUERECHT and PATRICE M. AUERECHT, Respondents, . For an Order Construing an Easement, DISTRICT COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT i " PURSUANT TO MOTION 1 MOTION fiE AMWED ORDER FINDINGS AND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY, The above matter came on for hearing on the 20th day of September, 1991, before me, the undersigned Referee, Ronald H, Groth and Scott Hoke of the 'firm of Thomson, Moran & Groth, Ltd. appeared as attorneys for the petitioner, Thomas L. Owens appeared as' attorney for respondents Larson, et. al., and respondent Paul Q. Aubrecht appeared pro se, The undersigned Referee, having considered the arguments made at the hearing on the Motion and having considered the Memorandum in support of petitioner's motion and the Memorandum of respondents In opposition to petitioner's motion, now makes the following findings and ruling pursuant to said motion, to wit: 1. Petitioners motion to strike finding nos. 8► 9, and 10 Is denied. 2. Petitioner's motion to add a new finding no. 8 Is denied. S, Petitioner's motion to add new finding no. 9 is denied but see, comments in attached Memorandum. d. Petitioner's motion to add new finding no. 10 is denied. 1 5. Petitioner's motion to add new finding no. 11 is denied. 6. Petitioner's motion to add new finding no. 12 is denied as to the dock restriction and see the Memorandum as to further comment with regard to paragraph no.6 of petititoner's motion. 7. Petitioner's motion to add new finding no. 13 is granted with the provision that Certifieate of Title No. 467563, the certificate held by defendants Larson, bo omitted from Said revised finding and said finding should be number 11 and should read as follows: 11 , The owners of the property described In Certificate of Title Nos. 699199, 686128, 469797, 450796, 450796, , 639009, 729079, 383629, 732994, 267644, 636602, 700106, 324933, 189549, 699026, 689025, 103458, 515092, and 451927 are in default. S. Petitioner's motion to strike Conclusions of Law Nos. 1 through 9, inclusive, and replace them with Suggested Conclusions of Law Nos.1 through 4 set forth in petitioner's motion is denied and See the attached Memorandum for comment relative thereto and a clarification of the dock rights issue. Conclusions of Law No. 6 is amended slightly as follows (see also memorandum which follows: S. That there exists over a northerly part of ..Lot 11 an easement of sufficient size (at least 10 feet in width) to allow ingress and egress to the beach/general recreational area of Lot 11. Further, paragraph 2 of the Recommended 5inal Order at page 6 of the Report of Examiner dated September 5, 1991 should be amended in accordance with said finding to read as follows: 2. That the Registrar of Titles upon the filing with him of a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of the plat of survey or stipulation defining said easement area show by memorial .upon Certificate of Title Nos. 686128, 699236, 469690, 741717, 532741, 6243-2, 688083, $77640, 251341, 641766. 316602, 639674,< 499367, 660100, 620004, 674027, and 487$63, that the easement over Lot 11 appearing as a recital is reformed as follows: Together with an easement as defined in plat of survey (or stipulation) filed in Torrens Case No. A- 24774, a certified copy of which Is filed as Document No. there Insert the document nurmW assigned to the ceftfied copy of the pi-at of survey or stipulation), for access to the beads area, for the use of the beach area, for construction, maintenance and use of dock and general recreational purposes as=dawd with the use of the beach area and dock for tho benefit of 911 ,01 the lots in Radisson Inn Addition over that part of Lot i t dascribed as follows: (Here insert the description of the easement area over part of Lot 11 as determined by survey or by stipulation) 3 TO AMEND FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. Petitioner cites In the Memorandum 'supporting its motion to amend that the Court has implicitly concluded that the ingress and egress easement unduly burdens all of tot 11 and unduly interferes with the enjoyment of Lot 11 by the fee owner. Petitioner also states that the Court has Implicitly concluded that a ten foot easement along the Easterly side of trot 11 is a reasonable location for both petitioner and defendants and is s convenient and suitable way over Lot 11 to the beach area for the easement holders. Petitioner goes on to allege that the Court failed to make Findings of Fact specifically -addressing those issues. However, Finding no. 8 by the Court finds that the easement is ambiguous as to its physical location and as to its use. That finding, read together with 5uggeste'd Conclusions of Law Nos4, 4, 5, 6 and 7 makes It clear that the Court has found that the easement is ambiguous, the Court has the jurisdiction, authority and responsibility to rewrite the ambiguous easement based on the evidence and testimony and accordingly, by the above - stated Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Court has found that the-easement is an easement for general recreational purposes over the entire shoreline which is the southerly boundary line of Lot 11, that said use includes construction of a dock, and there exists over the northerly part of Lot 1.1 an easement �2f riff 'g Si .e to allow ingress and egress to the beach/general recreational area of Lot 11. The Court has not determined that said easement is limited to a ten foot strip, but Conclusion of Law No. 6 should be clarified and is hereby clarified to state that the fairest and most equitable location for said access strip Is along the easterly line of said Lot 11, Further, said easement is at least ten feet in width, but the Court has not made the determination that it Is limited to ten feet. It may be that the parties need a wider easement for ingress and egress. The issue of the illegality of the dockage rights granted by the Court raised at Paragraph 10 of petitioner's Memorandum in support of, his motion is correctly addressed by defendants Lesson, et. at., In their Memorandum in opposition to petitioner's motion. All of the 18 owners who interposed answers in this proceeding and who therefore have easement rights upon Lot 11 are subject to applicable federal, state and local laws and ordinances including any laws of the City of Shorewood regulating the number of docks and boat slips and boats which can be moored on said docks, Obviously, the idea of all 18 easement holders building docks and mooring boats at the same time on Lot 1 i is very Eli disturbing to poUtioner. HpwOvar, WO*rdinc9 t® all Ovidertoo at 1,ho haaeirsq, thOm wdO noVot a time in the history of the use `of Lot I i when all of the easement holders exercised their rights to dock and moor boats at the same time. Further, it is obvious that any such rights, which exist, are subject to regulation and limitation by the Appropriate governing bodlos. It Is also mentioned by petitioners at paragraph i of their Memorandum that petitioners take issue with the Court's statement at Paragraph 4 of its Memorandum that the "use of the fish house, barbecue and board walk began when the aasament was Oreated " Aooarding to petitioner's Memorandum, "such is not the rase. Some of those uses simply continued, but there were no uses of the property". That sentence in petitioner's memorandum Is indefinite and may contain a typographical srror. However, dates in question that are significant are the uses of the property from the date'ot the easement on, and those uses were consistent. It is irrelevant whether or not the uses of the easement area.began before or after the easement was drafted and recorded. Respectfully submitted this 91h day of January, 1992. 9 W TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF HENNEPIN COUNTY: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That on -the 4th day of January, 1985, the Registrar of Titles enter of Title No. 658856 to Roy Eugene Ahern for land described as follow ed Certificate s� Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition. 2. That there appears on said certificate the following recitals: Subject to an easement over and upon said lot, existing in favor of all of the lot owners in Radisson Inn Addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining the said lot, as shown i Document Nos. 152261 and 163421, Files of the Registrar of Titles• and Subject to an easement over and upon Lot 11, said addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining said Lot 11, as shown in Document No. 152262, Files of the Registrar of Titles. 3. That said land was registered in Torrens Case No. 4829 an Registration was entered on November 9, 1939, d the Decree of I 4. That the Decree of Registration was filed as Registrar of Titles Document No. 152261, which Decree registered the land "subject to an easement over Lot 11, existing in favor of all of the lot owners in Radisson Inn Addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining the said lot ". 5. That Document No. 152262, Files of the Registrar of Titles, is a deed dated and filed November 7, 1939 from Louis W. Cohen and Irene Cohen, grantors, who were the applicants in Case No. 4829 to John J. Hayes, grantee, for Lots 5 and 5A, Radisson Inn Addition, " together with an easement over and upon Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining said Lot 11". 6. That Document No. 163421, Files of the Registrar of Titles, is a quit claim deed dated December 23, 1940 and filed December 27, 1940 from said Louis W. Cohen and Irene Cohen, husband and wife, grantors, to John J. Hayes, grantee, for Lot 11, -Radisson Inn Addition, "subject to an easement over and upon said lot for the benefit of all of the owners, their heirs and assigns of the lots of said Radisson Inn Addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining said Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition ". 7. That both of said recitals listed at Finding No. 2 above appearing on Certificate of Title No. 658856 refer to the same easement. 8. That this easement, as it appears in said recitals, is ambiguous as to (a) its physical location (i.e., whether it covers all or part of Lot 11 and if only a part of Lot-11, which part?), and (b) as to limitations, if any, on the use of the easement area. 9. That evidence and testimony was introduced at the hearing to establish the location and use to which this easement was put at its inception and to which it has been put during its existence until the present time, which evidence was for the purpose of determining the intention of the original parties to the easement. 10. That respondents have filed a Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim which alleges that by mistake DI-229mial the complete uses of the easement intended by the parties were not expressly set forth in the original easement which changes the language of the original answer, substituting the underlined words above for the words "consisting of scrivener's error in the drafting of the original document". 0 1 The owners of the property described in Certificate of Title Nos. 699199, 686129, 469797" �/ 450795; 450796 639009, 729079, 383829, 732990' 267644 636602 706105 324933 189549 69902'6, 699025, 103458; 515092', and 451927 are in default and the relief granted herein is limited to Lot 11 and the benefited lots of the answering defendants which lands are described in the Order herein. SUGGESTED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondents Second Amended Answer qnd Counterclaim should not be stricken but is hereby allowed under Rule 15.02, Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. The language of the easement on Certificate of Title No. 658856 is ambiguous. _j 3. This Court has the authority and responsibility under applicable Minnesota law including the holding in Fames v. Lane, 281 Minn. 222, 161 N.W.2d 297(1968) to rewrite the ambiguous easement based on evidence and testimony adduced at the hearing. 4. Evidence and testimony at the hearing established the intent of the parties creating the easement and the intent of the parties in whose favor it runs that the installation and maintenance of a dock and other structures for the mooring of boats was and is an intended and permitted use under the easement. S. This easement, at and since its inception, was intended for general recreational purposes over the entire shoreline (southerly line) of Lot 11 which constitutes the "beach" or "bathing beach" and the area located immediately to the north of the I sandy beach upon which was built the boardwalk, screen house ( "fish house "), and including the area where the barbeque pit is now located. 6. That there exists over a northerly part of Lot 11 an easement of sufficient size (10 feet in width) to allow ingress and egress to the beach /general recreational area of Lot 11. ' �-~ I !� 7. That the use of the central and northerly part of Lot 11 other than for access to the bathing beach and general recreational area located to the south was casual and intermittent by the easement holders and no permanent improvements or structures) were ever located thereon, and no easement rights other than an easement corridor for ingress and egress at paragraph 6 above exist over the balance of the northerly and central pars of Lot 11. 8. That there has been obtained a plat of survey showing the improvements and topographical features of Lot 11. The dimensions of the beach /general recreational area and the ingress/egress. corridor to be used as access to the southerly portion of Lot 11 which is the beac:general recreational area are depicted on a copy of the plat of survey filed as part of this Report. 9. That the easement description of the beach /general recreational area and the ingress and egress corridor is as follows: That part of Lot 11, "RA®ISSON INN ADDITION ", described as beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 11; thence on an assumed bearing South 75 degrees 19 minutes 46 seconds West, along the Northerly line of said lot, a distance of 10.03 feet; thence South 9 degrees 59 minutes 33 seconds East, parallel with the East line of said Lot, a distance of 85.00 feet; thence South 54 degrees; 44 minutes 11 seconds West a distance of 11'0.16 feet to the West line of said Lot; thence South 10 degrees 00 minutes 01 seconds East, a distance of 37 feet more or less, to the shoreline of Christmas Lake; thence Northeasterly along said shoreline to the intersection with the East line of said Lot; thence North 9 degrees 59 minutes 33 seconds West along said East line to the point of beginning. 10. That the lands benefited by said easement are described as follows; Lots 2, 2A, 4, 4A, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 9, 10; Lot 12; That part of Lot 13, lying Northerly of a line drawn Westerly from the Southwest corner of Lot 10, said addition, said line being perpendicular to the Westerly :ine of said Lot 13 and lying Easterly of a line drawn parallel with and 67.00 feet Easterly, measured at right angles from the Westerly .ine of said Lot 13 and its Northerly extension; Lot 13, except that part lying Northerly of a line drawn Westerly from the Southwest corner of Lot 10, said addition, said line being perpendicular to the Westerly tine of said Lot 13 and lying Easterly of a line drawn parallel with and 67.00 feet Easterly, measured at right 0 �� I angles from the Westerly line of said Lot 13 and its Northerly extension; Lot 18; All of Lot 21 except that part thereof described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 21; thence North on West line thereof 149.14 feet, thence at right angles East 99.45 feet, thence 90- degrees left 46.52 feet to angle point in the Northeasterly line of said Lot 21; thence Southeasterly along Northeast line of said Lot 21, a distance of 124.5 feet to the most Easterly corner thereof, thence Southwesterly along the Southerly line of Lot 21, 249.85 feet to beginning; That part of Lot 22 lying Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot distant 165 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said Lot to the intersection of the Southerly line of said Lot 22 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly line of Lot 16 and there terminating; That part of Lot 22 lying Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot distant 165 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said Lot to the intersection of the Southerly line of said Lot 22 and the Northerly extension of the Westerly. line of Lot 16 and Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot distant 165 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said Lot to a point distant 50 feet Northerly from the most Northerly corner of Lot 21; That part of Lot 22 lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said ,lot distant 100 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner thereof to a point on the Westerly line of said lot distant 100 feet Southerly along said Westerly line from the Northwest corner thereof, except that part of said Lot 22 lying Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said lot distant 165 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said lot to a point distant 50 feet Northerly from the most Northerly corner of Lot 21 and there terminating; That part of Lot 22, lying Northerly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said lot distance 100 feet Southerly from the Northeast corner of said lot to a point distant 100 feet Southerly along the Westerly line of said lot from the Northwest corner of said Lot; Lot 25; All in Radisson Inn Addition; Tracts S and C, Registered Land Survey No. 550; Tract E, F and G, Registered Land Survey No. 730. 5 Nr I 1 1 . That the easement appearing in two recitals on Certificate of Title No. 658856 describing an easement for "ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining Lot 11" as shown in Document Nos. 152261, 163421 and 152262 is reformed to read as follows and the Registrar of Titles upon the filing with him of a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of the plat of survey defining said easement area, show by memorial on Certificate of Title No. 658856 that the easement is reformed to read as follows: Subject to and together wit an easement as defined in plat of survey filed in Torrens Case No. A- 24774, a certified copy of which is filed as Document No. (here insert the document number assigned to the certified copy of the plat of survey), for access to the beach area, the use of the beach area, and for construction, maintenance and use of dock extending from the shore line of Lot 11 into Christmas Lake and general recreational purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock for the benefit of lands described in Order Document No. (here insert the document number assigned to this Order), over that part of Lot 11 determined in Torrens Case No. A- 24774, and described in Court Order Document No. (here insert the document number assigned to the Order). 2. That the Registrar of Titles upon the filing with him of a certified copy of this Order and a certified copy of the plat of survey defining said easement area show by memorial upon Certificate of Title Nos. 686128, 699236, 469590, 741717, 532741 624432, 688083, 677640, 251341, 541755, 316602, 639674, 718384, 499357, " 660100, 620004, 674027, and 487563, or any successor Certificate issued for the land described in said Certificate that the easement over Lot 11 appearing as a recital is reformed as follows: Together with an easement as "defined in plat of survey filed in Torrens Case No. A- 24774, a certified copy of which is filed as Document No. (here insert the document number assigned to the certified copy of the Plat of survey), for access to the beach area, for the use of the beach area, and for construction, maintenance and use of dock extending from the shore line of Lot 11 into Christmas Lake and general recreational purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock for the benefit of lands described in Order Document No. (here insert the document number assigned to this Order) over that part of Lot 11 0 determined in Tarrens Case No. A- 24774, and described in Court Order 'Document No. _ (here insert the document number assigned to the Order). 3. That in future Certificates of Title entered for Lot 11, and the land described In the other Certificates of Title listed at Paragraph 2 of this Order above, the Registrar of Titles omit the recitals now appearing on the current Certificates and in lieu thereof, place In said future Certificates of Title the recital as set forth in Paragraph 1 or Paragraph 2 above as appropriate, and that he omit also the memorial of this Order. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of March, 1992. Z. �1�C� %%. DEPUTY E)(AMINER, OF i Le N' MEMORANDUM RELATING TO RECOMMENDED FINAL ORDER The description of the easement area, drafted by the County Surveyor, is set forth in Suggested Conclusions of Law No, 9, This Court agrees with petitioner's position that the proper width of the access easement is 10 feet. Respondents' position that a 20 foot wide easement is needed (set forth in Mr. Owens' letter of March 2, 1992) is without merit. Most alley easements in the City of Minneapolis in residential areas are 12 feet in width. These alleys are built to accommodate considerable amounts of motor vehicle traffic including access to driveways and garages by automobiles as well as through traffic by automobiles, delivery trucks, emergency vehicles, trash removal trucks, etc. Therefore, an access corridor 10 feet wide which will be used primarily by pedestrians is certainly sufficient. Petitioner and Respondents will have to cooperate in creating a 10 foot access corridor which will be free from obstructions such as brush and small trees. Part of the "berm" area in the 10 foot corridor as.shown on the plat may have to be graded to make a more passable access easement area. The beach /recreation easement area as described in the Recommended Order includes the area used by the easement holders since the beginning of the easement for uses described in the Referee's Memorandum dated September s, 1991. The Northerly line of the beach /recreation area is drawn to run just Northerly of the barbeque grill. This easement conforms to the evidence at the hearing as to the area of use since the creation of the easement. law. This memorandum is made a part of the foregoing findings of fact and .conclusions of Respectfully submitted this 9th day of March, 1992. _, DEPUTY EXAMINER OF TITI PS N. EV N- 20 im Ronald H. Groth and Scott Hoke Thomson, Moran & Groth, Ltd. 1400 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 -3589 Thomas L. Owens Attorney at Law 1512 First Bank Place West 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Spencer G. Kluegel Attorney at Law 17809 Hutchins Drive Minnetonka, MN 55345 Paul 0. Aubrecht Patrice M. Aubrecht 20575 Radisson Inn Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Notice is hereby given that the within Report of Examiner was filed with the Clerk of this Court on the 0day of 1992. DIRld 10911191611 MITI , ) 06; i STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) I hereby certify that in pursuant to Rules of Civil P cedu a for the District Courts of Minnesota, Rule 53.05 (1), on the 10 day of 1992, at the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota, I mailed in a sealed envelope, posta a re aid, a co of the within Report and Notice to each of the above -named attorneys at their respective addresses. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand ed t e seal of said Court, at the City of Minneapolis, in said County, this (� day of and , 1992. BUT, 101-3 011 �-r2, 1 HZEEMM Hennepin County DC File No. A24774 In the Matter of the Petition of: Hoy Eugene Ahern, petitioner, vs. Stephen L. Larson, et al., Respondents, Paul Q. Aubrecht ' Patrice M. Aubrecht, Respondent. Norton, Judge Ronald H. Groth Thomson, Moran & Groth, Ltd. 100 South Fifth Street Suite 2250 Minneapolis, MN 55402 ®1221 Thomas L. Owens 1512 First Bank :Place West 120 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Filed March 16, 1993 Office of Appellate Courts Considered and decided by Norton, Presiding Judge, ICalitowski, Judge, and Mulally, Judge.* °Retired judge of the district court,, serving as judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. Vi, § 2. • P I N I • alleges Appellant - trial court improperly lakeshore easement. We disagree and affirm. unimproved. Lot 11, one of these unimproved lots, fronted Christmas Lake. The deeds for each of the lots, including Lot 11, contained language substantially similar to the following: [Lot 11 is] [s]ubject to an easement over and upon said Lot, existing in favor of all of the lot owners in Radisson Inn Addition for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining the said Lot, as shown in Document Nos. 152261 and 163421, files of Registrar of Titles. A Torrens proceeding placed similar language. into each of the lots certificates of title. Lot 11 was sparingly used for forty years. Howard Smith, an MM ME S z I. Standard of review. Appellant argues that the referee's decision was based on improper evidence: easement uses after the 1939 grant and noncredible testimony by Smith. Respondents contend that because appellant failed to move for a new trial, we must consider only whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's findings and whether the findings supported its conclusions of law. Under this standard, evidentiary rulings and other errors at trial may not be considered. Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389 N.W.2d 200, 201® 02 (Minn. 1986) Appellant admits that he made no motion for a new trial, but argues that his; motion to the referee to amend his findings and his motion to the district judge to reject the referee's report were procedurally similar to a motion for a new trial and that therefore evidentiary errors can be considered by this court. Appellant's argument has two problems. First, Sauter clearly contemplates a motion for a new trial under Minn. R. Civ. P. 59.01 as the only acceptable method to preserve evidentiary matters for review. Second, even if appellant's posttrial motions were procedurally similar to a motion for a new trial, appellant failed to argue in thos ;e motions the same evidentiary issues he now wishes ®4® �^S3 mc Latent ambiguity is especially a problem where the easement provides access but does not say why access is granted. The Maine supreme Court spelled out the problem particularly well in the context of an easement that provided access to a river: The achieving of access to a river, however, is generally not the entire purpose for which a right of way providing such access is created. Also involved is why it was necessary, or desirable, to be able to reach the river. As to this aspect of purpose, the language of the deeds provides no answer. Thus, the language of the deeds may be unambiguous so far as it goes, but it does not go far enough in respects that are critical to the evaluation of the full scope, contemplated by the parties, of the use to be made of the right of way. In such context a court may properly resort to extrinsic evidence of purpose. Badger v. Hill., 404 A. 2d 222, 225 (Me. 1979) ; see also Klotz v. Horn, 558 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 1990); Hudson y. Lee, 393 P.2d 515 (Okl. 1964). Lontra Lakeside Launches. Inc. v. Austin Yacht Club, Inc., 750 s.W.2d 868 (Tex. Ct. App. 1988). Minnesota appellate courts have twice considered whether the owner of an easement that provides access to a-body of water allows that owner to build a dock. In Farnes v. Lane, 281 Minn. 222, 226- 27, 161 N.W.2d 297, 300 -01 (1968), our supreme court followed the Maine example by allowing extrinsic evidence and suggested a set of questions to be asked when a court construes such an easement. The -6- _�s F'arnes approach has been applied by this court on similar facts. Lien, 403 N.W.2d at 286. Appellant argues that this is a case of reformation of instrument, and because respondents wish to build one or more docks on Lot 11, respondents carry the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the parties to the agreement intended such use. See Nolan, 429 N.W.2d at 923 (reformation of deed must be proved by clear and convincing evidence). However, on closer inspection, this is not "reformation" at all. A reformation is the changing of a written instrument when the following elements are proved: (1) There was a valid agreement between the parties expressing their real intent; (2) the written instrument failed to express that intent; and (3) this failure was due to a mutual mistake of the parties, or unilateral mistake accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct by the other party. Id. (citing Nichols v. Shelard Nat'l Bank, 294 N.W.2d 730, 731, 734 (Minn. 1980)). Two of these elements will usually fail whenever there is an ambiguous instrument: The instrument already expresses (if inartfully) the real intentions of the parties, and rarely will there be evidence that the ambiguous description was due to any particular person's mistake. Requiring dominant estate owners (such as respondents) to prove a case by clear and convincing evidence is particularly troublesome considering that it is generally the servient estate owner (such as appellant) who must R "sL eliminate ambiguity does not require the same burden of proof as a "reformation" of the instrument. See 66 Am. Jur. 2d Reformation of Instruments g 6 (1973). Reformation implies that a party has substantive rights not properly expressed in the instrument (in fact inconsistent with the instrument) . Construction of an instrument only finds rights already expressed in the instrument. Because clear and convincing evidence should not be required to construe an ambiguous term, it follows that a factfinder need only find evidence or reason to support its construction and those determination:; should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are contrary to reason or the evidence. See Transport Indem. Co. v. Dahlen Transp. Inc., 281 Minn. 253, 259 ®60, 161 N.W.2d 546, 550 (1968). B. AppI.ication of the law. Applying this law, the referee determined that the easement was ambiguous both in terms of location and scope. Appellant argues that the easement is not ambiguous as to scope. Appellant distinguishes the cited cases by suggesting that while each of the easements in those cases provides access to a body of water, the easement in this case provides access to a location which describes the exact activity to be performed there. cz_*c (� S "Bathing beach," contends appellant, necessarily means that respondents may only bathe on (or from) the beach. No case could be found defining the term "bathing beach," no definition is found in Words and Phrases, and no definition could be found in any contemporary or 1940s dictionary or lexicon. Several sources define "beach" as the stretch of land located between the high and low water marks, see, e.g., State v. Phillips, 400 A.2d 299 (Del. 1979), but appellant has not shown what effect the adjective "bathing" has on the noun "beach." To take appellant's argument on its face would mean that respondents should be limited to using a five -foot stretch of sand between Christmas Lake's high and low water marks. Such a construction seems unnatural and unreasonable. "Bathing beach" is ambiguous as a matter of law. The referee was proper in admitting extrinsic evidence of the original intent of the easement. In respondents' favor was the following evidence: ® gust before the lot was sold, it was part of a resort lodge where general recreational activities took place. ® Contemporary photographs showed a small boat dock. ® The Radisson Inn Addition residents had an annual Fourth of July picnic on Lot 11-and used the barbecue pit. One of the residents mowed Lot 11 and kept a small fish house near the shore. ® The original Lot 11 grantee used the property sparingly. In appellant's favor was the following evidence: • With the exception of the above activities, the lot was used sparingly except for swimming. • The cottages had no shower facilities and residents would use the beach to bathe. -9- --S_S This is sufficient credible evidence to support the construction. Because such findings should be upheld unless manifestly contrary to the evidence, the referee and trial court are affirmed as to the scope of the easement. For these same reasons, the referee had the authority to determine the size of the "bathing beach." The evidence showed that all of the recreational activities took place in the area designated by the referee and that the designated area would be required to continue those activities. Sixty percent of the lot would remain free for appellant's own use. 111. Eighteen docks on a beach. Approximately eighteen lot owners are benefitted by the Lot 11 easement. Appellant contends that the language of the trial court order would allow each of those owners to build individual docks on the beach. Because the allowable number of docks on a beach is limited by Shorewood ordinance, appellant argues, the language of the easement is illegal and unenforceable. Appellant's argument fails for lack of proof. The ordinances themselves were not presented at trial or on appeal. In addition, there is nothing in the trial court order which purports to supersede any applicable local law on the subject. If eighteen docks are indeed illegal, appellant will have appropriate remedies available to enjoin the construction of the eighteenth dock when that time comes. Affirmed® ®10® STATE OF MINNESOTA For an Order Construing an Easement --------------------------------------------------- I ----- - - - -- The above - entitled matter came on for a hearing before the Honorable Henry W. McCarr, District Court Judge, at C -1553 Hennepin County Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, on April 27, 1992, upon Petitioner's motion to reject the report of the Examiner. Respondents' Paul and Patrice Aubrecht moved to modify the report of the Examiner. Respondents' Larson, et. al., moved to approve the report of the Examiner. Ronald H. Groth, Esq., appeared for and on behalf of the Petitioner. Thomas L. Owens, Esq., appeared for and on behalf of the Respondents Larson, et. al. Paul Q. Aubrecht appeared pro se and on behalf of Patrice M. Aubrecht. %) - -4 � The Court, having heard the arguments of counsel and having read and considered the submitted briefs, and based upon all the files, records, trial exhibits, and proceedings herein, IT I3 HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Petitioner's motion to reject the report of the Examiner is in all respects denied. 2. Respondents' Paul and Patrice Aubrecht's motion to modify the report of the Examiner is denied. 3. Respondents' Larson, et. al. motion to approve the report of the Examiner is granted and the Final Report of the Examiner is adopted in full. 4. The attached memorandum is incorporated herein and made a part of this Order. DATED: May , 1992. —�# BY THE COURT: Henry W. Mccarr District Court Judge Page -2 5/14/92 (�l�y • . I I 18 i - Petitioner is the owner of Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition, on Christmas Lake, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The lot is subject to an easement which appears on the Certificate of Title as follows: and Subject to an easement over and upon said lot, existing in favor of all of the lot owners in Radisson Inn Addition, for the purpose of ingress and a Tess to the bathing beach adjoining the said lot, as shown in Document Nos. 152261 and 163421, Files of the Registrar of Titles. (Emphasis supplied). Subject to an easement over and upon Lot 11, said addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining said Lot 11, as shown on Document No. 152262, Files of the Registrar of Titles. (Emphasis supplied). Lot 11 and the accompaning easement were registered in Torrens Case No. 4829 and the decree of Registration was entered on November 9, 1939. Petitioner brought this action to locate the access easement and define the activities that the easement; holders may conduct on the "bathing beach ". On stipulation the District Court referred this; action to the Examiner of Titles who appointed Richard S. Little, Deputy Examiner of Titles, as Referee. A trial was held on April 10 and April 11, 1991, with testimony and exhibits submitted by all parties. Pa a ®3 4, y S Page-3 5/14/92 Ronald H. Groth represented the Petitioner at trial. Thomas L. Owens represented the approximately 28 other lot owners. The Aubrechts appeared pro se but hired S)pencer G. Kluegel, Esq., for post -trial briefs. The Referee made his initial "Report of Examiner Including Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law, Recommended Order and Memeorandum" on September 5, 1991. Petitioner moved to amend the findings which motion was presented to the Referee on September 20, 1991. The Referee returned his "Report of Examiner Pursuant to Notice of Motion and Motion re Amended Findings and Order" on January 9, 1992. A survey was completed pursuant to the January Report and the Referee issued the final Report on March 9, 1992. The facts of this case have been briefed and repeated numerous times so this Court will not reiterate them here. The positions of the parties are basically as follows. Respondents Paul and Patrice Aubrecht (Aubrechts) position as explained in their post -trial brief is that the ingress /egress portion of the easement covers the whole of Lot 11, thus making it impossible for the owner of the lot to construct a house on the property. The Aubrechts contend that the beneficiaries of the easement can use the easement for "swimming, picnicing, barbecuing and other transitory recreational activities which do not leave their mark upon the land." See Reply Brief of Defendants Paul Q. Aubrecht and �S, 4 Page -4 5/14/92 Patrice H. Aubrecht p. S. Finally, the Aubrechts argue that the easement does not include the erection of a dock or the mooring of boats or the storage of boats on Lot 11. Id. p. 9. The Respondents Larson, et. al., (Larson) argue that the ingress /egress portion of the easement covers only part of Lot 11 and only needs to be placed and its size and scope defined. Respondents Larson claim that the easement for the "bathing beach" extends to include a concrete and dirt path and a barbecue pit. Respondents Larson also claim that the easement includes the right to install and maintain a dock for the benefit of the holders of the easement. The Petitioner basically agrees with the Respondents Larson, in maintaining that the ingress /egress easement is limited to a small swath of land for access to the "bathing beach ". However, Petitioner argues that the easement only allows bathing once the beach is accessed, and does not include any other activities such as building a dock or barbecuing. Petitioner additionally claims that the location of the "bathing beach" only extends to the high water mark of the lake, or the sandy portion of the beach. The Referee found the easement to be ambiguous. He then defined the ingress /egress portion of the easement to a 10 foot wide strip of land over the easterly side of the property. The Referee located the "bathing beach" area across the the entire shoreline, extending it up to the area pr --/-{ 7 Page -5 5/14/92 including the barbecue pit. Finally, the Referee specifically allowed the installation and maintenance of a dock and other structures for the mooring of boats by the easement holders. The Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure specify that the court "shall accept the referee's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous." MRCP R 53.05 (b). The Rule goes on to say that "[A)fter a hearing, the court may adopt the report, modify it, reject it in whole.or in part, receive further evidence, or recommit it with instructions." Id. Rule 53.05(x) provides that the referee shall file the report in an action to be tried without a jury and shall file with it a transcript of the proceedings, the evidence, and the exhibits unless the order of reference otherwise directs. The Order of Reference in this proceeding specifically provided that the referee was not to file a transcript or exhibits unless the moving party bears the expense. Neither the Petitioner nor the Respondents chose to supply a copy of the transcript. This Court specifically adopts the "Final Report of Examiner Including Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law, Recomended Order and Memorandum ". It is apparent from a simple reading of the language of the original easement that it is ambiguous. The Referee's structuring and defining of the easement is not clearly erroneous. A ten foot access easement to the "bathing N r e4s Page-6 5/14/92 beach ", as established by the Referee, is adequate access to the beach, while causing minimal interference with the underlying fee. In Farnes v. Lane, 281 Minn. 222, 161 N.W.2d 297 (1968), The grantee of an easement or right -of -way to the lake may or may not be entitled to install and use a dock extending from the way into the lake, depending on the circumstances of the particular case. If the easement is granted in terms which clearly and specifically allow or deny this use, the language of the instrument creating the right will control. Where, as here, the easement for a way is granted in general terms, no reference being made to the installation or use of a dock, the uncertainty must be resolved by applying the general principals of law relating to the contruction of ambiguous writings. Fa nes, 281 Minn. 222, 225, 161 N.W.2d 297, 300 (19(38). From the record provided to this Court the Referee was not clearly erroneous in allowing the installation and maintenance of a dock by the easement holders. Finally, this Court finds that the Referee was not clearly erroneous in his placement of the "bathing beach" and in his interpretation of the nature and scope of the easement use. H.W.M. Page -7 5/14/92 TN PROCEEDINGS' SUBSEQUENT TO TNTTTAL REGISTRATION OF LAND NO. A -24774 STATE OF MINNESOTA RETURN 00— 'PiENTS T0; DTSTRTCT CURT : COT:1N'ry Off+' HE,NNEPTN ATI T'�lc, `Mvnny 2k:;;i U- 1.er;:ity Avenue West FOURTH St JfTDTCTA�, DTSTRTCDISTRISt-Paul, MN 551'1A CASE TYP8 : ' OTHER CIVIL In the Matter'of the Petition of . Court. File No, TO 000024774 ROY EU'GFNE .A�EERN, ,petitioner, LARSON,_ET AL.; and PAUL Q. � ORDER ACJBRECHT: and PATRICE M. AUBRECHT, ) LED Respondents, > I JUN 0. .3 1998 For an Order Construing an j �!1lN. , p CT' Basement. By Order- and Memorandum- dated. May ..14, 19921 the District Court 'confirmed Wand adopted in full''.the Final Report, of Examiner Including Findings' of Fact, Suggested 'Concl.usions of Law and Recommended Order dated* March 2, .1992. Petitioner appealed said Order, and in an Unpublished Opinion filed March 16, 1993, Case No. C5-92-1207, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed said Order. By 'subsequent, Order dated May. 18, 199J, the Minnesota" Supreme Court denied the petition of Petitioner for further review. Based on all of the files, records-and proceedings herein, TT.Is HEREBY ORDERED: 1• That the' '.easement appearing in two- recitals on Certificate.. of Title No. 658856 describing an easement for "ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining Lot 11n as shown in Document Nos. 152261' 16342, and x.52262 is reformed to .read as.follows and the.Registrar of Titles upon the filing with ham of a certified copy Of -this Order and a certified copy ®f the . Plat of survey definiixg said easement area, shave by memorial on Certificate of V tle.No-. 658856 that the easement is-reformed to read as follows: Subject to and together with an easement as defamed in Plat of 'survey filed in Torrens Case .No. A- 24774, a certified copy of which is filed as .Document No. (A (here`insert the document number assigned P� to the. Certified copy of the plat of survey); for access to the beach area, the use .of 'the beach :area', Q0 rand 'for..,' construction, maintenance and use o d ®cis J `• to •�n extending from, the shore . line of Lot 11 into-• Christmas • Y vA o8 go P Lake-and general recreational purposes associated with, 3 M the use of the.-.beach area .and' dock for the benefit of o N lands described in order Document No. 'Q •D (here insert the document number assigned to this tit ,J .tn r Order), over that part of Lot 11 determined . in I'orrens Case No. A- 24774, and described Court. Order Document ,T ° • ��.. n No. -- (here ' insert the .document number ,J G 6, assigned to the Order). U 2. That* the Registrar of Titles upon, the filing with him of a certified copy 'of. this Order' and a certified copy of the PdM 2 13 tr 1 plat of survey clefining said easement area show by memorial upon Q J Certificate of Title Nos. �3., 469590, 741'17, if s 2 532741, .624432 ,� 688083, 677640 251341, 541755, 316602, 718384, 499357; 660100, 620004 - 1?5' , and8a or' any successor Certificate ,,issued for the land described. in said C ®rtificate, that the easement over Lot 11 appearing as a•.:recital is reformed as follows: Together with an easement as defined in plat of survey filed in Torrens Case No. 1.1- 247.74, a certified copy-of which is filed as Document No. (here insert' the -document number assigned to the certified copy of the plat of • survey) , for access to the beach arE'a, for the use, of the , beach area, and for construction, maintenance and' use of dock extending :'from the shore lane of Lot 1I into Christmas sake and. general recreational purposes. associated with the us.•e of the beach, area and dock for the benefit of ]ands described. in Order Document No. (kiere .insert the document number assigned to this - Order) over, that part of Lot .11 determined in Torrens Case No. 24774, and described in Court Order document X70. (here insert the document number assigned to the Order).. 3. That in future Certificates of Title entered for Lot 11, and the.land described in'the other Certificates of Title lasted at Paragraph 2 'of this Order above, the Registrar of 'Titles omit the- recitals now appearing on the current Certificates and in lieu thereof, place in said future. Certificates of TiL1e the 3 recital as seq. fOrth in Paragraph 2 Or Paragraph 2 move, as aPPrO$ r a`®, and that he omit also the memorial of this order. 'By TI-TE COURT: District Couru Uudge D ury Mxamini:x, off. i�'cles ire forngofng faeft were found by me after due hearing and %0Mry of $bts Order is . t We itiCHAR15 5a LITTLE F FEE ' - ep�:'� ia�� of �t� .. • �a J JU m on C it a!'iiUes ' 8Y ` �• ar V4 Woo, Cow • •�.� my ate, _ • d LAI—q- Registrar of Titles, Hennepin,,MN � Date Filed. 06/05/1 04:00 PM As Doe #: 3042 .43.0 On CT #e 658856.0, 741717°0, 861089.0. i - a v I V. f.� I� BgA66�fev 10' 01 iA izf 4 poi J � � z P Tlwt Part d Ld 11, Rad�aicn IM Addtlbn, vi+kn gN Easterly and Iou7ge� at � daecHbad Zl Bopmyp a nN M4steedlon a B» NenMny t4f0 a 6ouhary nom sad Namtry Cne. pa /a1N f t h, and dwtrrd 10 of Of lha EatiNly krva d uW Lot Ili therwo SoNlrofy abrq sdtl Pat" ern a 36 hat pad Drat ..Mg South 0 degrees, 69 meow, 33 to thence South 64.68"". 44 MWYA#, 11 tawnde Wont o d'su irA d 110.11 Wes 91A of cad Lot 11 and cad the Uwe temanatng. SURVEY FOR: ._HAW sFFFNy, DESCRIPTION; Lot 11, Radiseon Inn Addition, a..ording to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by Me or under my direct supervislon and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Ml nine aot I. Oated this 26th day of Septe$L or. 1991. E O A N, F I E L J & N 0 w A k f t D / Surve/yoo a by / Jack Bolke Minnesota License No. 20281 NOTES: I. Thl drlantatl0n of this bearing 9yetda Is based On the north 11ne Of lot 31. RAOIBSON INN ADOSTION, which 15 09avaed t0 hevo a bnarfn0 Of North 75 door#$$ 19 minutes 46 seconds East. S't< Date: April 24, 2016 'r iii )i)r To: Shorewood Planning Commission From: Elaine Hastings 952.474.7336 5495 Radisson Entrance Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Lot 11 Easement Owners "Restricted" Watercraft Appeal Thank you for your prompt review of this note from my family and thanks also for your volunteer service on the Planning Commission. For over 45 years we have lived on Radisson Entrance and have used and enjoyed our "deeded lalze access" to Christmas Lake, via Lot 11 of Radisson hm Addition. First my kids and later the grandchildren have enjoyed many wonderful days on the lake. In the early 1990's all Lot 11 private easement owners, 14 households total, successfully achieved court victories and clarification specific to defining the easement access and the recreational uses on the lake and on our easement property. With this new clarification we believed that the approved number of "restricted" watercraft moored on our shared dock was 4, a number easement owners have always worked with, the same number as that of a single family Christmas Lake household. Imagine the surprise for all of us longstanding neighbors with over 70 years of easement owner history to be now told that only 2 moored boats are allowed. This seems restrictive, arbitrary and grossly unfair. Therefore, we support the neighborhood appeal and urge the commission to act, fixing on the correct number of "restricted" moored boats to be 4. In this appeal process my household was not officially notified, in fact we have never been officially notified of any proposed actions specific to Lot 11, even though we have a deeded property interest to Lot 11. Upon investigation we learned that property owner's within 500 feet were to be notified and yet myself and four other easement owners, most living more that two /three blocks away from Lot 11, a distance greater than 500 feet, were not notified, This again shows that Shorewood regulations do not properly address our unique situation and should be changed. In closing, I wish to direct you to our website, Lotl l .org, and review the document entitled. "Easement Owner's FAQ's, Frequently Asked Questions ", which will provide additional history specific to boats and boating on Lot 11. Again, thank you for your careful consideration to this appeal. Sincerely, Elaine Hastings ATTACHMENT IV Resident Correspondence Paula Callies 20465 Radisson Inn Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Lot 11 Dock Expansion Dear Paula, We recently received a copy of your letter to Brad Nielsen regarding expansion of the use of the dock on Lot 11. We would like to express our disappointment in the fact that we are constantly ignored as an easement holder (per Hennepin District Court and State of Minnesota Court of Appeals as Lot 699236), and told that we "have no interest ". We respectfully request to be included in all future correspondence or meetings related to Lot 11. It seams to be the neighborly thing to do. In the future if we are successful in our request to expand the use of the docks on Lot 11 to four boats, or for that matter even if expansion is not allowed, we wish to be included in the lottery or whatever means agreed acceptable to the parties to determine who has rights to keep a boat on the Lot 11 dock. I assume you have an email group for Lot 11. Please forward this to the rest of the easement holders as we have not been given access to this email group. Thank you for including us in the future. Paul and Suzy Cossette 5570 Shore Rd Shorewood, MN. 55331 Pandscossette @gmail.com Cc: Paula Callies & David Downs Eric and Barb Newhouse Gary Krebs & Nancy Wellner Todd & Melissa Nichols Elaine Hastings Steve and Jessie Berchild Edna & Cyrus Zulgad Michael & Janet Cohen Paul & Carol Seifert 20465 Radisson Inn Road 20445 Radisson Inn Road 20555 Radisson Inn Road 20780 Radisson Inn Road 5495 Radisson Entrance 20435 Radisson Inn Road 20505 Radisson Inn Road 20640 Radisson Inn Road 5515 Radisson Entrance Road i April 25, 2016 Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Zoning Determination — Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition Dear Brad; We recently received notice of hearing to address the APPEAL OF ZONING DETERMINATION —LOT 11, RADISSON INN ADDITION submitted by Paula Callies. My wife Leslie and I own the property at 20545 Radisson Inn Road; Lot 9. We are also legal easement owners over part of Lot 11 per Hennepin District Court Ruling No. A -24774 and the Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision C5 -92 -1201, and use this easement to access the lake. Our property is adjacent to Lot 11 and sits immediately to the north of Lot 11. Any decision to add additional motor boats would significantly impact our sight lines and our use and enjoyment of the easement rights as we understand them. As background, we owned Lot 11 from 1999 through May of last year (15+ years). For the entire term of our ownership of Lot 11, only two motorized boats were ever moored on the dock at Lot 11, and one of them belonged to us. While nothing was ever put in writing, it was accepted that the owner of Lot 11 would be allowed to keep one motorized boat at the dock, and the easement owners would share the other "slip ". As neighbors and easement holders, we strongly object to any increase in the number of boats that can be moored at the Lot 11. We agree with your original ruling and support rejection of the Appeal referenced above. Please forward our objections to the Planning Commission members prior to the May Yd meeting. Sigcorely, Mich.aaWiIle � \1 20545 Radisson Inn Road Shorewood, MN 55331 MJWille @cbburnet.com 612 - 924 -7122 Hennepin County Property MapMinneanoilsdA PARCEL ID: 3611723220012 OWNER NAME: W D Hittler & Donna M Watz PARCELADDRESS: 5540 Shore Rd, Shorewood MN 55331 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land - Lakeshore HOMESTEAD: Non - Homestead PARCEL AREA: 0.37 acres, 16,129 sq ft A -T B: Torrens MARKET VALUE: $252,000 TAX TOTAL: $4,214.10 SALE PRICE: $340,000 SALE DATA: 05/2015 SALE CODE: Vacant Land 0 Operated by a subsidiary of NRT L.LC. Comments: This data (I) is furnished AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (il) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 Patti Helgesen From: Aubrecht, Patrice [patrice.aubrecht @siemens.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:21 AM To: Brad Nielsen; Planning Cc: 'Home' Subject: Zoning Determination - Lot 11 Radisson Inn Addition Attachments: CityAttornyToJudge.1.pdf; AttorneyToJudge.2.pdf Dear Brad and Planning Commission, I was surprised by the letter of "Public Hearing for Appeal of Decision Regarding Boat Dockage on Lot 11" for May 3`d in yesterday's post. This is the first we have been informed of any such proceedings by just a few of the Lot 11 Easement owners which had clearly been initiated back on Jan 5th. As you know we own lots 12 and 13 which borders lot 11 on the west and have the same easement rights over lot 11 as well. We maintain our own dock and boat in front of our property, but our family have spent many joyful hours sitting and swimming off the lot 11 dock with many of the neighbors over the past 31 years. We feel the status quo during the time we have lived next door to lot 11 is that only one dock, two motor boats stored on dock, one canoe stored on land, the 4 new chairs, with no additional recreational equipment, watercraft, or structures be allowed until a dwelling occupied by a resident is built on lot 11. We agree with your decision that the maximum number of boats should remain at 2 based on the following: - this is what we have personally witnessed over the 31 years of living next door to lot 11, neither have we ever seen a picture prior to this where more than 2 boats were tied to the dock, - the city's position as long as we have been here is the dock is grandfathered in and allowed as a legal nonconforming use because there is no "house or residence" associated with Lot 11 and the city has repeated stated to us that only 2 boats are allowed, - the ordinances themselves were not presented at trial or on appeal, in addition, there is nothing in the trial court order which purports to supersede any applicable local law on the subject, and the City Attorney in 1992 requested in the attached letter (2 pages) that the Court take notice of the City of Shorewood Code of Ordinances, - we are not aware of any other family who resides on Christmas Lake that has boats registered to someone other than the property owner. Nor are we aware of anyone having 4 motor boats with a few exceptions of families that own a pair of ski jets (personal water crafts) in addition to their power boat. Further, it is my understanding: "Residence" means the place where you are actually living. There are currently no legal residents of the property as there is no fixed or permanent home /dwelling on lot 11. A legal resident would preside at that address and occupy a dwelling. The Shoreline Regulations for Shorewood clearly states: "the owner of the dock must demonstrate to the city that all boats stored at the dock are owned, registered and operated by the residents of the property" "the number of docks per lot ...shall be limited to one, and the same shall be operated, used and maintained solely for the use of the members of the family or families occupying the property" The LMCD regulation is applicable: Subd. 2: Unless a greater number is allowed by the 1:50' General Rule, up to two restricted watercraft may be moored or docked at any dock or mooring facility on a residential site in existence on August 30, 1978; without regard to the owners being residents of the site; or Subd. 3 (a -c): Unless a greater number is allowed by the 1:50' General Rule, up to four restricted watercraft may be moored or docked at a dock or mooring area at a site, provided a number of conditions are met. One of these conditions includes all restricted watercraft must be owned by and registered to persons who live in the one residential structure on the site. And in the "Memorandum Regarding Rulings of Petitioner's Motion To Amend Findings and Conclusions of Law" it clearly states: "All of the 18 owners who interposed answers in this proceeding and who therefore have easement rights upon Lot 11 are subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws and ordinances including any laws of the City of Shorewood regulating the number of docks and boat slips and boats which can be moored on said docks... such rights are subject to regulation and limitation by the appropriate governing bodies." Personally, we believe Shorewood's current position and restriction of a "single family approach" to be very generous, since only a single family actually owns the property but does not reside there as residents. Yet, Shorewood has "grandfathered" and allowed 2 boats registered by the Property and one Easement Owner to be stored on a single dock. This leads me to wonder if the attempt to challenge as a legal conclusion the City's current position should result in further limitations since the intent of the city should be that all nonconforming uses eventually be brought into conformity and not be expanded. If expansion is allowed, I can only guess it will not be long before the issue of a larger dock to accommodate all these boats along with boat lifts will become the next expansion. The current dock is not big enough to support 4 boats, there would not be enough space left for normal recreational activities off the dock that the majority of homeowners including myself enjoy, such as sitting with legs hanging into water, diving and swimming off the dock. In my opinion, it would be a hazard for the young swimmers. A dock big enough to support four motor boats would not meet the LMCD DUA Length and Width for the Lot 11 property. As you can see the 9 Appeal Applicants, does not represent the majority of Lot 11 Easement owners which based on the Report of Examiner Pursuant To Notice Of Motion and Motion Re Amended Findings and Orders, it appears there are 18 Easement Titles, not just 13. Some owners have multiple titles. Conveniently missing from Paul Seifert' list of Lot 11 Easement Owners are the following property titles who have never been invited to his Lot 11 meetings: Title 699236 Paul and Suzy Cossette Title 251341 Aaron and Nicola Peterson Title 541755 Becky and John Brink Title 316602 John and Mary Schmitt's now owned by Doug and Sheila Punke? These above properties owners are similar to us in that they own their own lakeshore as well. Also, 3 of the 9 applicants (Callies /Downs, Berchild, and Newhouse) listed in the Appeal are a result of just one original Steve Larson property title being subdivided. In the past, several easement owners have jointly purchased a common boat to share and the other boat has been typically owned by the property owner. My understanding is the issue is being brought up now, because Berchild and Newhouse own their own boats and would like an opportunity to moor their boats at the dock as well. When they enquired if easement owners took turns at docking a boat at a meeting, the current owners of the shared boat were not willing to take turns, thus they are pursuing a change in the zoning for lot 11 to accommodate the newcomers in the neighborhood. The fact that the "Lot 11 Homeowners Association" failed to notify all 18 of the Lot 11 Easement owners of Paula's letter to the City of Shorewood to request a formal determination on the maximum boats, along with filing an appeal after your determination, is disturbing to many of us. Lack of communication and notice on the part of the appellants intent to change the rules, clearly indicates that not all easement owners agree with their position. I believe Bill and Donna, the owners of the Lot 11 property just recently found out about these attempts to change the zoning determination. Clearly with this type of disagreement among the Lot 11 Easement Owners concerning their rights, and the issue of who gets to use the existing dock to moor their boat in the future will be a difficult decision for the 18 property owners regardless of whether it is 2 or 4. BTW, I have as much right to keep my boat on that dock as anyone else and simply have not exercised that right yet. Looking to the future, how will the City handle the issue when Bill and Donna decide to combine their lots? Now there will be a homeowner residing on the property and shouldn't all boats should be registered under their name? Will another exception be allowed for Lot 11? If these appellants are to have the same dock uses as any Christmas Lake owner who resides on their lake property and enjoy the same recreational activities, then I can only assume the appealants property taxes will reflect similar taxes being paid by those of us who actually reside on Christmas Lake. Paul and I feel living next to a Marina will lower our own property value. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Patrice and Paul Aubrecht 20575 Radisson Road (Lots 12 & 13) R Siemens Industry Inc Energy Management Division Digital Grid Solutions and Services 10900 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 400 Minnetonka, MN 55305 USA Mobile (preferred): +1 (612) 308 -5950 Office: + 1 (952) 607 -2739 Fax: +1 (952) 607 -2354 mailto: Patrice.Aubrecht @siemens.com http:Hwww. siemens. com This message and any attachments are solely for the use of intended recipients. The information contained herein may include trade secrets, protected health or personal information, privileged or otherwise confidential information. Unauthorized review, forwarding, printing, copying, distributing, or using such information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you received this email in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email and any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please contact the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your system. Thank you for your cooperation F JAM44 P 4AA8I14 . A08CATL.HQFFMAN JACX F OALY - O. xtHNiTM LIMOpRCN Ota.gO u FRI C"C". AILAN a, MUlL14AN .tAmti C. CRICMSON 6VwAAO 4, ORIfC066. "N[ M. tULLEX JOMM 0 FV4L+*CA RgaclTr C. aon.t PRANK I.HARYtr CHARLia 3. NOOtw. CHRIaTOPMCM d. 014TatH JOHN R. 4, CATTIC - yINQA H, FIaMtA TM,OMA6 P STOLTYAN MIC11A194 a. JACKAA#4 ./qMH C. OICHL JOM 0, SWICRIK"S"L TMOMA6 J. FLYNM JANc4 A QUINN TOgd I, FACCMAN PC, cm w aeaN I16RQM4 M, KAMNx6 aMCAR14L A. OMAN gC*A40 L_ iKeK JOHN A. yUNaGU)aT AAYL6 NQLAN Gl 49ATC• JHOMA4 6, HYMPHALY, JR. MICMAC, t MexIM JOHN A, GOTTCA• SCATR166 A, AQTHV/tILBR (June 41 1992 FILE COPY �J;lRIiIi�i. HoFFNI.4N. LI:tDGREN. LTD. RAULA,PLVMxSTT ALAN L. KILOOW ATT41R N CY9 AT t.AW KATHLCCN M. NCwMAN HICHA. 6•*6rV4,M '� ORt00AY 9. xOAATAO y% t., 15 4 t OAAY A. YAH ;LCVC' OANICL L aow-.0 - 13CO NORWC5Y FtNAN41AL eCN7CR It TOGO M. VLATMOVICM - IIMO,004.:CMAXV' CANC 7000 XCRXCS AVCHUC SOUTH BLOOMINGTON. MINNCIOTA 9M431 TI NOr Mr J. a ONMA 4, AOlACM MICHAiL A- 11060"SOM TCLCPHONC 115171 ®38.3804. - LISA A. 9., OawT A. RCM"04C FAX t*121 8963333 1141" Mom & x"AMaRltmi 4MRIATO /NtA J, N.R41%TMAL WILLIAM C. OAIFFITN dM. JOMM 4. STCFrCNHABCN . OAWL W. yoga RADA A. AVOOK _.... a MILL The Honorable Henry W. McCarr District Court; Judge 1251 Court Tower Hennepin County Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Res Ahern v. Larson, et al. Court File No-; A -24774 Dear Jitdge XcCarr: This letter is offered in my capacity as City Attorney for the City of Shorewood. It has been brought -to my attention that an Order and Memorandum has been issued in the above - referenced matter. •That Order adopted the "Final Report cif•. ami r including Findings of Fact, Suggested Conclusions of Law,* Recommended Order and Memorandum" (the Report). The Report in its Suggested Conclusions of Law provided;. 4, Evidence'and testimony, at the hearing established the intent of the parties creating the easement and intent of the parties in whose favor it rums that the installation and maintenance of a dock and ether structures for the mooring of boats was and is an intended and permitted use under the easement. This letter is to request that the Court take notice of the City of Shorewood Cade of ordinances, Section 1201.03, Subd. 14, subparts b And e, which provide; b. Docks and wharves, permitted or floating, shall not be built, used or occupied sin land located within the R Districts until the principal dwelling is constructed on said lot ar- parcal, or until four-fifths (4 /5ths) approval of the City Council has been first obtained to use, build, or occupy such dock or Wharf. k M HoFr. x_,,N, DALY c� I I� "DGEE�� LTD. The Honorable Henry Wo McCarr June 4, 1992 P a� C. The number of docks and wharves per lot Or parcel of land in the A Districts shall be limited to one, and the same shall be operated, used and maintained solely for use of members of the family or families occupying said property upon which the dock is located; provided, however, the dock may be used in accordance with the authority granted through four -fifths (4 /5ths) approval of the City Council in those cases where the dock is, located on an easement or strip or parcel of land riot suitably: for construction of a residence or use as a residence. The City of Shorewood brings to the attention of this Court the following concerns with the Order in this matter. First, any rights in favor of individual property owners granted by the order are subject to the previsions of the City of Shorewood Code of ordinances- Second, I believe that the language of Part 4 of the Order -does create now ambiguities in that the benefitted parties to the easement could argue that each party is entitled to the maintenance of a separate dock under the easement. This interpretation would clearly give rise to a conflict with the provisions of the Shorewood City Code of Ordinances. Thank you for consideration of the concerns of the City of Shorewood in this matter. Should you have any queotions, please contact me at $96 -3203. Sincerely, ;Timothy IN, FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, L td. kW cc: 'Brad Nielsen, Shorewood Planning Director Ronald H. Groth, Esq. TJK:HY2s Subject: Christmas Lake, Lot 11 Easement Owner's Appeal Thank you for your active interest in understanding the uniqueness of our private easement to Christmas Lake, formally defined as Lot 11 of the Radisson I= Addition Properties. We appreciate your active involvement in order to bring the easement owners in "permanent alignment" with the regulations of the City of Shorewood and to concurrently honor and align easement owners with their favorable decisions earned in the District and Appellate courts. Finally, thank you for your Planning Commission Service to our city. To begin a brief history is appropriate... all dates approximate and rounded to nearest year. • Lot 11 was originally and legally defined and plotted in 1940, a full 16 years before the founding of the City of Shorewood, and represented the first "lake easement for individual property owners" in the state of Minnesota. This community originally consisted of over 30 residential homes and R1 plotted building lots, designed to give existing and future residents of Radisson Inn Addition access to Christmas Lake, via a 15,000 square foot lot, (Lot 11), with — 120 feet of Christmas Lake shoreline. Pictures from this early period show on Lot 11 a common, shared dock and a lake slide as well as boats on the property. • Concurrent with the formation of this easement, Lot 11 was sold for the sum of $1 to the nearest neighbor, Joe Hayes, (copy of deed attached), clearly signaling all involved that this lot was defined and specific to the deeded recreational uses for "easement owners" and had little or nothing to do with property ownership. The concept here of naming an owner for the easement lot was to give ownership to a community leader who would assume the role of "oversight ", in the easement owner's access to Christmas Lake. Lot 11 remained in the Hayes family, virtually unchanged in square footage and with increasing recreational uses, as property was developed, (new easement owners added), and as technology and lifestyles advanced to add different types of recreational uses; i.e., fishing boats, ski boats, deck boats, pontoons, canoes, small sailing craft, rafts, etc • Early 1980's, Lot 11 was sold by the Hayes family to Ahern, a Deephaven developer, for $13K, a price reflecting a Christmas Lake, lakeshore property encumbered by an easement over the entire lot • Mid to Late 1980's to Early 1990's, Ahern prepares to build a home on Lot 11 and is initially blocked with a "temporary restraining order ". Easement owners met with the City of Shorewood Planning Commission who determined that our neighborhood resolution was the responsibility of the easement owners and not the City of Shorewood. Thus begin 3 years of legal arguments to formally define the property owner and the easement owner's mutual and exclusive rights specific to Lot 11 property and their respective recreational uses. • Early 1990's Easement owners received favorable court decisions, District Court filed in May 1992 with Appellate Court's final decision files in March 1993... court highlights include: - - -the number of easement owners reduced from over 30 to 12, later expanded to our current, 14 owners; the court ruled that if you were not legally represented you did in fact "abandon" your legal easement owner rights -- -the District Court defined new easement boundaries, (see attached Lot 11 drawing, court document 3042144), permanently dedicating approximately 40% of Lot 11, 6,000 square feet, exclusively to easement owners - -- limited boat dockage to a single dock - -- affirmed that the court was proper in admitting extrinsic evidence of the original intent of the easement. (Lot l l .org, shows historical pictures of Lot 11, presented and numbered as specific court exhibits) - -- changed the original 1940 easement description on the deed from, "ingress and egress to the bathing beach ", (arguably the only way lake beaches were used in the 1940's), to add the new easement configuration, (court document No. 3042144 previously referenced and attached) as well as affirming all recreational uses "associated with the beach and dock" (reference court document 3042143 attached) Early 1990's, Ahern abandons all plans for Lot 11 development 1999, Michael and Leslie Wille purchase Lot 11 from Ahern for $70,000 2015, Bill Hittler and Donna Watts purchase Lot 11 from Willie for $200,000 Over the most recent 45 years, one or two easement owners have challenged the boats on Lot 11, sometimes expressing the fear that easement owners want a marina. Historically and without any neighborhood or City of Shorewood control, the number of "restricted" watercraft moored on Lot 11 has never been a problem, with never less than two and rarely more than four. Via consensus, boat owning easement owners chose the number 4, a very conservative number for a community of 14 households, thus matching the same number entitled to a single Christmas Lake property. Who could possibly object? Today we find ourselves in conflict with the regulations of our city, regulations we believe are not applicable or appropriate for our unique easement community. Historically, over the past 45 + years I have lived as an easement owner there has always been a continuous presence of "restricted" watercraft moored to the Lot 11 dock and for 42 of these years I have had both a private and a shared boat moored to this dock. Intermittently during this same period of time the following easement owners have also moored "restrictive" watercraft. They include: Segal, Walker, Hastings, Seifert, Mize, Krebs, Welhner, Maxwell, Wille, Cohen, Smith and Larson. Today, our Lot 11 easement is 76 years old and remains essentially unchanged. What has changed and what will continue to change are the demographics and lifestyles of new easement owners. For the most recent five years two "restricted" watercraft have been moored on the dock. In recent years two new families with younger children have acquired easement properties and both share a long history of boating and want their boats moored on the Lot 11 dock, one immediately and the other perhaps a year or two away. Thank your for your prompt review. Sincerely, J. aul Sjt 55 A&S r E Nance 55331 612.490.1885 cell pseifert @mchsi.com .421 Quit Clolm Deed. Mlikr -Poole Co., MInneapolle, MInn. - I ndIvIduol to Ind)v)dual. Form No. 27 -M Mlanteoto Unitorm Convcyandng Dlanke 193 t), ' - - - -- - -- - — — - _. . 4 0... ��jl� �yYbenCuxe, altade this .............. � ...'...'S................... day of ............... lleaeamlaar ......,,.,....,.......,... Y9............ ................ .......................................... .. bet: eeen ............... Leuia..' lf. e... Q. Rk1. en ... an51.,.I 3; eT. te.,, G9hen� ....hu4band...Rnd „tiv „ife,,. � I of the Coanty of ............................ H.Annepin..... .......,....................and State of tinnesota ............................................................... ............................... . Ha es part .....1B bf the first• part, and ................................. ............John...J........... Y.,,.... t..,.....,.....,..,....,.....,.....,..........,..........,...... ............................... ............... . .............................. . ............ ................................. .............................................. ................ .......................................... ................. . ............... I ............. , o the Cotod o Hennepin .............. ............................and State o tinnesota f f .. ............................... . f...............,...............,........,,....,,.........,,.,,. .............................., parVy. ...... of the second part, i �TTtift>C�)YCi�r That OW said part... i.A. .............of the rst part, in consideration of the sans of and, other good.,, and valuable consideration .................................................................................... ............................... to ....t hem ..................... .............................in hand paid by the said partY. ......... of the sccorut part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do ............ hereby Grant, Baro'atn, Qaitolainb, and Convey unto the said part..,y...... of the second, part, ..... 11 l§ .......................heirs and asstgns, Forever, all the tract .,.... or parcel:...., of land lying, and being' in, the County of..................... Re ln1m.pin ................................................... and, State of Afinnesota, described as follows, to -wit: Lot Eleven (11), Radisson Inn Addition, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, subject to a permanent easement over and upon said Lot for the benefit of all of the mvners, their heirs and assigns, of the Lots of said Radisson Inn Addition, for the purpose of ingress and egress to the bathing beach adjoining said Lot Eleven (11), Radisson Inn Addition i I - E4tR11`i< i i j Mo 3)abc atib 10 V)olb lfje rwanxt, Toffether with all the h6reditan3,ents and appurtenances there- auto bclongtng or in anytoise appertaining, to the said part ....V ..... of the second part, ... ..Us ......................heirs and assigns, Forever. 'ItT SCOtimonp SZ14Mot, The said part.....Imbf the first part ha..x.H....Jtereanto sot .....ahe. ir ..................... hand.a.. the day and year first above written. �r7b6l`CSMCC of ....° u ..................... G.y ....................... Louis 11. Cohen rerie °� "ehn ..................................... ............................... 421 i ebtate of AinnegOta, 8B. CountyOf ........................ .....•••..........•••.,....•.. Onthis ................... ... ............................day of .................................................... Af?q.6AAb9.>.......... 19..:kQ..., WOW ate, a Ido, tart',,,, Ylzblio... ... .................... .... ........... .••. .......................... within and for said County, personnlly appeared LOUIS W. COIIEN and IRME COTM, husband and wife, to me known, to be the PeMOMS ....................... ......................desoribed in, and who exeouted the foregoing instrument, .....•...........•......•.••....• ............................. ......I............•...I.•..... ............................and aelcnowledged that .....•......•. t.hoy .............. ,eceouted (See Note) thesame as.......Ah. ..r ........................free art and deed..............,.......•...•.........•......•...•..........•...•...•••.....,..... ....••.•..............•.......• (See Not.) �... •. � ................................ ..... ............................... •.. • •................ •... •.......... Maurice L. Grossman Notarrl PuNio ................ UP.M.4•P.7,Y1 ............ ........................County, Artnn. My commission expires .................. .Auqust...26.th,................ 19....(12.. Note: The blank linen marked "See Note" are for use when the Instrument In executed by an attorney In fact. 1'6 :y .._d Ca z I -• c_ x A 0 hx\ zW z Wa I i ;. .. „:. w ' $X4 H � ;: u u •,F h ' FD t2 O o i ts R i 9x: r C � US c loca 3 0 1'6 :y .._d Ca z I -• c_ x A 0 hx\ zW z Wa I i w ' $X4 ' FD t2 O o i ts R i I T I u .� •0 +i .�. d e ° 0 o 1'6 :y .._d Ca z I -• c_ x A 0 hx\ zW z Wa I i w t2 i ts R i I be e 0 o v 7 L. V� C .o h V fa- i' SCALY P.10` ___. 1� r� o� P e P �z P That Part of Lot it, Radaeon Inn AdMon, which Use Ent" end Souftim y of the follow4p deeedbed @a: Begknag at the hLnWbn of the NorlMdy she of Lot t t with A Wa &NAM SMOM ly hom ISM NorSwh Tra, pareW with and dMard f 0 feet Y"w" of the Eas" a* of said Lot 11; ttwwwe BWlary Wnp ieW paratW 2 a distance of 85 feet (emd POW Wa beedhg Boffin 9 "VOW 69 mkeaea, 33 oonds Email; jC1'O 10" .. �G tlwro. soon 61 Geyer. M mows, t t aewnde w.el a astanc. of t taeo.1e feel to did `N V" ika of NW Lot 11 ud aW she then whuhmung SURVEY FOR: ._f.+—IEFEH]_ DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Radisaon Inn Addition, — 01dI19 to the recorded plat thereof. Hennapin County. Minnesota. I hereby Certify that this survey was p ^eparcd by to or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Raglstered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Ml nneso G a. Dated this 26th day of September, 1991. E O A N, F I E L J 6 N O W a K, I V C. Surveyor' by JacK So lice Hlnne9ote License No, 202B1 NOTES: I. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the north ]foe of Lot It. MDISSON INN A0017 10N. which is assumed to nevo a bearing of North 75 degrees 19 minutes 46 Seconds East. . ... _. ._._. . -- "_ ------- _....._..._ .... u.......,...... ,.. .............. rr .nru.Wranr.. .6 r t '0• ___. 1� r� o� P e P �z P That Part of Lot it, Radaeon Inn AdMon, which Use Ent" end Souftim y of the follow4p deeedbed @a: Begknag at the hLnWbn of the NorlMdy she of Lot t t with A Wa &NAM SMOM ly hom ISM NorSwh Tra, pareW with and dMard f 0 feet Y"w" of the Eas" a* of said Lot 11; ttwwwe BWlary Wnp ieW paratW 2 a distance of 85 feet (emd POW Wa beedhg Boffin 9 "VOW 69 mkeaea, 33 oonds Email; jC1'O 10" .. �G tlwro. soon 61 Geyer. M mows, t t aewnde w.el a astanc. of t taeo.1e feel to did `N V" ika of NW Lot 11 ud aW she then whuhmung SURVEY FOR: ._f.+—IEFEH]_ DESCRIPTION: Lot 11, Radisaon Inn Addition, — 01dI19 to the recorded plat thereof. Hennapin County. Minnesota. I hereby Certify that this survey was p ^eparcd by to or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Raglstered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Ml nneso G a. Dated this 26th day of September, 1991. E O A N, F I E L J 6 N O W a K, I V C. Surveyor' by JacK So lice Hlnne9ote License No, 202B1 NOTES: I. The orientation of this bearing system is based on the north ]foe of Lot It. MDISSON INN A0017 10N. which is assumed to nevo a bearing of North 75 degrees 19 minutes 46 Seconds East. . ... _. ._._. . -- "_ ------- _....._..._ .... u.......,...... ,.. .............. rr .nru.Wranr.. Running in Favor of ecting that the Reg of Titles upon the filing of a certified copy or in!s Jer and a certified copy of the plat of survey defining the easement sr Lot 11, show by memorial that the easement is reformed to read as ows: Together with an easement as defined in plat of survey filed in rrens Case No. A- 24774, a certified copy of which is filed as current No. 3042144;_ for access to the beach area, the use of the ach area, and for construction, maintenance and use of dock tending from the shore line of Lot 11 into Christmas Lake and general -reation purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock the benefit of lands described in Order Document No. 3042143 over at part of Lot 11 determined in Torrens Case No. A- 24774, and scribed in Court Order Document No. 3042143. Directing that the Re( Titles in future Ctfs of Titles omit,the recitals relating to said easemen d in lieu thereof, place in said future Ctfs the recital as set forth in this der and omit the memorial of this order. April 24, 2016 Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road RE: Lot 11 Dock Expansion Hearing Dear Brad, We received notice of the appeal hearing on Lot 11 boat mooring limits. We live at 5570 Shore Road, lots 4 and 4A, certificate 699236. We are also listed as easement holders of Lot 11 over Hennepin District Court Ruling No. A -24774 and the Minnesota Court of Appeals Decision C5 -92 -1201. Our home is located approximately 250 feet east of the Lot 11 easement. We believe our close proximity to Lot 11 gives us good standing to comment on the appeal. As neighbors and easement holders, we strongly object to the expansion of the Lot 11 dock to 4 boats. We agree with your original ruling and strongly support rejection of the referenced appeal. Expansion of the mooring capacity to 4 rather than 2 boats on the Lot 11 dock will add to the ambient noise and add significant clutter to the shoreline beyond what is allowed to any other Christmas Lake shoreline residents. It would also inappropriately change the look and feel of our residential neighborhood to more of a mini commercial marina. We are concerned that the expansion of the current standards for the benefit of lot 11 easement holders could have a significant impact on our and our direct neighbors property values. Please forward our objections to the Hearing Board members prior to the May 3rd meeting. Sincer /� , City of Shorewood Planning Department 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 April 27, 2016 To the City of Shorewood Planning Department,, We are writing today in response to the Public Dearing Notice regarding our Lot 11 Deeded Access to Christmas Lake on 5540 Shore Road, Shorewood, MN. We greatly appreciate this opportunity to comment on the City honing Administrator's interpretation of the City Code relative to the number of boats allowed to be docked at the `vacant" property located at 5540 Shore Road. This is not a " vacanf' property_ This properly has been used since the 1940's by the homeowners for beach and lake rights with a shared dock. The full lakeshore of this property has been continuously used for general and recreational purposes on Christmas Lake since this time. Throughout the years there has been a history of continuous boat usage on Lot 11. The types and the number of boats have continuously changed, always in compliance with the City of Shorewood and the Department of Natural Resources, who share joint control. Currently R 1 regulations allow four boats, any combinations of motorized or not, to be moored to the dock, with a variable length of dock allowed to enable four boats to be moored. Canoes, rowboats, etc are classified by ordinance as "recreational moveable equipment" and as such are not limited by type and quantity and can be stored on Lot 11. We have used the dock continuously since we moved to our home in 1988. We share a boat with other stakeholders. This request is not unusual or unprecedented. There is another deeded access on the South side of Christmas Lake that allows four boats for neighbors who share a deeded access. The area of 5540 Shore Road that includes our deeded access and full lakeshore is currently staked out. We invite the Planning Commission to visit and view this area and see that docking four boats is an easy and reasonable request. For further information, we invited the Planning Commission to view our website at wNvw,lotl l.or, for the full history of the area. You will be able to view many pictures that demonstrate continuous use and sharing among the neighbors of our deeded access on Christmas Lake. In recent years we have new neighbors that share our deeded access and would like to use the dock to moor boats. Since there are so many property owners that share the deeded access who do not have lakefront property of their own, we think it only fair that the Shorewood Planning Commission honor the R I regulations that allow four boats. Sincerely, fir t- l ?rs 1' tchacl Coh e2J Mr. and Mrs. Michael Cohen 20640 Radisson Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 ooW« v- 0 r 2J �, % � '• / err'^^^ � � C � 4- � � s- LL ;l m 0 a ;: 0 ww ( a } mh . �- Xr'� ' • ``tip m o VO -� .__ % a \� i'� 1 =mil' •i �` � Jyi !2% S. � g � Z \ y J LL ___Q SniT O Ul J Q u N TAD and MARY SHAW 5580 Shore Road Shorewood, MN 55331 April 29, 2016 Mr. Brad Neilsen Planning Director City of Shorewood Dear Brad: I am concerned about the request for additional boat dockage at my neighboring lot, Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition. I am opposed to increasing the number of boats and increasing the already non- conforming use of the property. As one of the members of the city council when the owner of the lot, Mr. Ahern appeared to get a building permit, and the council turned him down, I was the council member who said the matter had to be decided by the courts, and the city shouldn't issue a building permit until the wording of the easement was cleared up. The matter was heard by the court, and the decision is what we have lived with for a number of years. I wish to testify before the planning commission as to this matter, and will speak in opposition. The length of shoreline does not allow more than two boats that are not owned by the property owner. At present, two boats are allowed. In recent years, there were four boats owned by easement holders, but they alternated placing them In the water so that there were only two boats docked at any one time. Most recently, three of the easement holders jointly purchased a boat, which they dock for most of the year on Lot 11's dock. I'll see you on Tuesday night. Sincerely, TAD SHAW My name is Gary Krebs and I live with my wife Nancy at 20555 Radisson Rd. We have been residents for the past 30 years and raised our family in this community. We are also lot eleven easement owners. We were involved in the inital six year law suit which ultimatly determined we had an easment running the full width of lot eleven 120 ft going back forty feet from the waters edge. This ruling by a district court referee was then approved by a district court judge and later after being appealed was reaffirmed by the minnesota appellate court. The minnesota supreme court refused to hear the case making the ruling final. The appellate court appeared to strengthen the inital settlement including added language referencing the use and maintence of a "dock or docks ". The city of Shorewood has already grandfathered in the dock on lot eleven. There are currently fourteen famlies who are easment owners. In the time I have lived here there have always been at least two boats on the dock and some years more than two . I currently share one of the boats with two other easment owners. All other docks on the lake are allowed four slips for one family. It would seem more than reasonable to allow four slips on the lot eleven dock since it involves fourteen families and there is 120 ft of shoreline exceeding the standard 100 ft minium by 20 ft. I do not see how this could cause a problem for the neighborhood when there has never been a problem in the past. As part of the inital lawsuit determining our easment rights we were able to prove to the court there has been a 75 year tradition of a dock and multiple recreational usage including boats on the lot eleven dock. We are reasonable people and we feel this is a reasonable request. We are asking the planning commission to look at the history and tradition of lot eleven and recommend four boat slips to be shared by fourteen families. Thank You the Krebs family 1 April 27, 2016 Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Brad, RE: Hennepin County PID361173220012, 5540 Shore Road, Lot 11 (Lot 11) We own property at 5550 Shore Road, part of Lot 5 and Lot 5A Hennepin County property ID numbers 3611723220003 and 3611723220005. We are east of Lot 11 with one property 5560 Shore Road between us and Lot 11. We are also listed as easement owners of Lot 11 per the prior Hennepin District Court Ruling. We have been in continuous summer residence since our family purchased the property in 1937, post the fire at Radisson Inn. We were recently advised of the request to increase the number of power boats at Lot 11 from 2 -4, made by some Lot 11 easement holders in January 2016. At that same time we received notice of a Hearing appealing Shorewood's negative ruling on the aforementioned requested increase on the number of power boats on Lot 11 from 2 -4. We are not in favor of an expansion of the number of power boats at this site and agree with the ruling. Recalling that this was a recreational site for a Resort until 1936, our original understanding of the easement (held by our grandfather) was that it was for a bathing beach for former Radisson Inn properties. In the modern history of the site there have been two power boats there. Based on the conversion of the legacy summer rental Radisson Inn properties to year round homes this is a densely populated area. While we have all enjoyed the community of this density it is a busy, noisy, crowded stretch of lakefront. Safety and easement holders access to the lake with a material swimming beach for all need to be considered. Lot 11 easement holders value their lake access rights, as we all do, but we do not think that putting more stress on the area with more power boats is an improvement to those values for the group or the neighborhood. We are aware of similar sentiments among others along this shoreline and hope for your consideration. We appreciate your consideration request that you share this information with the Hearing Board members at your earliest convenience prior to the meeting. If we need to contact them directly please let us know. We will be present, as available, at the meeting Monday. Sincerely, Resthaven LLC, M. Cathleen Leeper, N. Susan Seifert, Nancy Tietz, John Joyce, Richard Ulring, Sally Duran, Anne Joyce, Mark Joyce, Lisa Suhaney William D. Nittler Direct Dial: (612) 305.7559 Email: whittler @nilanjohnson.com April 29, 2016 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Excelsior, MN 55331 RE: Appeal of Zoning Determination, Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition Dear Mr. Nielsen: We write to express our support for your determination, as set forth in your correspondence of March 31, 2016 to Ms. Paula Callies, that the maximum number of boats that may be moored at the dock on Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition, is two. We agree with the statements and positions set forth in the letters to you of April 25, 2016 from Michael Wille and April 24, 2016 from Paul and Suzanne Cossette, the April 26, 2016 e -mail to you from Patrice and Paul Aubrecht, the April 28, 2016 letter from Joe and Kris Hayes. Rather than repeat those positions and comments, as the current owners of Lot l l we wish to offer our own perspective as to why your determination is correct and why the pending appeal should be denied. In 1972, Donna's family purchased the historical cabin at 20525 Radisson Road, just north of Lot 11. Her parents, Nick and Ginny Watz, Donna and her three siblings spent many decades as one of the easement owners enjoying the "recreational use" of Lot 11. For all of those years, we can confirm there have been only one or two motorized boats docked adjacent to Lot 11, and there was no contest about the number of boats until recently. In fact, to accommodate the longstanding position of only two boats, for many years several of the easement owners jointly owned one pontoon boat that was docked on Lot 11. The easement rights of "recreational use" of Lot 11 meant enjoying time on the shoreline /beach front rather than the mooring of boats. Most recently, for over 10 years the prior owners of Lot 11, Michael and Leslie Wille, maintained one pontoon boat on Lot 11 while the easement owners shared the second boat docking there. We had been advised and fully understood for many years that being an easement owner on Lot 11 did not provide or guarantee us a right to keep a boat on Lot I I as part of our recreational use of the beachfront. Last year, we purchased Lot 11 in the hopes of maintaining peaceful community and historical perspective for this special lot that has been a part of our family's history. Our view, as supported by many others, is that allowing four boats to be moored on Lot 11 would significantly change the use of Lot 11 in a way that is inconsistent with the original intent of the easement. As 4810 -7574 -7377 Mr. Bradley Nielsen April 29, 2016 Page 2 owners of Lot 11, we pay the property taxes and maintain the property in a way that adds to the benefit of all of our neighbors. While we respectfully acknowledge the easement rights of certain parties who own homes nearby, we do not support the establishment of what could constitute a marina on our property. Recreational use, in ouropinion, does not justify an interpretation of the City ordinances and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances to a level that would detrimentally affect Christmas Lake and the residents there. We appreciate the opportunity to submit our concerns on this petition and appeal. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information. Respectfully, Donna Watz/Bill Hittler e 4810 -7574 -7377 April 28, 2016 Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Brad, We are writing concerning the appeal to the Zoning Determination -Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition P.I.N. 36- 117 -23 -22 -0012. We reside at 5560 Shore Road. We share a property line with the east side of Lot 11 and the entrance for the easement is next to our home. We were dismayed to recently learn that a group of easement holders have requested an expansion of moored boats on Lot 11. We fully support your enforcement of the code and believe that expansion of easement holder rights beyond the code will ultimately lead to a degradation of Lot 11 and become a nuisance for our neighborhood, and for those homes adjacent to Lot 11. That many boats on that small lot will have a variety of negative consequences: • Additional water traffic and noise next to our shoreline. • Additional parking pressures on the extremely narrow Shore Road. • The lot will lose its residential feel and will take on the aspect of a marina. • The doubling of boats will only increase the safety hazard in our cramped area. Our family has summered on this property since the late 30's when my grandfather purchased it from Radisson Inn. Since 1985 our family has resided on this property year round, first my parents, now us. In that time, we have only witnessed one dock with one or two motorized boats moored on Lot 11 at any one time. In conclusion, we strongly object to any increase in the number of boats moored at Lot 11 and support the rejection of the appeal. We appreciate your consideration of our concern. Regards, Joe and Kris Hayes 5560 Shore Road Shorewood, MN 55331 952 - 334 -9909 11FILE COPY Brad Nielsen From: Aaron [aaronspeterson @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2016 9:02 PM To: Brad Nielsen Subject: Lot 11 non conforming use meeting Brad, I may not be able to attend the meeting on Tuesday regarding lot 11 and the clarification /appeal of boat mooring. As part of the 11 easement and nearby neighbor I would like to express my agreement with your assessment that a non conforming variance can not be expanded on. I guess the bottom line is I oppose any change that would increase boat mooring from 2 boats to 4 boats on lot 11. Thank you for taking my opinion into consideration. Regards, Aaron Peterson 29595 Radisson Rd. 1 From: Nicola Peterson [nicola.peterson83 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 11:02 AM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: Aaron Subject: Christmas Lake easement - lot 11 Hi Brad, I hope this email finds you well. I wanted to write a quick note regarding the meeting tonight on the easement for lot 11 on Christmas Lake. As you know, Aaron and I are new to the neighborhood and want to be supportive of everyone's interests. While we are part of lot 11, we don't use it as of now and don't necessarily see ourselves utilizing it much in the future. However, we want to be sensitive to our neighbors' concerns that 4 boats there could be problematic with unsupervised children, noise, and overall boat traffic. We also understand the desire for neighbors to have boats there and that everyone wants to enjoy the beauty of the lake. One suggestion that Aaron and I discussed (and again I preface this with the utmost humility as we don't fully understand the history of lot 11), is possibly a boat lottery for the 2 boat spots each season. This seems like it would hopefully be fair for everyone to have their turn to keep a boat there, but also keep the boat limit at 2. We are hoping to make the meeting tonight, but with this nice weather, Aaron has been planting the fields around the clock trying to get everything in the ground. With three kids under 4, I'm not sure if it'd be helpful to bring them on my own to the meeting as you can probably imagine! I did want to share our two cents though as the planning commission is deliberating. Thank you for your time and consideration! All the best, Nicola Peterson 20595 Radisson Road Sent from my iPhone file:/ //S! / ... a/User %20Data/Planning/ 2016 %20CilRRENT %20CASES /Lot %2011/ Resident %20Correspondence / Peterson %201tr %205- 03- 16.txt[5/3/2016 3:33:27,PM] bnielsen 20435 Radisson Road Shorewood, MN 55331 612- 280 -3647 lessiberchild @gmail.com steveberchild @gmail.com May 2, 2016 Brad Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Brad Nielsen: We are Lot 11 easement owners, residing at 20435 Radisson Road. We are fairly new to the neighborhood, having moved to our current residence in August of 2014. We are writing in support of the recent discussion and pending decision to allow four boats on the dock on Lot 11. Though we have not had the history with Lot 11 that many easement owners share, we do understand it to be a very unique and special place that we would like for our family to be able to fully enjoy as others have through the years. We do not believe that adding just two more boats to the dock will in any way distract from opponents' enjoyment of the lake. We do however, think that it adheres to the policies of the city. We take great pride in our ability to utilize such a beautiful lake and intend to support the betterment of the lake and the neighborhood through its use. Please kindly consider the good intent of those of us requesting additional dock space. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jessi and Steve Berchild MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: Tim Keane, City Attorney DATE: April 29, 2016 RE: Zoning Determination — Lot 11, Radisson In Addition This memorandum is in response to your inquiry relating to an appeal of the zoning administrator's determination as to the maximum number of boats that may be moored at Lot 11, Radission In Addition. My review of this appeal is based upon: (1) your determination dated March 31, 2016; (2) the appeal of zoning administrator's determnination submitted by Paula A. Callies dated April 12, 2016 with attachments; and (3) all applicable regulations of the City of Shorewood and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Setting aside the long and somewhat contentious history relating to Lot 11, I agree with your determination that the question of dock usage is ultimately controlled by City of Shorewood code of regulations, Section 1201.03 Subd. 14. b., which provides: "b. Docks and wharves, permanent or floating, shall not be built, used or occupied on land located within the R Districts until a principal dwelling has been constructed on the lot or parcel." You conclude that because there is no principal dwelling on the subject property, a dock of any kind is a nonconforming use. I agree. While the dock which has been located on the subject property for establishment of legal nonconforming use, such nonconformity may not be expanded or intensified. Should you have any questions please contact me at (612) 334 -5015. cc: Bill Joynes, City Administrator ATTACHMENT V City Attorney's Memorandum 4821- 4627 - 8449.1 May 2 2016 Shot•ewood Planning Coaianmssion Shorewood C "ity Council Ro', Lot 11 C'hristz»as Lake= AMI(c,il tyf A mii)istrative Decision Dear Commissioner.,; and Cite Council Members: I have had clone additional research aml am stibmitthig this letter in support of our appeal of the Zoning Adiniaaistrat.or's det(-�raniaaation. Because the City of Shorewood doe ,s not havo jurisdiction over Ch- ristuiras'Lake, there is no legal basis for the Ztraaii -i fldna iiiistra�tior' a doci.,s:ioaa ita this matter On behalf of the State, the DNR has juri :dictimi over public waters in Miunesota aaa7der Minn. Stat. Ch. 10:3 A-103C1, Christmas Lake is desi noted as a public water under Ch.103C1. The City of homwood does not, have_ authority, near jurisdiction to re ulra.te the use of surface waters, inclucliaag but, not 110Ccs'Sarily limited tea, the nuinber and type of boats and docks on Christmas Lake. The City's zoning regulations stop tit, the shoreline. Pursuant to 1Vlinnesota Rule 6120.3200, local r epilations nvast receive prior approval ofthe DNR to b .effective. The DNR, maintGtins a summary of local restrictions that have beeaa approved coil :enihig lMimiesotaa lake acid river vise. f5ee, , �v.�v.clnt [a,it ann.iaa�fr,y ulaattctaasiiacaat. «oat r. The only regulations that have jeez approved for Christmas Lake relate to water skiing, not boats and docks. Accordiaag to LMC'D Code Section 1.02, the LMCD regulcat,ioris were a.d,opft,)d in order to implement the statutory rosponsibilitio; established by the Mitmesotaa looslature in 11967. The legi<,laatare oreatted the LMCD and specifically authorized it to establish regulatioias for Lake Minne.tcank<a, aas provided by .Minn. Stat. §10311.601' through §103B.645, The legis:lattare did iiot authorise the extension oflLMCD regulations to. apply to other publics water bodies, nor allow a city to unilaterally adopt its own regulation; over public waters. There is no legislative authorilw for the City of Shorewood to decay the Applie.ti ;ats request fear 4 boats at the Legit 11 (locyk hi this caise. They decision of the Zoning Adaiaaaiist.r,ator zaa this matter should be overturned. Thank you for your eonsidgroticsia, Paula A. Caallies 20465 liatd isson'Road nL,,, MEMORANDUM CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • NvNvw.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall &i.sborewood.mmus TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 3 June 2016 . RE: Lot 11 Appeal —Legal Opinions FILE NO. 405 (16.07) Having received additional information just before the 3 May meeting regarding the issue of docks on Lot 11 (see Exhibit A, attached), the Planning Commission continued the matter to 7 June in order to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney. Since then we have received the following correspondence (attached): Exhibit B Letter from Scott Smith, attorney for the property owners, dated 13 May 2016 Exhibit C Response letter from appellant attorney, Paula Callies, dated 2 June 2016 Exhibit D City Attorney's opinion, dated 2 June 2016 Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Paula Callies May 2, 20I Shorewood Planni —ng Commission Shorewood City C'oianCil Re,* Lot 1.1 Chriwtznay Lake =,k a}�e tl taf Acl ninistrcttivc Decision Dear Coin miss ion ers and C'itly Council Members: 1 have had done aaddit;ional reseaarch aand am submitting t"W'sletter in support of' our appeal of the Zoning -Administrator's detoranin atioaX... Because the Cit.), of Shorewood dons not have jurisdiction over Christmas Lake, there is no legal basis for the Zonin- Administrator's clew ision iaa this matter On behalf of the State, the DNR has jurisdiction over public waters in 1lflintaa ; ota- under Mina. . Stet. Ch, 103A- 10.3(1. Christmas Lake is designated as a pubhe wafter under C IAA03Ct. The City of Shorewood does not have authority, nor jurisdiction to regulate the us {' of surface waters, including but not necessarily limited to, tbo number and type of boats and docks on C "hristmah Lake. The City's zoning regulations 8top at the shorel.i.ne. Pursuaaaat, to Minnesota Rule 6120,3200, local regulations must receive prior approval .of the DNR to lacy affective, The DNR maintains as summary of local restrictions that. have been aapprove(d concerning ing .11`.Tin esota lake and liver use. x56e, WWw.char.8katoi ill n ,X1sh"o- ill;at.ion,/bo.at-\v itf >i-.'l`he only regulat.ions't.h €at have been approved for Christmas Lake relate to watts skiaaa.{;, not boats and docks. According to L11t1.0 D Code Section I .t) 2, t.lae L WC D regulal ions were adopted in order to ia>,plc yeah the st.attit,ory ros.Ponsibilities established lay the N innesota legislature in 1967, The lc:gisl ature created the. LMC'D and specifically authorized it to establish regulations for Lake} Minnetonka, as provide([ by Minn. Stat. §10313,601 through §1()313.045. The legislature- slid not. authorize the extension of LAICID regulations to apple to other public water bodies, nor pillow as city to umilatelally adopt -its own rogulabons over public waters. There is no legislative authority for the City of Shorewood to deny the Applicants' request ffor =1 boats at the Lot 1.1 (dock in this cease. The decision of the Zoning AGlaaainist.rtator in this matter shou.Id bo overturned. Thank you for your consideraltion, Paula A. Ctalhe 20465 Rtadisso`b Road Exhibit A y� may. SWTH'i LEGAL PUG Liui 2 io ll iit)d ;7Cwm il[t_' t?l.lh( kt �C "t �t1( L ,iSI'�'t'i'� �ltl�_� l��i \1' hlr lwl May 13, 2016 Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Appeal of Zoning Determination, Radisson Iran Addition, Lot 11 Dear Mr. Nielsen: I am an attorney representing Bill Hittler and Donna Watz, the fee owners of Lot 11, in connection with the pending appeal referenced above. They are among the many property owners affected by the present appeal who received no notice until just a few days before the May 3, 2016 public hearing of (1) Appellants' January 7, 2016 request to allow four boats on the Lot 1 I dock, (2) the City's March 31, 2016 rejection of that request, or (3) Appellants' April 12, 2016 appeal thereof. While Bill and Donna did submit written comments to you on April 29, Paula Callies' supplemental letter to you dated May 2 and several of the oral comments made during the May 3 hearing raise new and important concerns. Because the May 3 hearing was continued, my clients wish to address those concerns so that the Planning Commission may be fully informed of their position on them before its next meeting. 1. The City Is Expressly Authorized By Statute To Regulate The Number Of Water -crab Aloored Or Docked On Lakefront Lots Situated On Christmas Lake Including Lot of 11 In correspondence to the Shorewood Planning Commission and Shorewood City Council dated May 2, 2016, Ms. Callies incorrectly asserts that, ostensibly due to an absence of legislative authority, "the City of Shorewood does not have authority nor jurisdiction to regulate ... the number and type of boats and docks on Christmas Lake."' To the contrary, Minn. Stat. § 412,221, subd. 12 plainly empowers the City to "to establish harbor and dock limits and by ordinance regulate the location, construction and use of piers, docks, wharves, and boat houses on navigable waters ...." (Emphasis added.) The Minnesota Supreme Court agrees. Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117, 121 (Minn. 1984) ( "Minn. Stat. Sec. 412.221, subd. 12 (1982) . .. [gives] Orono the power to regulate docks. . . by municipal ordinance of the location and length, as well as other reasonable regulations of docks extending into Lake Minnetonka ... "). The Planning Commission's determination to limit to two the number of watercraft that may 1 Notably, Ms. Callies took the exact opposite position in her January 7, 2016 letter to you at 2: The specific number ofdocks, slips and boats on the easement is subject to applicable regulations, including City of Shorewood ordinances. See January 6, 1992 Examiner's Report, pp. 4 -5 and Court of Appeals decision, p. 10. (Emphasis added.) Exhibit B Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen May 13, 2016 Page 2 of 5 moor or dock at Lot 11 is well within the powers expressly granted to the City by the Minnesota Legislature and affirmed by the Minnesota Supreme Court. 11. The Maximum Number Of Watercraft That May Be Legally Moored Or Docked At The Lot 11 Dock, As Established By Long- Standing City Ordinances, Is Two Appellants' primary argument is that City Code section 1201.03, subd. 14(c), "allows" property owners on Christmas Lake to keep four watercraft at a single dock. See, e.g., Appellants' correspondence of April 12, 2016 at 3 ( "city code section 1201. 03, subd. 14 (c) ... states that four boats are allowed "). Accordingly, Appellants contend, the City has no authority to limit the number of boats mooring at Lot 11 to two. This argument misinterprets and ignores the City Code ordinances and violates accepted principles of legislative construction and interpretation. Within Shorewood, two separate ordinances regulate the number of boats that may moor at docks extending into Christmas Lake. The first is section 2.02, subd. 1 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code, which the City has expressly adopted by reference as part of the City Code; see sect. 1201.03, subd. 14(g) ( "Unless specified otherwise in the city zoning code, all docks on all lakes shall comply with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances "). In pertinent part, section 2.02, subd. 1 of the LMCD Code provides: General Rule. No docks or mooring areas shall be constructed, established or maintained that provide space for or are used for mooring or docking a greater number of restricted watercraft than one for each 50 feet of continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978.... For sites with continuous shoreline greater than 100 feet, when measurements determining the number of restricted watercraft allowed result in the provision of a fractional restricted watercraft, any fraction up to and including one -half (112) shall be disregarded, and fractions over one -half (1/2) shall be counted as one additional restricted watercraft. (Emphasis added.) Lot 11 contains approximately 115 feet of continuous shoreline. Accordingly, in accordance with section 2.02, subd. 1, only two watercraft may moor or dock on the Lot 11 dock? The second ordinance is City Code sect. 1201.03, subd. 14(c). Appellants interpret that ordinance as allowing the mooring of four boats on the Lot 11 dock. (See, e.g., January 7, 2016 Ietter at 3; April 12, 2016 letter at 3). That interpretation is demonstrably incorrect. On its face, subd. 14(c) creates a four -boat upper limit that may moor on a given dock, and not a blanket allowance of four boats regardless of the length of shoreline involved: 2 The definition of "moored or docked" is found at LCMD Code, subd. 8. In essence, the Lot 11 dock would be in violation of section 2.02, subd. 1 if more than two watercraft are moored, docked, anchored or otherwise secured to the Lot 11 dock for any period of time on three or more calendar days in any 14 -day period. Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen May 13, 2016 Page 3 of 5 The number of restricted watercraft ... that may be docked or moored on a single property is limited to four. (Emphasis added.) Asa matter of law, wherever possible statutes and regulations are to be harmonized so as to give meaning and effect to both. Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1; General Drivers, Local No. 346 v. Aitkin County Board, 320 N. W.2d 695, 708 (Minn. 1982). Were Appellants correct in their reading of subd. 14(c), the City's adoption of LMCD Code section 2.02, subd. 1 would be rendered meaningless; by Appellants' argument, owners of a lot in Shorewood with as little as ten feet of Christmas Lake shoreline would be entitled to moor four boats there. The only reasonable construction of the City Code, giving effect to both provisions, is that owners of Shorewood properties on Christmas Lake may permissibly moor no more than one watercraft for every 50 feet of continuous shoreline (rounded up or down as allowed by LMCD Code sect. 2.02, subd. 1), with an upper limit of four watercraft for any property having more than 200 feet of continuous shoreline. Far from arbitrary, this construction reasonably balances and fosters the City's legitimate governmental interests in protecting the safety and welfare of those who use Christmas Lake for recreational purposes and the right of lakeshore residents to the quiet enjoyment of their properties. Finally, Appellants contend that the City may allow up to four watercraft to dock or moor at Lot 11 in conformity with LMCD Code sect. 2.02, subd. 3. That argument also fails. Among other things, that provision requires either (1) "one, and no more than one, single family residential structure on the site," or, (2) if there is no residential structure on the site, "common ownership and unified use" of a property "adjoin[ing] the site." Id., subd. 3(a). Neither condition is satisfied; there is no residential structure on Lot 11, and Appellants have no "common ownership and unified use" of any property adjoining Lot 11. For these reasons, allowing four boats to moor on the Lot 11 dock is prohibited by the City Code — regardless of whether or not the current dock is a non - confirming use under the City's zoning ordinances, or whether Appellants' request for four boats on Lot 11 would constitute an expansion of a non - confirming use.3 The City cannot violate its own ordinances. III. There Is No "Grandfathered" Right To Moor Four Watercraft At The Lot 11 Dock The preceding analysis also demonstrates the error in comments offered during the public hearing that some unexplained "grandfathered" right to moor four boats at Lot 11 exists. As a factual matter, the overwhelming weight of public comment offered prior to and at the public hearing demonstrates that, historically and at present, the status quo vis -a -vis the Lot 11 dock is two boats, not four. See, e.g., .written comments of Joe and Kris Hayes (in 30 years, never more than one or two motorized boats on Lot 11 dock at any one time), Tad Shaw (easement holders alternated docking their boats there or shared ownership so that no more than two boats were docked there), Patrice and Paul Albrecht (adjacent landowners, never seen more than two boats docked at Lot 11 in 31 years), and Michael Wille (never more than two boats moored at Lot 11 3 That said, my clients agree with your determination that the current use of the dock on Lot 11 is non - conforming and that the City is obligated not to expand that non - conforming use. Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen May 13, 2016 Page 4 of 5 dock during the 15 years he owned Lot 11); also, oral comments at hearing from Suzanne Cossette (never seen more than two boats permanently moored at Lot 11 dock), Kris Hayes ( "historical practice" of only two boats on Lot 11 dock), Patrice and Paul Albrecht (recalling occasion where citation was issued for having a third boat at Lot 11 dock), and Ann Joyce (no recollection of more than two boats at Lot 11 dock at any time). Regardless, given the facts that (1) Shorewood has regulated dock use since 1987, when the current City Code was enacted, and (2) the Lot 11 dock was constructed in 1998, no possible "grandfathered" right to moor four boats at Lot 11 can exist; such a use of the Lot I 1 dock would have violated the City Code from the first day the dock was put in the lake. N. The Rights Of The Current Owners OfLot 11 To Use The Dock And The Lakeshore Stem From Their Fee Ownership, Not The Easement Finally, during the public hearing and in follow -up questions from the Commissioners, certain comments were made regarding the rights of Bill and Donna to the use and enjoyment of the Lot I 1 dock and lakeshore. Because some of those comments were not entirely accurate, a brief response is necessary. The right of the fee owners of Lot 11 to occupy, use and enjoy all of Lot 11, including the dock and the "hockey stick" easement area, is vested in them by their ownership of the fee interest to Lot 11 and their historical use of the dock. Though Bill and Donna are also easement holders by virtue of their ownership of the adjoining lot, unlike the other easement holders they also own the real property which is encumbered by the easement. While Bill and Donna fully recognize and respect the easement holders' rights to reasonable access to and use of the "hockey stick" easement area, it is incorrect to state that the rights and obligations of Bill and Donna on the one hand, and Appellants on the other, are "equal" vis -a -vis the Lot 11 dock and lakefront, or that neither is "superior" to the other. Those rights and obligations are different in character and spring from the different legal interests each holds in the "hockey stick." Equally incorrect is Appellants' apparent suggestion that the easement holders "occupy" Lot 11 (see January 7, 2016 letter at 2) and therefore should be considered the equivalent of property owners for purposes of City Code 1201.03, subd. 14(c). Given that the City Code provisions recited above limit the number of watercraft that may be moored to the Lot 11 dock to two, no matter whether the Lot 11 dock is conforming or non - conforming, the argument is of no moment. Regardless, the plain language of the easement limits the easement holders' property rights to "access to the beach area, the use of the beach area, and for construction, maintenance and use of dock extending from the shore line of Lot 11 into Christmas Lake and general recreational purposes associated with the use of the beach area and dock ...." Appellants possess no right to "occupy" the "hockey stick" area of Lot 11, nor do they enjoy any other property interest beyond that provided by the plain language of the easement. Because neither the fee owners nor the easement holders may unreasonably burden the other's property interests, the Lot I 1 fee owners and the easement holders have historically each kept one boat moored to the Lot 1 I dock at any given time, in conformity with the overall limit of two. In the case of the easement holders' mooring, at times the easement holders have rotated Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen May 13, 2016 Page 5 of 5 different boats, owned by different individuals, into and out of their allocated mooring; at other times, the easement holders have shared ownership in a single boat. That has transpired without objection from the Lot 11 fee owners. Similarly, the fee owners of Lot 11 have owned and moored the second boat there for decades, again without objection by the easement holders. Regardless, however Appellants may propose to allocate the use of the easement holders' single mooring, the long - standing history of use of the Lot 11 dock entitles Bill and Donna, by virtue of their fee ownership of Lot 11 and not the easement, to the second mooring. As such, they are not subject to whatever allocation process Appellants might propose. Thank you for your consideration of these additional comments. Sly, -- Scott A. Sniith`_�_" cc: Shorewood City Attorney Paula Callies (on behalf of all Appellants) Bill Hittler and Donna Watz 5"YXI li °'a}; °rst,t Itle�,.i, � `"iiitc WOO - N- illm-'aphs; Ail`'? 55,111; June 2, 20143 Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Direutor /7oninw Adnlinist•nator City of Shorewood 5755 County Club Rottd Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Lot 11 Chri -Q,mas Lake— Ao )coil of Aclrninistrwt Le i)eeisiau Derr Commissioncgrti qnd ('ity Council itIellibers: 1 am writing in rvsponse to 1,11e 13, 2016 letter of Scott Slllil�,h who is representhig Bill 1 -tit t.ler and Donna Waz. PaUla A. Callies (763)546 -802(r Nothing in i1'll'.Smith's let:tr change + the conelut tons stated In ill`' correspondence dated May 2, 2016 ;jud appeal d.oculnellLs. 1 will not repeat my prior Coil) nlents, taut am responding at this tirue to specific errr)rs by Mr, Smith. First. the core of 14,'(?1512 11. Cib of'CJr(..o, 3t�5 N.N17.2-d 117 Q\,linn.lt)M -) is not o11 point: to the issuer before the t y' of Shorewood concernilig the Lot 1.1. dock. The 1101dirlg of Ole. 14,olsh case is t:b at Orono has no uthority t.o regulate dre(i„ ing in L;:1ke Minnet•onka lit- ?cause Ole UNR has exclusivo juris(lic ilior_a ovt�r clreclf,Tint; irl 1)uhl.ic. waters, �1�llile the c�olu t in 1,lreh�lj cornrllent.eci, as 4111 ,:aside, that under Afi11n. Stott §4 12,221, subd.l2 t1 city has a 9etter"11 poNvt r t -o establish harbor and clock limits anti to regulate (locks, the deeision in Rlelsh li ad not,h -ing to do with the into r•pltay of MR Rules and LMC.D regulations. This fact rem ns that under Mimiesota Rule 6120.3200, local regulations must receive prior approval from the DNR to bo effective and Shorewood h'-Is not doll(? so. Moreover, Christmas L,_1ke is not self-contained within the jurisdiction of Shc ro ood, It: is against the public int,ere.m (i)1, Shorewood t.O impose its regulations such that wllat is perrnit,t,ed at one dock may not he permitted across the lake in Chanhassen, or vice v(,r`!a. ��k ?[?, iY/f S' ()1 1�1rC'11 i•r'(1t_)C1 1,1'!lkwo— v.. ?ll)rf_-'.ti, 576 N.W.2d 4,558, 462 (Minn. Ct,. App. 1998). Second, the cr1'CtrmsiarlCSE ' ti 411r'r'oltnd111 Lot 11 and t-he (lock shared by the easement, owi)ers tare unique and very unlikely t:o be rcplic-4lted. There is ti lone; history est;ablishint; the recreational use and clock on Lot 11 going; back to the 1930's, Mr. Exhibit C Bradley,), Nielsen June 2. 2016 Pag,e Two Smith tries to paint, a drastic "slippel;y slope " argument 1ay asserting that allowing d boats on the Lot. 11. dock would mean that, even property owners with ,-Is litt,lci ns ICi feet, of shoreline could moor 4 boasts on a:! dock. This is simply not true. To my knowledge, there is not aanot•her situation oll Chrishims Lake similar to the historic, leg- all;i° established-easement of Lot, 11, nor will there be. This case i ;Brat. as t, re to the privaite property right,, of lakes limo owners. The Lot. 1 l easement owners have jast als Duch right, to the quiet ain(] peaceful enjoyment, of Christmas Lake as do the laakeshore residents who seek, to control the public waiters for their exclusive private Ilse. '1'lie implication by Mr. SmAh that the City of Shorewood has a day to protect. the Iakoshore residents from how tilt :' "off-lake" i',t soment; owners lase Christmas Lake is offensives and unwarranted, Third, the csxi.stii7ri docsk i; n1eyely oiaey of,a. series of cicicslt : t.hrit, has continuously been in existence on Lot 11 since at least 1940. Mr. Smith erroneously staates that. the dock was first., constructed in 1993, It goes without saying that. a dock does 1lot last forever and must be replaced. Assuming that the Lett, 11 dock is considered +` non -conforming "), 1lflinnosot,u law specifically allows a non-conforming use to he continued th l{ an rough repair, replacement., restoration, maienonce or iin prove inent 5) Minn. Start. §462.357, SubdJo. Nor is it correct., as Mr. Smith states, that the "overwbohning weight" of public comment ;supports the position that 2 beats should be allowed. Nine separate households, comprising 1t8 a.dult:s, signed the aippc�al in this platter, regaardless if not all spokiy again tit the p1i131ic hi?ai "ing. Finally, the issue of how the easoment owners allocate boat slips to the Lot 11 diki`1�. anaont 51 theill4elvr'w is not at fall ri31(!vaatat to tI1C' C1t,y of Shorewor d's determination in this mat or. COntrary to 111% Smith's assertions, the easement owners of this appeal have always and continuously ob,jecst.ed to elaiiins by the underlying land owners of Lot: 11 thin they somehow own specdal or pre-eminent, lights over the dock and 0 3se"Ient, as compared to the eaa senio It owners. Sincerely, L'aaula A. Ca e;; cc: Scott. A. Smith Shorewood City Attorney Scott. Zerhy, Mayor Appeal Easonient• Owners MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: Tim Keane, City Attorney DATE: June 2, 2016 RE: Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition This memorandum is in response to your inquiry relating to the zoning administrator determination that a maximum of two boats are permitted on the dock located contiguous to Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition. Discussion The issue in the present case is the number of boats allowed to be moored at Lot 11, Radisson Inn Addition. Lot 11 presently exists as a vacant lot. Lot 11 is subject to an easement that allows several other lot owners within Radisson Inn Addition to use a portion of Lot 11 for recreational purposes. Recreational use of property is not a permitted, accessory or conditionally use in the R -1C /S District. Therefore, the current use of Lot 11 is nonconforming. As a nonconforming use, the current dock configuration is a legal nonconforming use subject to the limitations of Shorewood City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 14. The City of Shorewood shoreline and shoreland regulations were submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ( "DNR "). After extensive review, by way of letter dated January 2, 1997, the DNR conditionally approved the City's land use controls. (\ nnnlncinn Based upon my review of the record, the Shorewood City Code, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code, the correspondence in this matter and the additional supporting documents included in the record, I support the March 31, 2016, deterinination of the Zoning Administrator. 4849- 8156- 9585.1 Exhibit D J. Paul & Carol J. Seifert 5515 Radisson Entrance – Shorewood, MN 55331 612.490.1885 pseifert@mchsi.com June 4, 2016 City of Shorewood – Planning Commission Thank you again for your role in defining the appropriate recreational uses and guidelines for the majority of Lot 11 easement owners. And once again I apologize that these meetings and discussions did not take place 20 years ago, immediately after the favorable District and Appellate court decisions, when the neighborhood, including the current owner of Lot 11, was over 80% united on the court’s opinion. In simple language, what were the highlights of the court decisions? -Easement rights over the entire portion of Lot 11 were reduced from the full portion, ~ 15,000 square feet to ~ 6,000 square feet and this reduction was careful to include the full portion of the lake shore, ~ 120 feet, signaling to all and affirming that the original intent of the easement was for “full” recreational uses and access to Christmas Lake. -It addressed the issue of multiple docks and advised that local government would control the appropriate dock number -The Appellate Court affirmed, specific to “recreational uses”, that the District Court “was proper in admitting extrinsic evidence of the original intent of the easement”. A quick review of our website, Lot11.org, shows photographic court exhibits, (extrinsic evidence), of all sorts of recreational uses on Lot 11, on the beach and in the water of Christmas Lake, including multiple restrictive watercraft moored on the dock What’s changed? The simple answer is everything and the continued trends of entitlement. Beginning with the Ahern ownership, easement owners united in resisting his efforts to develop…build a home on Lot 11. The successful District and Appellate court decisions favorable to easement owners ended his efforts. Ten years later the Wille family, with full knowledge of the existing court decisions, purchased Lot 11 for ~$70,000, and almost immediately begin a process of trying to control and limit easement owner’s recreational uses and to elevate themselves to “privilege” by claiming that the owner of Lot 11 has an exclusive right to one of the boat moorings on the Lot 11 dock. Attorneys and the City of Shorewood were involved in the restoration of all easement owners’ rights and the denial of owner special privileges. Recently, the Watz/Hittler family purchased Lot 11 for over $200,000 and again, almost immediately, began their unique process of trying to control and limit easement owner’s recreational uses. Additionally, the Watz/Hittler family, as owners of Lot 11, refused to apply to the City of Shorewood for a variance, which almost certainly would be granted and thus enabling four boats on the dock. Finally, the Watz/Hittler family, working carefully and socially with some neighbors, has united a group in opposition to the majority of “land locked” easement owners, pushing an agenda of two boats and not four. Summarizing: -1940 easement creation with over 30 property titles carrying the original easement language -1994 after both court opinions, 20 titles carrying the new, revised easement language Of the 20 unique titles, their breakdown includes: -19 unique properties, of these… - 6 properties with direct lake access, all in opposition to 4 boats, leaving… -13 properties, all land locked easement owners, and of these… - 9 properties are united in favor of 4 boats…a substantial majority Sincerely, J. Paul & Carol J. Seifert ® 9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title/Subject: Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for Trail Clearing Equipment Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Attachments State Contract Proposals Policy Consideration: Should the City Council Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for Trail Maintenance Equipment? Background: In 2015, the Public Works Department had scheduled, within the 2015 —2019 Capital Improvement Program (CIP), $150,000 for what is known as a "Trackless" machine for the clearing of ice and snow from the trails, as shown in Attachment 1. Trackless machines have been the machine of choice for many communities, due to their maneuverability and narrow width. After much debate it was still difficult for staff to expend that amount of money (approximately what it costs for a plow truck) for a machine that would be utilized for only four months out of the year. Therefore, staff began to explore options to determine how this type of machine could be better utilized. Staff considered optional equipment for the Trackless unit, such as a mower or flail attachment with hopes of this setup replacing the agricultural tractor and flail mower that is also slated for replacement. This type of configuration is also shown in attachment 1. Staff went so far as to have a demo unit brought out late in the year last year, to be able to put this configuration to the test. Unfortunately, the mowing trial failed miserably. Therefore, staff never followed through with this purchase in 2015. After considerable research, staff was able to find another machine that appears to accomplish what is needed, while leaving the door wide open for year round use. The other good news is that this machine is considerably less expensive from the original machine. This machine is what is known as a "MultiOne Loader" and is offered under the Minnesota State Contract. Minnesota State Statute allows municipalities to take advantage of the State and County bidding processes that are of record, if the municipality is a member of the Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV). The City of Shorewood is a CPV member, and is allowed to take advantage of the discounts that the State and County agencies receive due to the volume discounts. 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 Attachment 2 to this memorandum depicts a photo of the MultiOne Loader. This machine has approximately 180 attachments to make this a year round machine. It is articulated to provide the needed maneuverability, and is narrow enough to fit on the trails that are in Shorewood. In addition to the unit, staff is seeking authorization to purchase the following attachments for the unit: • Broom -to be utilized for clearing trails, walks and rinks • Blower—to be utilized for trail clearing • Dirt Bucket—for loading materials, similar to a skid steer • Cab—for winter conditions • Turf Tires—to be utilized to pull equipment for the artificial turf field Attachment 3 to this memorandum are the proposals for the equipment and attachments. The State Contract Pricing for the Unit with attachments is shown below, in Table 1. Description Amount MultiOne Loader w/Cab $ 54,927.28 Low Profile Dirt Bucket $ 956.25 48" Broom $ 3,621.00 48" Snow Blower $ 5,554.75 Grand Total $ 65,059.28 Table 1 Financial or Budget Considerations: As mentioned earlier, $150,000 had been budgeted in 2015 for this machine that was never expended. Therefore, adequate funds are present in the Equipment Replacement fund for this equipment purchase. A separate financial summary of the Equipment Replacement Fund will be provided by the Finance Director, under separate cover. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff is recommending approval of a motion that authorizes the expenditure of funds from the equipment replacement fund in the amount of $65,059.28. iYlfse ' M v l y1 _� r*y1� 7 _ 4 I I r �, ■ �r 1 1•} i I I 7 ■ I f1 R ■t r• �• �IJf F• r L � f F .�J 1 ' ! � • �� 1 �- - f Y I• T � 1 I 1 rI 1 •1 • i �I L L L SEW jr MT Trackless Unit oft ■ 1 TRACKLESS MT BOOM FLAIL ATTACHMENT 1 City of Shorewood, Minnesota Capital Improvement Program 2015 thru 2019 PROJECT'S BY FUNDING SOURCE Source Project# Priority 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Total !F02-Park Improvements Gideon Glen Signage&Parking Lot P0003 5 25,000 25,000 Freeman Plaza P0100 5 5,000 5,000 Freeman North Playground Equipment P0102 4 55,000 55,000 Freeman Parking Lot w/MCWD P0103 5 50,000 50,000 Freeman Ball Field Lights P0104 5 75,000 75,000 Freeman-Waterline for Community Garden P0111 4 8,000 8,000 Cathcart Park-Resurface Tennis/Basketball Courts P0200 1 6,500 7,000 13,500 Cathcart Park Hockey Boards P0201 3 40,000 40,000 Cathcart Park Tot Lot P0202 5 50,000 50,000 Badger Park-Phase 1 P0300 3 577,000 577,000 Badger Park Tennis Courts P0301 2 8,000 8,000 16,000 Badger Park-Phase 2 P0302 n/a 747,000 747,000 Silverwood Park-Resurface 1/2 court P0500 2 2,000 2,500 4,500 Silverwood Park Equipment P0501 3 60,000 60,000 Silverwood Park Swing Set P0502 3 14,000 14,000 Skate Park Rehab P0600 3 75,000 75,000 402-Park Improvements Total 618,500 862,000 113,000 202,500 19,000 1,815,000 1403-Equipment Replacement Fund UTV-replace unit 34 034 5 20,000 20,000 Sweeper-replace unit 46 046 5 4,000 4,000 Flatbed-4 x 2 Replace unit 49 049 5 44,000 44,000 Trailer 18'replace unit 59 059 5 15,000 15,000 Sand Pro 3000-replace Unit 64 064 2 13,000 13,000 Dump Truck-replace unit 72 072 5 170,000 170,000 Pickup 44-Replace Unit 78 078 3 38,000 38,000 Pickup-350 44 replace unit 81 081 5 42,000 42,000 Groundsmaster Mower replace unit 93 093 5 28,000 28,000 Boom Truck 100 5 84,000 84,000 Chipper 101 5 45,000 45,000 Trackless Trail Machine wl Flail Mower 103 1 150,000 150,000 Cab&Blower for mower-replace A04 A04 4 21,000 21,000 EngineJTransmission Analysis Station A09 n/a 4,500 4,500 Replace Sander A10 3 14,000 14,000 Plow Blade&Snow Kit for Skid Steer All 3 7,500 7,500 South Shore Community Center PF-11-01 n/a 2,500 43,000 41,000 86,500 Public Works Building PF-12-01 n/a 81,000 81,000 Computer Upgrades T-99-99 1 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 403-Equipment Replacement Fund Total 427,500 194,500 183,000 68,500 44,000 917,500 Thursday,November 06,2014 .�{ � �+ �I.; .� � 4 * 'f , � y lyi � ,F I�� '_Rsy'•L I ft ` 1+ ��•�F 5� Loader MultiOne •• ATTACH ME NT 2 Trenc ereP[us L"dergromdEqutment 2309 W.Hwy 13.Burnsville,MN 55337 Ph:952-890-6000 Fax:952-890-4563 www.trenchersylus.com June 20, 2016 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota Attn: Larry Brown Larry, Thank you for the opportunity to price you the Multi—One product, the 8AS. This unit is equipped as follows: Minnesota State Bid Pricing Qty. (1) New Multi One 8AS Loader • 40 HP Yanmar Diesel • Hydrostatic 2-Speed Transmission 14.3 MPH • Telescopic boom with float • 19 GPM Aux Hydraulics • Rear Counter Weight • Cab with Heat • Road Light Kit • Work Light Kit • Back up Alarm • 26 x 12 x 12 Turf tires 50.8" width • Manual skid steer adapter plate • Trailer Hitch • Cab inner lining Suggested Retail Price for above unit $ 64,620.33 State Bid Discount -$ 9,693.05 City of Shorewood price $ 54,927.28 (All pricing less applicable taxes) If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at any time. Regards, Monty Woolf ATTACHMENT 3 Trenc ereP[us L"dergromdEqu*vnent 2309 W.Hwy 13.Burnsville,MN 55337 Ph:952-890-6000 Fax:952-890-4563 www.trenchersylus.com June 8, 2016 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota Attn: Larry Brown Larry, Thank you for the opportunity to price you the following Erskine attachments for the Multi—One loader. They are listed below: Erskine 48"Low profile Dirt bucket Page 200 • Bucket $735.00 • Bolt on Edge $205.00 • Mount Plate $185.00 Total $1,125.00 15% off $956.25 Erskine 48"Mini Broom Page 223 • Broom $ 3,995.00 • Couplers $ 125.00 • Wire Harness $ 140.00 Total $ 4,260.00 15% off $ 3,621.00 Erskine 48" Snow blower model 2010 Page 149 • Blower $ 5,995.00 • Harness $ 415.00 • Couplers $ 125.00 Total $ 6,535.00 15% $ 5,554.75 If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to call at any time. Regards, Monty Woolf #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Receive Feasibility Report,Order Improvements and Preparation of Plans and Specifications,2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project,City Project 16-04(Oppidan) Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Feasibility Report prepared by WSB,June 27, 2016. Resolution Background: As part of the Oppidan Shorewood Senior Living Facility development, a petition requesting the preparation of an Engineering Feasibility Report for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project was received by the City of Shorewood. The purpose of the Feasibility Report is to identify the proposed improvements, provide reasonable estimate of project costs, and identify project funding. The Report also advises in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible. The 2016 Watermain Extension Project includes the extension of new watermain from the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka Drive to the proposed Shorewood Senior Living Facility development located at 6000 Chaska Road. To properly serve the facility,watermain will need to be extended from the intersection of Yellowstone Trail and Minnetonka Drive,to the east along Yellowstone Trail, south along Glencoe Road, and east along Park Street to Pheasant Street. The extension will need to cross State Highway 7 from Pleasant Street to Chaska Road and extends along Chaska Road to the south property line of the development. Extension of the watermain will require open cut installation with full width street restoration. Streets disturbed by construction will be restored to the existing pavement widths. The existing right of way is 66 feet in width and temporary construction easements or access may be necessary to construct the improvements as proposed and to accommodate driveway or boulevard restoration. Written permission or waiver of trespass agreements will be secured from private property owners for these encroachments prior to the start of construction. The improvements described in the Feasibility Report are necessary, cost effective, and feasible.The Feasibility Report is included in the City Council documents for your detailed review. Financial or Budget Considerations: The total project cost is projected to be$1,512,200. Funding for the project will come from the development, in the amount of$400,000,with the remaining project costs funded through the City Water Fund. The development will need to provide an escrow to cover costs associated with the final design prior to the commencement of final design. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution "Receiving the Feasibility Report, Ordering the Project and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project, City Project, 16-04". This Council action should be contingent upon a written request for the project to progress to the final design phase and escrow by the developer(Oppidan). Next Steps and Timelines: City staff will initiate preparation of plans and specifications with the City consultant WSB. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT, ORDERING THE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2016 TRUNK WATERMAIN EXTENSION PROJECT CITY PROJECT 16-04 (OPPIDAN) WHEREAS, the Oppidan Shorewood Senior Living Facility development requested the preparation of an Engineering Feasibility Report for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project through petition for extension of watermain; and WHEREAS, WSB & Associates, Inc. prepared the Feasibility Report which was received and accepted by the City Council on June 27, 2016; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 2. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the feasibility report. 3. WSB is hereby designated as the engineer for this improvement. The engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvement. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of June, 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #9C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Enchanted Lane Improvements Discussion Meeting Date: June 27, 2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Attachments: Pavement Management Plan Schedule, Location Map Policy Consideration: Should the City Council modify the Pavement Management Plan to improve Enchanted Lane and other island roadways ahead of the scheduled maintenance? Background: Council has been informed previously that there are planned improvements to Enchanted Lane in the City of Minnetrista, and that there may be cooperative improvement opportunities for the City of Shorewood if there are desired improvements in the City of Shorewood. The Mayor has requested that the potential for improvements to Enchanted Lane in Shorewood be discussed formally with the Council. As a result of heavy rainfall events In June of 2014, Enchanted Lane experienced flooding due to the high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The City of Shorewood and City of Minnetrista constructed temporary elevated roadways to provide a driving surface above the water line. A segment of Enchanted Lane in Minnetrista required a temporary rock roadway elevated approximately 2.5 feet above the existing roadway to gain one lane of traffic. The City of Shorewood had segments of the roadway that experienced similar flooding, but to a lesser extent of temporary fill. Both Cities restored the roadways through FEMA disaster relief programs. The City of Minnetrista is currently working on the preliminary design and feasibility report to improve Enchanted Lane with a pavement reclamation or mill and overlay project. The City is preparing the feasibility report because their residents are assessed for a portion of roadway improvement projects. The project has not gone through the public hearing process to date, but some residents do oppose the proposed improvements. If authorized by Council,the Minnetrista improvements would be constructed in 2017. The City of Shorewood Pavement Management Plan currently includes a Mill and Overlay of Enchanted Lane, Enchanted Cove, Enchanted Drive, and Dellwood Lane in 2024, and Shady Island Road, Shady Island Point, and Shady Island Circle in 2023. Shady Island Trail is scheduled for reconstruction in 2023. If the Shorewood Council elects to perform the island roadway improvements in 2017 instead of 2023 and 2024, direction will need to be provided to staff and funding will need to be discussed since these roadways are not in the 2017 Capital Improvement Plan. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Financial or Budget Considerations: Since improvements to the island roadways are not scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan until 2023 and 2024, amendment to the CIP or other funding alternatives will need to be implemented. The current Pavement Management Plan estimates budgetary cost of the improvement as$250,000 in 2023 for Shady Island and $270,000 for Enchanted Island in 2024. Options: Council could consider the following options considering improvements to the island roadways: 1. Take no action at this time (leaving the roadways in the current Pavement Management Plan schedule) 2. Direct staff to begin preliminary design and cost opinions for island roadway improvements as a cooperative project with Minnetrista 3. Provide other direction to staff Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff requests Council discuss the potential improvements to the island roadways and provide direction to staff. City of Shorewood - Street Maintenance Schedule Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct= Reclaim = M Overlay= Sealcoat= S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3RD AVE Christmas Lake Road Excelsior city limits S S 62ND ST W E Cathcart Dr Strawberry Lane S 62ND ST W W Cathcart Dr Dead End S S ACADEMY AVE Yellowstone Trail Grant Street S S AFTON RD Smithtown Road Cathcart Drive S S AMLEE RD Manitou Lane Cul-de-sac S S ANTHONY TER Vine Street Cul-de-sac S S APPLE RD Mill Street South city limits(Chan) S S ARBOR CREEK LA Grant Lorenz Road Cul-de-sac W S S BAYSWATER RD Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S S BEVERLY DR Cathcart Drive Cul-de-sac S S BIRCH BLUFF RD E Grant Lorenz Road Tonka Bay city limits O S BLUE RIDGE LA Lake Virginia Drive Lake Virginia Drive S S BOULDER BRIDGE DR Smithtown Road Smithtown Road S S BOULDER BRIDGE LA N Boulder Bridge Lane North Cul-de-sac S S BOULDER BRIDGE LAS Boulder Bridge Drive South Cul-de-sac S S BOULDER CIR Boulder Bridge Drive Cul-de-sac S BRACKETTS RD Apple Road Cul-de-sac S S BRAND CIR Christmas Lane Cul-de-sac S S BRENTRIDGE DR Howards Point Road(S) Howards Point Road(N) S S BRYNMAWR PL Howards Point Road Cul-de-sac S S BURLWOOD CT Shorewood Oaks Road Cul-de-sac S S CAJED LA Smithtown Road Beverly Drive S S CARDINAL DR Murray Street South city limits(Chan) S S CATHCART DR Smithtown Road LRT S S CHARLESTON CIR Yellowstone Trail Cul-de-sac S S CHARTWELL HILL Old Market Road Cul-de-sac S S CHASKA RD E Mayflower TH 7 S S CHASKA RD W TH 41 Mayflower S S CHESTNUT CT Near Mountain Boulevard Cul-de-sac S S O CHESTNUT TER Near Mountain Boulevard Cul-de-sac S S CHRISTMAS LA E Christmas Lake Road Dead End E S CHRISTMAS LA W Christmas Lake Road Dead End W S O S CHRISTMAS LAKE RD 3rd Avenue Christmas Lane S O CHRISTOPHER RD Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S S CHURCH RD West 62nd Street Cul-de-sac S S CLOVER LA Minnetonka Drive Cul-de-sac S S ICLUB LA Smithtown Road Dead End S S Page 1 City of Shorewood - Street Maintenance Schedule Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct= Reclaim = M Overlay= Sealcoat= S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CLUB VALLEY RD Yellowstone Trail Wood Drive S S COUNTRY CLUB RD Smithtown Road Yellowstone Trail S S COVINGTON CT Vine Hill Road Cul-de-sac S S COVINGTON RD E Old Market Rd Vine Hill Rd S S COVINGTON RD W Radisson Road Old Market Rd S S DEER RIDGE Koehnen Circle Cul-de-sac S S DELLWOOD LA Enchanted Drive Cul-de-sac S S O DIVISION ST Excelsior city limits Dead End S S ECHO RD County Road 19 Country Club Road O S EDGEWOOD RD Howards Point Road Grant Lorenz Road S ELBERT PT McKinley Place Cul-de-sac S S ELDER TURN Minnetonka Drive Cul-de-sac S S ELMRIDGE CIR Edgewood Road Cul-de-sac S S ENCHANTED COVE Enchanted Drive Cul-de-sac S S O ENCHANTED DR Enchanted Lane Cul-de-sac S S O ENCHANTED LA Minnetrista city limits Shady Island Bridge S S O ENCHANTED PT Enchanted Lane Dead End S S EUREKA RD N Smithtown Road Birch Bluff Road S EUREKA RD S Smithtown Road State Highway#7 S S EXCELSIOR BLVD St.Albans Bay Road East city limits(Deephn) S S FAIRWAY DR Smithtown Road End Cul-de-sac(n) S S FATIMA PL Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S S FERNCROFT DR Minnetonka Boulevard Forest Drive S S FOREST DR Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S S GALPIN LAKE RD State Highway#7 Mayflower Rd/So city limits S S GARDEN RD Minnetonka Boulevard Dead End S GILLETTE CUR Minnetonka Drive Cul-de-sac S GLEN RD E County Road 19 Manitou Ln D S S GLEN RD W Manitou Ln Dead End S S GLENCOE RD North city limits(Exc) Dead End S S GRANT LORENZ RD Smithtown Road Birch Bluff Road S S GRANT ST Excelsior city limits Dead End S S HARDING AVE Wedgewood Drive Harding Lane S S HARDING LA N Harding Avenue Cul-de-sac(North) S S HARDING LA S Harding Avenue Cul-de-sac(South) S S HILLENDALE RD Mill Street Dead End S S HOWARDS POINT RD Smithtown Road Dead End S S IDLEWILD PATH Rustic Way Suburban Drive S S Page 2 City of Shorewood - Street Maintenance Schedule Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct= Reclaim = M Overlay= Sealcoat= S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 IVY LA Ferncroft Drive Rustic Way S S KATHLEEN CT Woodside Road Cul-de-sac O S S KELSEY DR Smithtown Road End Cul-de-sac(s) S S KNIGHTSBRIDGE RD Manor Road Manor Road S S LAFAYETTE AVE Excelsior city limits Dead End LAKE LINDEN CT Yellowstone Trail Cul-de-sac S S LAKE LINDEN DR Yellowstone Trail State Highway#7 S S LAKE VIRGINIA DR Smithtown Road Dead End S S LAKEWAY TER Minnetonka Boulevard Cul-de-sac S S LAWTONKA DR Timber Lane Cul-de-sac S S LEE CIR Birch Bluff Road Cul-de-sac S S LILAC LA Mill Street Dead End S S MALLARD LA Wedgewood Drive Cul-de-sac S S MANITOU LA Amlee Road Glen Road S S MANN LA Eureka Road Seamans Drive S MANOR RD Excelsior Boulevard East city limits(Dphn) S S MAPLE AVE Strawberry Lane Dead End S S MAPLE LEAF CIR Shorewood Oaks Drive Dead End S S MAPLE RIDGE LA Lake Virginia Drive Cul-de-sac S S MAPLE ST Lake Linden Dr. End East S MAPLE VIEW CT Eureka Road Cul-de-sac S S MARSH POINTE CIR Marsh Point Drive End Cul-de-sac(n) S S MARSH POINTE CT Marsh Point Drive End Cul-de-sac(n) S S MARSH POINTE DR Smithtown Rd(E connect) Smithtown Rd.(W connect) S S MARY LAKE TR Country Club Road Cul-de-sac S S MAYFLOWER RD Chaska Road Galpin Lake Road S S MCKINLEY CIR McKinley Court Cul-de-sac S S MCKINLEY CT Vine Hill Road Cul-de-sac O S MCKINLEY PL N Near Mountain Boulevard Cul-de-sac O S MCKINLEY PL S Near Mountain Boulevard Cul-de-sac O S MCLAIN RD Minnetonka Drive Cul-de-sac S S MEADOWVIEW RD Valleywood Lane Wild Rose Lane S S MERRY LA Radisson Road Public Lake Access S S MI NN ETON KABLVD St.Alban's Bay Road Dphn city limits S S MINNETONKA DR County Road 19 Yellowstone Trail S S MUIRFIELD CIR Old Market Road Old Market Road S S M U RRAY CT Murray Street Cul-de-sac S S MURRAY HILL RD Chanhassen City Limits(s) Chaska Road S S Page 3 City of Shorewood - Street Maintenance Schedule Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct= Reclaim = M Overlay= Sealcoat= S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MURRAY ST Galpin Lake Road Dead End S S NEAR MOUNTAIN BLVD Vine Hill Road South city limits(Chan) S S O NELSINE DR Eureka Road Cul-de-sac S S NOBLE RD E Grant Lorenz Road 670'West S S NOBLE RD W 670'West Edgewood Road S S OAK LEAF TR Shorewood Oaks Drive Shorewood Oaks Drive S S OAK RIDGE CIR Grant Lorenz Road Cul-de-sac S S OAKVIEW CT Chaska Road Cul-de-sac S S OLD MARKET RD State Highway#7 Covington Road S S ORCHARD CIR Eureka Road Cul-de-sac S S PARK LA Eureka Road End Road(w) S S PARK ST Glencoe Road Pleasant Avenue S S PARKVIEW LA Suburban Drive Cul-de-sac(e) S S PEACH CIR Strawberry Lane Cul-de-sac S S PINE BEND Howards Point Road Howards Point Road S S PLEASANT AVE Yellowstone Trail State Highway#7 S S RADISSON ENTRANCE Radisson Inn Road Cul-de-sac S S RADISSON RD Old Market Rd Christmas Lake Road S S RAMPART CT Wood Drive Cul-de-sac S O RIVIERA LA Yellowstone Trail Cul-de-sac S RUSTIC WAY Sunset La Forest Drive S S SEAMANS DR Yellowstone Trail Mann Lane S SERVICE RD E Old Market Road Vine Hill Road South S S SERVICE RD W SHADY HILLS CIR Shady Hills Road Shady Hills Road S SHADY HILLS RD Vine Hill Road Shady Hills Alley S S SHADY ISLAND CIR Shady Island Road Shady Island Road S O SHADY ISLAND PT Shady Island Circle Dead End S O SHADY ISLAND RD Shady Island Bridge Dead End S O SHADY ISLAND TR Shady Island Circle Dead End S SHADY LA Shady Hills Road Cul-de-sac S S SHORE RD Radisson Inn Road Dead End S S SHOREWOOD LA Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S SHOREWOOD OAKS DR Strawberry Lane State Highway#7 S S SIERRA CIR Silver Lake Trail Cul-de-sac S S SILVER LAKE TR Sweetwater Curve Near Mountain Boulevard S S O SMITHTOWN CIR Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S O S SMITHTOWN LA Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S S Page 4 City of Shorewood - Street Maintenance Schedule Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct= Reclaim = M Overlay= Sealcoat= S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 SMITHTOWN RD South city limits(Vict) CR No.19 S S SMITHTOWN WAY Smithtown Rd Cul-de-sac(s) S S SPRUCE HILL CT Yellowstone Trail Cul-de-sac S S ST ALBANS BAY RD N Excelsior Boulevard Minnetonka Dr S S ST ALBANS BAY RD S Excelsior Boulevard St.Albans Bay Cir. S S STAR CIR Star Lane Cul-de-sac S S STAR LA Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S S STRATFORD PL Apple Road Cul-de-sac S S STRAWBERRY CT Strawberry Lane Cul-de-sac S S STRAWBERRY LA Smithtown Road West 62nd Street S SUBURBAN DR Rustic Way St.Albans Bay Road S S SUMMIT AVE Murray Hill Road South city limits(Chan) S S SUNNYVALE LA Meadowview Lane Eureka Road S S SWEETWATER CIR Sweetwater Curve Cul-de-sac S S SWEETWATER CT Sweetwater Curve Cul-de-sac S S SWEETWATER CUR Covington Road Cul-de-sac S S SYLVAN LA Wild Rose Lane Cul-de-sac S O TEAL CIR Wedgewood Drive Cul-de-sac S S TEE TR Yellowstone Trail Wood Drive S S TIMBER LA Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S S VALLEYWOOD CIR Valleywood Lane Cul-de-sac S S VALLEYWOOD LA Eureka Road Dead End S S VINE HILL RD State Highway#7 South city limits(Chan) S S VINE RIDGE RD Covington Road Convington Road S S VINE ST Manor Road East city limits(Dphn) S O S VIRGINIA COVE Smithtown Rd Cul-de-sac(e) S S WATERFORD CIR Waterford Place Cul-de-sac S S WATERFORD CT Old Market Road Waterford Ct.(Loop) S S WATERFORD PL Old Market Road Vine Hill Road S S WEDGEWOOD DR Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S S WEST LA Rustic Way Garden Road S WHITNEY CIR Near Mountain Boulevard Cul-de-sac S S WILD ROSE LA E Sylvan Eureka Road S WILD ROSE LAW Grant Lorenz Road Sylvan S W I LTSEY LA Pleasant Avenue Cul-de-sac S S WOOD DR State Highway#7 Cul-de-sac S S WOOD DUCK CIR Smithtown Road Cul-de-sac S S WOODEND PL St Albans Bay Road Forest Drive S S Page 5 City of Shorewood - Street Maintenance Schedule Planned Yearly Activities Updated 1/23/15 Deferred = D Reconstruct= Reclaim = M Overlay= Sealcoat= S Street Name from to 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 WOODSIDE LA Woodside Road Cul-de-sac S S WOODSIDE RD Howards Point Road Cul-de-sac S S YELLOWSTONE TR Seamans Dr Academy Avenue S S Page 6 J � U 0 N N T N 4 0 L(7 Z 'o�S N N m N a N o0 �LL rl O N M O N � O ry n m N U W Q o� #9D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project,City Project 14-10 Resolution Approving Work Order 1 Meeting Date: June 27, 2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Work Order 1 and Resolution Approving Work Order 1. Background: On August 24, 2015, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project to S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. During the progression of construction of the storm sewer, it was realized that different pipe materials were required due to the actual location of the watermain with proximity to the storm sewer. As a result, additional material and construction work was necessary to construct the drainage system. S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. has submitted a work order detailing the additional work items which have been reviewed by staff and MnDOT with regard to the work scope and additional costs, and recommend approval. MnDOT reviews all work orders, change orders, and supplemental agreements on State funded projects. Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of$769,873.00. The total for Work Order 1 is$3,366.00. This additional work item will increase the contract amount to$773,239.00, approximately 0.43%. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution 16- Approving Work Order 1. Payment for this work order will be made under payment request 4 at the second meeting of the Council in July. 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. 16 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING WORK ORDER 1 FOR THE SMITHTOWN ROAD EAST SIDEWALK EXTENSION PROJECT CITY PROJECT 14-10 WHEREAS, THE City of Shorewood Council awarded the contract for the construction of sidewalk along the south side of Smithtowqn Road located between the Lake Minnetonka Reginal Trail(LRT) and Country Club Road to S. M. Hentges, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Work Order 1 is necessary to construct the storm drainage system and associated work; and WHEREAS, Work Order 1 will increase the project construction costs in the amount of$3,366.00, from the original contract amount of$769,873.00 to $773,239.00; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. Work Order 1 in the total amount of$3,366.00 is hereby approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27h day of June, 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Rev.July 2010 CHANGE ORDER Page 1 of 1 SP 216 - 101 - 005 Minn. Prof No. ( ) CO No. 1 Project Location: Shorewood, MN Local Agency: City of Shorewood City Project No. 14-10 Contractor: S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Contract No. Address/City/State/Zip: 650 Quaker Avenue, Jordan, MN 55352 Total Change Order Amount 3,366.00 In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions: (Describe work and justification for change order.See sample language at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/stateaid/construction/forms/contract/ChangeOrderSampleLanguage.doc) Estimate Of Cost: (Include any increases or decreases in contract items, any negotiated or force account items.) *"`Group/Funding Item + or— + or— Category No. Description Unit Unit Price Quantity Amount$ 216 - 101 - 12" RC PIPE SEWER 005 84 DES 3006 CL V LF $42.00 - 491.00 -$20,622.00 216 - 101 - 15" RC PIPE SEWER 005 85 DES 3006 CL V LF $44.50 - 60.00 -$ 2,670.00 216 - 101 - 4" POLYSTYRENE 005 96 INSULATION SF $ 3.30 + 160.00 +$ 528.00 216 - 101 - 005 97 12" PVC C900 LF $45.00 + 491 .00 +$22,095.00 216 - 101 - 005 98 16" PVC C900 LF $67.25 + 60.00 +$4,035.00 Net Change this Change Order $ 3,366.00 "Group/Funding category is required for Federal Aid projects Approved by Project Engineer: Date: Print Name: Paul Hornby, PE Phone: 651-286-8453 Approved by Contractor: Date: Print Name: Phone: Distribution: Project Engineer (Original), Contractor(copy), DSAE (copy for funding review) DSAE Portion: The State of Minnesota is not a participant in this contract. Signature by the District State Aid Engineer is for FUNDING PURPOSES ONLY and for compliance with State and Federal Aid Rules/Policy. Eligibility does not guarantee funds will be available. This work is eligible for: _ Federal Funding _ State Aid Funding _ Local funds District State Aid Engineer: Date: #11A. 1 12 CITY OF 1: SHOREWOOD UM2 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952-960-7900 Fax:952-474-0128•www.ci.shorewood.mmus•cityhall @ci.shorewood.mmus 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 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 0 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 0 Survey (30 days) —May 0 Feasibility Report (30 days) —June 0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk—July 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 0 Council approves Feasibility Report 0 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications 0 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 0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) • Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications • Individual temporary easements or rights of entry maybe required • Reduces project schedule 0 Neighborhood post-bid meeting 10/30/14 ❑ City possession of easements/letter of compliance N/A ❑ 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 Trail Schedule Update Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road(East) Page 2 Smithtown Road East(LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/03/14 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report 6/23/14 0 Survey (30 days) — (In Process) 7/14/14 —9/10/14 0 Feasibility Report (30 days) — 8/18/14-10/10/14 0 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14 0 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/21/14 Council approves Feasibility Report 10/27/14 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 10/30/14 0 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans 12/08/14 and Specifications 0 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete) 12/11/14 - 5131115 0 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) 2/1/15 - 8/31/15 • Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions • Review proposed easements with staff/attorney • Letters to property owners regarding survey staking • Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent • Easement viewing—parcel owner and RW Agent on-site • Appraisal information • Appraisal review • Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule • Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners 1 Begin eminent domain action 3/23/15 0 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6/03/15 0 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15 0 Receive bids for construction 8/21/15 0 City possession of easements/letter of compliance 8/24/15 0 Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15 0 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting 9/09/15 21 Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15 21 Begin Construction 4/21/16 ■ Contractor completed tree removal 2/24/16 ❑ Construction substantially complete 6/30/16 ❑ Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16 ❑ Restoration complete 6/30/16 MEMORANDUM Date: June 27, 2016 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: May, 2016 . General Fund Monthly Budget Report The 2016 General Fund is tracking about where we would expect. Now is the time of year when we can begin to see trends in revenue or expenditure variances. Revenues are higher than 2015 in total. Permits are running ahead of last year's pace and will likely stay above as the Minnetonka Country Club property is developed. Intergovernmental receipts are higher because of a $34,000 payment from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the Christmas Lake inspection program. Those funds were immediately paid over to Christmas Lake Homeowners Association which has driven up expenses in the Council - Other Services line item. Misc. Revenues are also high because of the payment for the tax forfeit parcel on Howard's Point Road of approximately $51,000. Please remember that the city receives its primary revenues from property taxes which are not distributed at all until June. Expenditures are a little higher than 2015. Part of that is driven by minor timing differences as to when payments are made. The difference is not an amount that would raise concern at this point in the year. Please contact me or Mr. Joynes if you have any questions. Attachment: May Budget Spreadsheet General Ledger Revenue and Expense vs Budget Through May 31, 2016 % Collected One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual General Fund Revenues Taxes $ 5,079,408.00 $ $ 2,116,420.00 0.00% $ Licenses & Permits $ 169,180.00 $ 93,900.95 $ 70,491.67 55.50% $ 78,692.91 Intergovernmental $ 90,751.00 $ 78,443.63 $ 37,812.92 86.44% $ 54,261.69 Charges for Service $ 42,200.00 $ 30,391.02 $ 17,583.33 72.02% $ 29,227.67 Fines & Forfeits $ 60,000.00 $ 11,661.80 $ 25,000.00 19.44% $ 18,755.21 Misc Revenues $ 210,400.00 $ 132,160.13 $ 87,666.67 62.81% $ 89,435.93 Other Financing Sources $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 10,416.67 0.00% $ - General Fund $ 5,676,939.00 $ 346,557.53 $ 2,365,391.25 6.10% $ 270,373.41 General Fund Expenditures Council Personal Services $ 22,600.00 $ 9,239.75 $ 9,416.67 40.88% $ 9,239.75 Supplies $ 2,000.00 $ 650.05 $ 833.33 32.50% $ 647.39 Other Services and Charges $ 133,500.00 $ 57,281.71 $ 55,625.00 42.91% $ 20,485.95 Other Financing Use $ 70,000.00 $ - $ 29,166.67 95.96% $ - Council $ 228,100.00 $ 67,171.51 $ 95,041.67 29.45% $ 30,373.09 Administraton Personal Services $ 414,154.00 $ 101,317.24 $ 172,564.17 24.46% $ 95,026.13 Supplies $ 20,900.00 $ 5,496.76 $ 8,708.33 26.30% $ 6,219.73 Other Services and Charges $ 42,550.00 $ 64,537.53 $ 17,729.17 151.67% $ 45,482.87 Administraton $ 477,604.00 $ 171,351.53 $ 199,001.67 35.88% $ 146,728.73 Finance Personal Services $ 142,273.00 $ 62,966.16 $ 59,280.42 44.26% $ 55,097.58 Supplies $ 14,600.00 $ 8,363.03 $ 6,083.33 57.28% $ 7,792.37 Other Services and Charges $ 15,900.00 $ 5,753.14 $ 6,625.00 36.18% $ 7,564.50 Finance $ 172,773.00 $ 77,082.33 $ 71,988.75 44.61% $ 70,454.45 Professional Services Other Services and Charges $ 226,400.00 $ 83,945.00 $ 94,333.33 37.08% $ 73,913.10 Professional Services $ 226,400.00 $ 83,945.00 $ 94,333.33 37.08% $ 73,913.10 Planning Personal Services $ 178,797.00 $ 80,643.71 $ 74,498.75 45.10% $ 69,951.19 Supplies $ 300.00 $ 406.74 $ 125.00 135.58% $ 400.00 Other Services and Charges $ 12,000.00 $ 6,103.53 $ 5,000.00 50.86% $ 10,643.60 Planning $ 191,097.00 $ 879153.98 $ 79,623.75 45.61% $ 80,994.79 Municipal Buildings Supplies $ 21,300.00 $ 3,383.45 $ 8,875.00 15.88% $ 24,157.85 Other Services and Charges $ 174,800.00 $ 113,862.60 $ 72,833.33 65.14% $ 84,950.26 Other Financing Use $ 104,313.00 $ - $ 43,463.75 0.00% $ - Municipal Buildings $ 300,413.00 $ 104,635.89 $ 125,172.08 34.83% $ 1099108.11 % Collected One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual Police Protection Supplies $ - $ 2,086.25 $ - $ - Other Services and Charges $ 1,106,165.00 $ 461,584.33 $ 460,902.08 41.73% $ 446,907.45 Capital Outlay $ 230,0K00 $ 107,166.00 $ 95,833.33 46.59% $ 112,590.00 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - Police Protection $ 1,336,165.00 $ 570,836.58 $ 556,735.42 42.72% $ 559,497.45 Fire Protection Other Services and Charges $ 369,714.00 $ 184,193.13 $ 154,047.50 49.82% $ 180,281.48 Capital Outlay $ 270,620.00 $ 135,310.10 $ 112,758.33 50.00% $ 138,078.04 Dire Protection $ 640,334.00 $ 319,503.23 $ 266,805.83 49.90% $ 318,359.52 Protective Inspections Personal Services $ 126,299.00 $ 56,679.41 $ 52,624.58 44.88% $ 47,674.43 Supplies $ 200.00 $ 245.00 $ 83.33 122.50% $ 72.95 Other Services and Charges $ 8,050.00 $ 1,777.09 $ 3,354.17 22.08% $ 2,126.33 Protective Inspections $ 134,549.00 $ 58,701.50 $ 56,062.08 43.63% $ 49,873.71 City Engineer Other Services and Charges $ 89,725.00 $ 11,280.75 $ 37,385.42 12.57% $ 14,489.00 City Engineer $ 89,725.00 $ 11,280.75 $ 37,385.42 12.57% $ 14,489.00 Public Works Service Personal Services $ 516,365.00 $ 132,932.26 $ 215,152.08 25.74% $ 153,257.95 Supplies $ 163,000.00 $ 24,777.21 $ 67,916.67 15.20% $ 20,865.56 Other Services and Charges $ 131,100.00 $ 42,837.62 $ 54,625.00 32.68% $ 35,618.72 Other Financing Use $ 860,000.00 $ - $ 358,333.33 0.00% $ - Publie Works Service $ 1,670,465.00 $ 200,547.09 $ 696,027.08 12.01% $ 209,742.23 Ice & Snow Removal Personal Services $ 61,465.00 $ 18,239.38 $ 25,610.42 29.67% $ 16,688.67 Supplies $ 44,000.00 $ 3,437.10 $ 18,333.33 7.81% $ 15,589.91 Other Services and Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - Ice & Snow Removal $ 105,465.00 $ 21,676.48 $ 43,943.75 20.55% $ 32,278.58 Park Maintenance Personal Services $ 115,022.00 $ 71,995.74 $ 47,925.83 62.59% $ 54,805.16 Supplies $ 23,300.00 $ 7,089.87 $ 9,708.33 30.43% $ 3,988.55 Other Services and Charges $ 40,500.00 $ 8,985.22 $ 16,875.00 22.19% $ 21,884.65 Park Maintenance $ 178,822.00 $ 88,070.83 $ 74,509.17 49.25% $ 80,678.36 Recreation Personal Services $ 41,575.00 $ 20,056.78 $ 17,322.92 48.24% $ 23,894.77 Supplies $ 7,700.00 $ 703.90 $ 3,208.33 9.14% $ 1,753.00 Other Services and Charges $ 13,900.00 $ 6,483.20 $ 5,791.67 46.64% $ 1,995.87 Other Financing Use $ 42,000.00 $ - $ 17,500.00 0.00% $ - Recreation $ 105,175.00 $ 27,243.88 $ 43,822.92 25.90% $ 27,643.64 General Fund $ 5,857,087.00 S 1,889,200.58 $ 2,440,452.92 32.25% $ 1,804,134.76 Revenue Total $ 5,676,939.00 $ 346,557.53 $ 2,365,391.25 $ 270,373.41 Expense Total $ 5,857,087.00 $ 1,889,200.58 $ 2,440,452.92 $ 1,804,134.76 Net Incomet(L,oss) $ (180,148.00) $ (1,542,643.05) $ (75,061.67) $ (1,533,761.35)