Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10-24-16 CC Reg Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 24, 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 Work Session Minutes of October 10, 2016 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 10, 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. 2017 Community Tree Sale Communications/Recycling Coordinator’s memo C. Accept Donations for the January 13-15 Arctic Fever Event Finance Director’s memo D. Professional Services Agreement with AET - Construction Materials Testing Engineer’s memo for 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements (Oppidan) E. Approve Change Order No. 3 - Smithtown Road Sidewalk East Extension Engineer’s memo 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Commissioner Jan Callison - Update on County Board Activities 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA – October 24, 2016 Page 2 A. C.U.P. and Variances Planning Director’s memo, Applicant: Marc and Kerri Hexum Resolution Location: 5205 Howards Point Rd B. Rezone Property from R-2A to C-1 Planning Director’s memo, Applicant: John Benjamin Resolution Location: 24250 Smithtown Rd C. Amendment to Chapter 1101-Flood Plain Management Regulations Planning Director’s memo, Ordinance, Resolution 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Quotes and Award Contract for Guard Rail Improvements - Engineer’s memo Lake Linden Drive and Excelsior Blvd. B. Zoning Permit for Incidental Use of Public Right-of-Way Engineer’s memo Applicant: Alex Ugorets Location: 175 Brentwood Avenue 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Ladder Truck Lease Purchase Agreement with Finance Director’s memo Excelsior Fire District 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.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, October 24, 2016 7:00 p.m. 6:30 PM – Council Work Session Agenda Item #2A: Approval of Minutes from the October 10 City Council Work Session. Agenda Item #2B: Approval of Minutes from the October 10 City Council Regular meeting. Agenda Item #3A: Approval of the verified claims list. Agenda Item #3B: Staff recommends participation in the 2017 City of Minnetonka Tree Sale, at the same level as was conducted in 2016. Pre-orders will be taken to provide residents with a wider variety of tree choices. Staff expects all of the trees ordered will be purchased by residents, and recommends an amount not to exceed $7400. Agenda Item #3C: This motion accepts donations for the 2017 Arctic Fever Events. Donations received includes: $50 from Shorewood Professional Building; $500 from Lucky’s Station LLC; $500 from WSB & Associates, Inc.; $500 from the American Legion Post 259; and $150 from Clarence Clofer Auxiliary Unit 259. Agenda Item #3D: This motion accepts the proposal from American Engineering Testing to perform construction geotechnical services for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements (Oppidan) in the estimated amount of $11,993. Agenda Item #3E: This resolution approves work order #3 in the amount of $3,025.28 for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk extension project. Agenda Item #4: Matters from the floor – no council action will be taken. Agenda Item #5: There are no Public Hearings scheduled this evening. Agenda Item #6: Hennepin County Commissioner Jan Callison is scheduled to provide her annual update Hennepin County Board activities. Agenda Item #7: There are no Park items this evening. Executive Summary – City Council Meeting of October 24, 2016 Page 2 Agenda Item #8A: This resolution approves a conditional use permit and variance to build a new home on a substandard lot, setback variance and impervious surface variance for Marc and Kerri Hexum, 5205 Howards Point Road. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request. Agenda Item #8B: This resolution denies a request for rezoning of the property at 24250 Smithtown Road from R-2A, Single- and Two-Family Residential to C-1, General Commercial. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning request. Agenda Item #8C: This ordinance amendment replaces the existing Chapter 1101 in its entirety with a revised Chapter 1101 (Floodplain Management Regulations). The purpose of the ordinance is to regulate development in the flood hazard areas; to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Programs as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program; and to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains. Approval of the Ordinance and Resolution approving summary publication of the ordinance is recommended. Agenda Item #9A: This resolution accepts quotes and awards the construction contract for the 2016 Guard Rail Project to Warning Lights in the amount of $27,000.20. Agenda Item #9B: This motion considers a request for incidental use of the right of way of Timber Lane for a secondary access for 175 Brentwood Avenue in Tonka Bay. Staff recommends approval with the conditions stated. Agenda Item #10A: The Excelsior Fire District (EFD) board authorized the department to purchase a new ladder truck. The EFD proposes to utilize a lease/purchase agreement with the city of Shorewood for financing the purchase, similar to previously contracted lease/purchase agreements for SCBA equipment and for a fire truck. This motion accepts the general terms of the concept to allow the EFD to proceed with plans to place the order in December or January. The proposed lease-purchase contract will be brought to a future meeting for approval. Agenda Item #11A: Staff reports are provided in the packet and will be given at the meeting. Agenda Item #11B: The Mayor and Council members may provide reports at the meeting. #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Acting Mayor Siakel called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Siakel; Councilmembers Labadie, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Acting City Administrator/City Clerk Panchyshyn; Director of Public Works Brown; and, Engineer Hornby Absent: Mayor Zerby B. Review Agenda Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. DRAFT URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Engineer Hornby explained that during its May 31, 2016, meeting Council approved a professional services agreement from S&S Tree and Horticultural Specialists, Inc. for the preparation of an Urban Forest Management Plan. The meeting packet contains a copy of the draft Plan which he thought was nicely done. S&S did address all of the items listed in the scope of services request for proposal (RFP). S&S also provided an estimated budget for a 5-year Urban Forestry Management Program. It reflects an approximate cost of $880,000 over the five-year period; $200,000 for each of the first three years and $150,000 for each of the last two years. Hornby introduced Gail Nozal with S&S. Ms. Nozal introduced her colleague Jon Schmidt. She noted Mr. Schmidt completed the inventory portion of the Plan and he did a lot of the writing. Ms. Nozal explained the first step in the process of preparing the Plan was to complete the inventory. That allowed them to gain an understanding of what the composition and condition was of the urban forest and what maintenance is required. Mr. Schmidt entered the tree inventory data into an iTree Eco model to assess and quantify the beneficial functions of the public tree resource and to place a dollar value on the annual environmental benefit trees provide. The Plan includes an emerald ash borer management strategy and a discussion about reforestation. Councilmember Woodruff asked Ms. Nozal to summarize the Plan for the viewing audience. Ms. Nozal stated there were 3,412 publicly managed trees located within the City’s street right of way (ROW) that were inventoried. Of them 858 trees are maple trees. The average diameter of the trees at 4.5 feet is about 15 inches. That is an average size tree for the majority of cities. Approximately one-half of the trees were in good condition. There are 567 ash trees that need to be managed potentially for emerald ash borer (EAB) whether it is by treatment or by removing and replacing them. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 2 of 7 Mr. Schmidt stated the Plan is geared toward having the City go down a path to having a healthy, safe and sustainable urban forest. The 5-year plan starts that process. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Ms. Nozal stated the ash trees referred to are primarily in the ROWs and in a few parcels in City Parks. Ms. Nozal stated the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has in some instances done a rapid assessment to get an estimate of the number of ash trees in certain areas. Engineer Hornby stated the Plan also includes a private tree management policy for the City. The policy would include woody invasive plant management, homeowner and private land assistance program, and public education. Councilmember Labadie stated if a municipality finds an infested tree on its public property she asked if that has to be reported to some government agency. Ms. Nozal noted there is no reporting requirement. She stated there is a best management practice (BMP) to report the first few findings to the State Department of Agriculture (MDA). Labadie then stated she has heard that EAB has been found in the City of Plymouth. She sked if that is accurate. Ms. Nozal confirmed that and explained in Hennepin County that is the farthest west that it has been found. Ms. Nozal explained it is best to survey trees for EAB during the winter. In Minnesota the best tool for doing the survey is woodpeckers because when there are a lot of them in one area it is often because they are going under the bark to get the larvae. Councilmember Labadie stated that because EAB has been found in Plymouth she asked how long it would take to reach Shorewood. Ms. Nozal stated EAB only fly about two miles in a year. She noted that most of the EAB is brought in on firewood. She thought the City should be prepared to find it at any time. Councilmember Sundberg asked if S&S collaborates with Xcel Energy. Ms. Nozal stated they have some great relationships with the foresters for Xcel. She noted that the foresters for Xcel have their own policies regarding tree care and EAB in particular. Sundberg then asked if the foresters for Xcel let S&S know when they are going to be trimming trees in the area. Ms. Nozal responded no and stated if S&S has a question they will call Xcel. Director Brown explained Xcel typically uses Asplundh Tree Expert Company to trim trees for it and Asplundh lets Public Works know that it will be trimming in the area. They ask Public Works staff where the problematic areas in the City are and they ask for a signed permit to trim in the areas they are going to trim. Sundberg went on to ask how S&S would go about public education. Ms. Nozal stated utilizing the internet and working with the Communications Coordinator would be good places to start. Informational seminars would also be of value. Sundberg questioned if it would be valuable for the City to pick up things like buckthorn at the curbside. Ms. Nozal stated that is an option. She noted that S&S acts as the city forester for the City of North Oaks and North Oaks does that twice a year. Director Brown stated he thought the MDA still prohibits transporting buckthorn outside of an area. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if most of the ash trees recommended for removal are concentrated in the City’s parks. Mr. Schmidt stated they are on public land and public ROW. Those trees are considered dangerous to the community. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 3 of 7 Siakel then asked why some trees are recommended for removal and others for treatment. Ms. Schmidt stated if a tree is showing signs for decay or if it appears that it is not worthy of treating then it is recommended for removal. Siakel stated she thought S&S prepared a good Plan. She asked why it is a 5-year Plan and not an 8, 9 or 10 year plan for example. Mr. Schmidt responded S&S typically recommends a 5-year pruning cycle which is an industry standard. Siakel then stated the draft 2017 budget does not include $200,000 for forestry services. She asked if the Plan could be extended out over a longer time period or if certain parts of it could be done to make it more affordable to do. Ms. Nozal stated it could be spread out over a longer period of time. She also stated there are some hazardous trees that should be removed. Councilmember Woodruff explained the draft 2017 budget includes $40,000 for forestry services. He asked staff and S&S to tell Council how to spend that most effectively. He stated from his perspective Council has already basically allocated the City’s excess reserves. The City has certified its maximum 2017 tax levy with Hennepin County. There is no way for the City could come up with an additional $160,000. He expressed his disappointment that Council did not receive the 5-year Plan before it certified its maximum levy. He stated in June he had indicated that he would like to receive the report at least in early August or even late July so the budget could reflect what was needed. He noted the report from S&S is dated August 1, 2016. He asked why Council did not receive it sooner. Woodruff stated Council has discussed providing a tree inspection service for trees on private property for a fee. How that would work needs to be flushed out. Engineer Hornby stated that is the last thing that will be added to the draft Plan based on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Woodruff asked what the CIP has to do with it; the cost for forestry services is an operating budget item. Director Brown confirmed that. Acting Mayor Siakel stated because some of the trees in the Plan are in the City’s parks she asked if the budget for forestry services should be included in the Parks Maintenance Budget. Woodruff stated it may be possible to include reforestation in the CIP. Acting Mayor Siakel stated because some of the trees in the Plan are in the City’s parks she asked if the budget for forestry services should be included in the Parks Maintenance Budget. She noted the City has about $500,000 of excess reserves; reserves above those stipulated in the City’s General Fund Balance Policy. She stated from her vantage point Council has not agreed on how to use those excess reserves. She asked staff to come back with an affordable implementation strategy for the Urban Forestry Management Program. Director Brown stated he thought the first thing the City should do is address those trees S&S has identified as a liability. Staff can then come back with a recommendation on how to spread out the timetable for implementing the Plan so the cost is more manageable. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she assumed Director Brown was talking about the Dead/Dying Tree Removal Program Activity in 2017 for an approximate cost of $17,340 and noted the City has a budget to cover that. Councilmember Woodruff recommended the budget for forestry services be kept in one budget so it is easier to track. Councilmember Labadie concurred with that and stated she thought it would make things more transparent. Acting Mayor Siakel questioned if the budget for forestry services should be incorporated into the City’s levy. She stated $200,000 would be about a 4 percent levy increase. She asked if consideration should be given to assessing for those services. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 4 of 7 Councilmember Woodruff stated the Plan mentions assessing property owners for forestry services but the City does not have a policy for doing that. Acting Mayor Siakel clarified that the Plan talks about doing that for benefiting properties. Woodruff stated that would be for trees in the public ROW and reiterated the City does not have a policy for doing that. Director Brown stated ordinance amendments go through a lengthy process and those involving assessments would take even longer. He then stated the 2017 draft budget includes sufficient funding to remove the liability trees in the estimated budget for the Urban Forest Management Program for 2017. Staff can then spread out the Program over a period longer than five years. Councilmember Woodruff asked staff to bring Council a plan for the removal of the liability trees scheduled for 2017 for its October 24 meeting. He suggested that removal process be started as soon as possible. Director Brown stated the planning for the removal is in progress. Director Brown stated he thought there is Council consensus to deal with the hazardous trees. Staff will provide Council with a 7-year and/or ten-year version of the Urban Forestry Management Program for its next meeting or the meeting after that. He asked if there is Council consensus about the City offering a for- fee tree inspection service for private property owners. Councilmember Woodruff noted that he is not ready to give his support to the tree inspection service for private property owners without knowing how that would work. Director Brown stated what staff wants to know is does Council support the concept of that and noted the details of how that would work have not been flushed out. Woodruff stated the need for the details was discussed early this summer and the fact that has not been done is wearing thin on him. Brown noted that there have been other priorities for staff. Woodruff suggested dealing with the liability trees and getting started with treating those ash trees the City wants to retain. The City cannot wait until 2018 to start the treatments. Acting Mayor Siakel noted she agreed with starting to remove the hazardous trees. She stated if the trees on public property are treated she asked if they can be re-infested with EAB because ash trees on private property have become infested. Ms. Nozal stated the active ingredient in the insecticide currently being used to prevent EAB has been proven through research to be 99 percent effective. It is preventative as well as therapeutic. Any larvae, including those that are invisible, would die from the treatment. The label on the product indicates the treatments should be done every two years. If the City does that there should not be any re-infestation. Ms. Nozal stated the method for treatment S&S uses is a micro injection. It is an injection into the tissue at the base of the tree. No neonicotinoids are used. Acting Mayor Siakel stated the estimated budget for the Urban Forest Management Program indicates the annual treatment cost would be about $11,000 and that would be to treat about one-half of the ash trees each year. She then stated she understands Council to be in support of removing some hazardous trees and treating ash trees in 2017 for an approximate total cost of about $28,000. She went on to state she would like to see something created for residents as well and commented she thought Director Nielsen would have something to do with that. Acting Mayor Siakel asked staff if it had sufficient direction from Council. Director Brown responded yes. Acting Mayor Siakel thanked Ms. Nozal and Mr. Schmidt as well as staff for their efforts. 3. RENEWA BLE ENERGY DRAFT IMPLEMENTAION PLAN CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 5 of 7 Engineer Hornby explained Council directed staff to prepare a Renewable Energy Implementation Plan for the Renewal Energy Study done by Great Plains Institute. The Study included some recommendations for Shorewood priorities based on Council input. WSB & Associates, along with its occasional partner Solar Stone and Great Plains, was asked to prepare an initial draft of the Plan. The intent of the draft Plan is to get Council feedback. When Great Plains assessed the practicality of wind energy in Shorewood and determined that throughout most of the City wind energy would not be very effective. Therefore, the Study was geared more toward solar energy. The Study identified some areas, mostly building rooftops, that might be good for solar. The Plan includes short-term (0-5 years), mid-range (5 – 10 years) and long-term (10+ years) priorities. They line up with what Great Plains had as priorities in its Study. Most of the items identified would be completed mainly by in-house staff He highlighted the 1 – 5 years action items in the Implementation Plan. Next year Planning and zoning ordinance updates – some of those have already been implemented Public education / public information 12 – 18 months On-site solar installations 1 – 2 years Fleet maintenance and purchases Planning and zoning ordinance updates– set renewable energy and energy reduction goals, include a copy of the City’s solar resource in the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan 1 – 3 years On-site solar installations – consider participation in joint power actions, promote a community garden solar program 1 – 5 years Improved building efficiencies – replace lighting with LED lamps, recommission HVAC systems, identify efficiency improvements to the public safety facilities. There is one office in City Hall that is warmer than others and there is a thermostat in there. What ends up happening is that thermostat is adjusted to accommodate that office making the rest of the building too warm or too cold. Improved energy use – educate residents on water consumption habits, identify opportunities to improve efficiencies on water and wastewater pumping Councilmember Sundberg recommended being more aggressive on the timeline for some of the actions. She thought setting renewable energy and energy reduction goals should be done as soon as possible because CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 6 of 7 everything is built around that. That should be moved up to next year. She then stated she thought there are a lot of easy opportunities for improving energy conservation. She suggested asking Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy to help with that assessment of opportunities. She asked if there is anything related to the GreenStep Cities Program in the Plan and stated that should be an as soon as possible activity as well. The City should take advantage of what the GreenStep Cities Program already includes. She asked that cost savings be factored in to the cost for rooftop installation; there should be saving because of investments in that. If there are no savings then that activity should be reevaluated. She stated that the Great Plains Institute report encouraged establishing a mission / vision for why this is important to the City. She noted that she would be willing to work with the Communications Coordinator on that. Sundberg then stated the City received a copy of the Great Plains Institute report in February. She cautioned against delaying the Implementation Plan finalization and implementation activities any longer. She noted she thought there are some implementation items that would not require too much staff time. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she thought it was good to find out what the opportunities are for renewable energy for the City. On a larger scale it does not appear to fit in with the needs of Shorewood. The action items listed in the Implementation Plan would be a lot of work for staff. And, that is in addition to the number of other big projects. She noted that she does not understand how Council wants this to move forward. Councilmember Woodruff stated he could support doing most of the next year action items listed in the Implementation Plan. He then stated that Council needs to reevaluate how involved the City should be in renewable energy. He thought the City was somewhat limited in its capacity to implement some of the items. He noted that Council has already approved replacing lighting with LED lamps at City Hall and at Public Works. He stated he was skeptical of the there being any ability to have significant solar installations in the City that would make financial sense. But, if Council wants to do something just to say the City did it without regard to cost and financial return then that is something entirely different. That is not something he supports doing. Councilmember Sundberg stated there are some energy conservation common sense action items that can be done. Councilmember Woodruff stated there is an action item about fuel efficient vehicles and electric vehicles for the City’s fleet of vehicles on the list. That would fall in the energy conservation group. Councilmember Sundberg stated an argument could be for that. Councilmember Sundberg stated she thought electric vehicles are not a high priority for the City. Solar installations are also not a high priority unless there is an opportunity to participate in a solar garden with, for example, the Metropolitan (Met) Council. She noted she agrees that some of the action items listed in the Implementation Plan do not make sense for the City to do. Yet, there are some that would be very cost effective to do. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Council prioritize the action items with staff and remove those items that do not make any sense for the City to do. Then staff resources should be assigned to work on the higher priority items. Councilmember Sundberg stated from her perspective the City’s goal is not to be the next innovator with solar technology. She then stated Council has not established clear goals of what it would like the City to CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 7 of 7 accomplish with regard to renewable energy. She thought there are common sense things the City should be doing. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she thought some of the action items in the Implementation Plan do not apply to the City. Councilmember Sundberg offered to work with staff to downsize the Implementation Plan and to adjust the priorities. Acting Mayor Siakel asked if any of the items in the Implementation Plan should be incorporated into the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. Engineer Hornby responded yes. Councilmember Sundberg stated it is up to Council to decide what makes sense for the City to do. Engineer Hornby asked Council to tell him what action items it wants the City to implement and what their priorities are. Acting Mayor Siakel stated she would like the Implementation Plan to be downsized to doable action items that make sense for the City to do. Councilmember Sundberg asked that the action items be expanded upon to make them clearer. Councilmember Woodruff suggested focusing on action items zero to 5 years out. Anything beyond that is unrealistic. Engineer Hornby recommended the Implementation Plan be refined annually and then every five years it should reviewed in detail and revised as needed. Councilmember Sundberg asked staff to come up with a draft of what the City’s goals should be. She stated from her perspective the City is trying to reduce costs, be more prudent with the use of energy resources and show leadership for the community. Councilmember Woodruff stated he thought the GreenStep Cities Program probably has some goals that the City could try and achieve. He then stated the information provided by staff indicates that rooftop solar installations on City buildings would not be a break even financial investment. 4. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session of October 10, 2016, at 6:55 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Acting Mayor Siakel called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Acting Mayor Siakel; Councilmembers Labadie, Sundberg, and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Acting City Administrator/City Clerk Panchyshyn; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby Absent: Mayor Zerby B. Review Agenda Acting Mayor Siakel asked that Item 6.A Presentation by Excelsior Fire District Chief Gerber and Council consideration of the EFD aerial truck purchase be added to the agenda. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2016 Woodruff moved, Siakel seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 26, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Acting Mayor Siakel reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Woodruff moved, Labadie 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. 16-078 “A Resolution Approving Licenses to Retailers to Sell Tobacco Products for CUB Foods Shorewood, Holiday Stationstore #12, Lucky’s Station LLC #7, Shorewood Cigars and Tobacco, Inc., and Wine & Spirits by JD dba MGM Liquors.” C. City Administrator Joynes Contract Extension D. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Replacement Air Compressor System, Piping and Electrical Service for the South East Water Treatment Facility CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 2 of 7 E. ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 16-079 “A Resolution Accepting Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for 2015 Water Service Improvement Project Schedule B – 21986 Bracketts Road.” Councilmember Labadie stated that the retailers that are being approved for licenses to sell tobacco as part of Item 3.B are all established. She asked if the City has received any other applications. Acting Administrator/Clerk Panchyshyn responded no. Councilmember Sundberg stated that for the contract extension for Administrator Joynes she asked if his rate would be on an hourly basis. Attorney Keane responded yes. Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation by Excelsior Fire District Chief Gerber and Council Consideration of the EFD Aerial Truck Purchase Acting Mayor Siakel introduced Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Chief Gerber who was present to talk about the proposed purchase of a new aerial truck. Chief Gerber explained the EFD Board has been talking about the replacement of the EFD’s aerial truck over the last three years. During its September 28, 2016, meeting the Board on a 5/0 vote unanimously approved moving forward with the purchase of a new aerial truck. Because that is the most expensive piece of capital equipment the EFD he asked each of the Boardmembers to confirm that their respective councils supported the replacement purchase. The truck is an approved item in the EFD Capital Equipment Program (CIP). The purchase would be within the CIP budgeted amount and it does not require an increase in the $170,000 2017 contribution to the capital fund. The new aerial has a planned useful life of 20 years. He noted the EFD prepared a seven-minute-long video showing the operation of the EFD’s 65-foot aerial apparatus, the Minnetonka Fire District’s 75-foot mid-mount aerial apparatus, and Pierce’s (a vendor) 107-foot demo truck. He explained the three trucks were taken to six locations – Minnewashta Elementary School, a residential home in Shorewood, a residential home in Tonka Bay, a multi-family apartment in Excelsior, a residential home in Deephaven and a multi-family home in Deephaven to demonstrate the difference in the reach. The 107-foot Pierce aerial apparatus is what the Board recommended for purchase. . Per Council’s request, Gerber showed the video which can be found at https://youtu.be/HD29Gz5y1oE Acting Mayor Siakel thanked Chief Gerber for the outstanding job he does and the firefighters do for the South Lake community. She also thanked him, the firefighters and volunteers for the great job they did putting on the EFD Open House and Safety Fair on October 6. Gerber noted that EFD Fire Inspector Murphy-Ringate does a very good job of coordinating that event. He stated the turnout was tremendous CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 3 of 7 particularly on such a rainy and cool evening. Councilmember Labadie stated she thought the event is great for children and it is very educational. Chief Gerber stated that this evening he is asking Council to express its support for what the EFD Board has recommended either through consensus or through a formal motion. Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, authorizing the Excelsior Fire District Board and EFD Chief Gerber to move forward with negotiating the purchase of the 107-foot Pierce aerial apparatus. Motion passed 4/0. 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. A Professional Services Agreement for Lilac Lane Drainage Study Engineer Hornby explained that during its September 26, 2016, meeting Council discussed a drainage issue on Lilac Lane. During that meeting Council directed staff to contact staff at the City of Chanhassen to find out if it would be willing to pay for part of the cost to study the drainage issue because some of the stormwater flowing into the problem spot flows from Chanhassen. Council also directed staff to research when improvements are scheduled to be made to that roadway. Chanhassen has indicated it wants to know what the problem is and the solution is before it commits to funding. The Street Reconstruction Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has Lilac Lane slated for a mill and overlay in 2019. Council had asked him during that meeting what he thought the solution would be and he indicated then that he thought it would require creating a drainage swale to carry the stormwater across the yard and to the wetland nearby. WSB & Associates has submitted scope of services proposal for the preparation of a feasibility letter and preliminary design services for an estimated fee of $8,300. Councilmember Sundberg asked when Chanhassen will make up its mind about funding. Engineer Hornby responded after Shorewood does a drainage study that identifies what the problem is and what the cost of the mitigation would be. Acting Mayor Siakel stated during the September 26 meeting staff stated that there are similar drainage issues throughout the City. She explained based on what staff explained during that meeting the previous owner of the 21710 Lilac Lane property constructed a driveway at the low point of Lilac Lane going against what staff had advised. The current owner of that property had asked the City to help find and fund a way to mitigate the amount of water that flows on to and over his property. The motion to approve a study failed on a split vote. She asked Council if it wants to make an exception for the owner of the 21710 property owner. Or, does Council want to adhere to its plan to do a mill and overlay of Lilac Lane in 2019 and at that time consider what, if anything, could be done to mitigate the drainage issue. Councilmember Labadie reiterated Council was divided during the September 26 meeting. During that meeting staff noted there are 100 similar drainage situations in the City. She asked Engineer Hornby if that number is correct. Hornby stated that number was mentioned by Director Nielsen. Engineer Hornby stated staff assessed a couple of similar situations as part of the 2016 mill and overlay project. Staff was considering addressing them with spillways in order to direct the water in a more permanent fashion. He explained that the majority of the City’s roadways are rural; they do not have curb CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 4 of 7 and gutter. For rural roadways water flows over the surface and through ditches and swales to low points and on to wetlands. There are a number of situations throughout the City. There is an identical situation on Minnetonka Drive where the driveway was put in at the low point. There are also others in the City; how many he does not know. Councilmember Labadie stated that when she went to look at the 21710 Lilac Lane property before the September 26 meeting it appeared that a lot of the stormwater was flowing down Lilac Lane from properties in Chanhassen. Engineer Hornby explained the development in Chanhassen has a stormwater system that drains to the east. That system has catch basins before the Chanhassen roadway reaches Lilac Lane. The majority of the stormwater is handled by the system. During major rain events some water will flow past the catch basins resulting in some of the stormwater reaching Lilac Lane. The rear yards of properties drain toward Lilac Lane. He estimated that about one-half to three-quarters of the water on Lilac Lane comes from land in Shorewood. He stated some of the stormwater drains into a wetland owned by Shorewood. That water flows across one or two private properties. He explained when staff evaluates a drainage situation like that and recommends improvements it does not recommend changing the drainage pattern. Hornby stated if Council chooses not to move forward with the drainage study then when it comes time for the mill and overlay in 2019 staff will assess how to improve the drainage situation. Acting Mayor Siakel stated if the property owner is willing to share in the expense she asked what that means. Engineer Hornby stated the property owner has not specified that. Larry Stokes, 21710 Lilac Lane, stated if the City told the developer of the property not to build the driveway where they ultimately did he asked why that cannot be found in any document the City has about the property that he has seen. The City Building Inspector seems to be very detailed and he is surprised that he would not have made some issue of it. He then stated when someone says there are 100 other properties with a similar drainage situation he asked where the data supporting that comes from. Or, is someone just putting that number out there. He noted that if his driveway was not located where it is there would still be stormwater flowing on to and across his property. He asked if there is some other way to identify a solution without spending about $8,300 on a study. Engineer Hornby explained a drainage study needs to be done to determine the amount of water and its velocity flowing down toward the property to determine what type and size of swale is needed. Without doing a drainage study he cannot guarantee any change is going to work. Mitigating the problem the wrong way could cause issues in other places. Mr. Stokes stated he does not think that creating a swale would cost much more than $10,000. Engineer Hornby noted there are two similar projects in other communities that are underway. The initial bid for one was $110,000 and the second one is estimated at approximately $95,000. Acting Mayor Siakel explained there are drainage issues throughout the City and there is an attempt to mitigate them when infrastructure improvements are made. The City has a 20-Year Pavement Management Plan (PMP) and all of the City’s roadways are included in that Plan. As previously stated Lilac Lane is scheduled for some improvement in 2019 so that would be the time to assess making drainage improvements. She stated that as a member of Council she has a responsibility to try and ensure people are treated the same. If Council approved this study it would have to do the same for other property owners who make a similar request. She then stated her preference is to adhere to the schedule in CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 5 of 7 the PMP unless there is a safety issue or a hazardous situation. She noted that if improvements to Lilac Lane were scheduled 10 years out she probably would consider doing this now. Mr. Stokes stated that his driveway is damaged and there is no point in fixing it until the drainage issue is resolved. He questioned what he needs to do with the City before he could try and improve the situation himself. He explained there is a ditch where his driveway used to be that is about 18 inches deep. He has repeatedly filled it with gravel but the gravel keeps washing out. Councilmember Labadie asked what Mr. Stokes’ first step should be. Engineer Hornby stated he would have to go and look at Mr. Stokes’ property and noted he would do that. Director Brown encouraged that to be a cursory look. Brown cautioned against promoting a solution without analyzing all of the factors. Brown stated there are many people who would offer up a quick solution so he encouraged Mr. Stokes to make sure it is a good solution. Councilmember Labadie stated a cheaper solution is not always the best. It may cause other problems. She noted that the City has strict guidelines it has to follow. Engineer Hornby stated the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) offers grants for certain types of drainage problems. Mr. Stokes thanked Council for its time. There was Council consensus to take no action on this item. B. Award Contract to Alternate Contractor for Power Washing Exterior of East Water Tower Director Brown explained that the contractor that was awarded the initial contract on May 31, 2016, to power wash the exterior of the East Water Tower has failed to perform. The contractor was put on notice that because of its failure to perform the City was going to use a different contractor. Staff recommends re-awarding the contract to the alternate contractor Water Tower Clean and Coat, Inc. in the amount of $5,325. That is $150 more than the quote from the original contractor. Councilmember Woodruff stated the City uses KLM Engineering a lot for work on the City’s water towers; KLM was awarded the initial contract. He expressed his disappointment that KLM did not address the problem with its subcontractor. He was concerned that would happen again in the future if the City hired KLM again. Director Brown explained that when the City was going to bid out the project staff learned that KLM offered water tower power washing services via a subcontractor Badger Inspections, LLC. At the time the bid was received staff researched Badger Inspections. The City of Tonka Bad had recently used Badger Inspections for work on its water tower and was satisfied with the work performed. After three revised dates from Badger for doing the power washing staff decided it was time to find another contractor and notified KLM of the change. He noted that he is confident that KLM would continue to provide quality engineering services. Woodruff moved, Labadie seconded, canceling the contract with KLM Engineering and appointing the alternate contractor Water Tower Clean and Coat, Inc. for the power washing of the East Water Tower for an amount not to exceed $5,325. Motion passed 4/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 6 of 7 C. Accepting and Approving Grant Agreement with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services for Improvement of Publically Owned Infrastructure Engineer Hornby explained that in 2014 Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) established a grant program to try and entice municipalities to reduce inflow and infiltration (I&I) into publicly owned sanitary sewer systems. The City applied for a grant. The program reimburses for 50 percent of expenses incurred up to a maximum amount which is currently $25,000. If there are not a lot of applicants the City could be reimbursed more. The City has incurred eligible expenses while doing the Sunnyvale Lane Street and Utility Improvements Project in 2014 when the sanitary sewer system was replaced. It also incurred expenses while doing the Star Lane and Star Circle Street and Utility Improvements Project when infiltration shields were put on the castings and short liners were put in the pipe where there were some leaks coming into the pipe joint. Those costs will be submitted to MCES for reimbursement. MCES asks that the grant agreement be approved before it gives the reimbursement. Hornby noted the meeting packet contain a copy of a resolution approving the grant agreement between the City and MCES. Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 16-080 “A Resolution Accepting Bid and Approving the Grant Agreement between the City of Shorewood and the Metropolitan Council of Environmental Services for the Improvement of Publically Owned Infrastructure.” Motion passed 4/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Trail Schedule Engineer Hornby stated the contractor is working on a few punch list items for Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project. There is one cracked pedestrian ramp that has to be repaired. There is a driveway apron that needs to be put in. Staff has been trying to get in contact with a couple of property owners the City obtained easements from to talk about planting trees. 2. Monthly Budget Report The meeting packet contained a copy of the August 2016 Monthly Budget Report. Other Director Brown stated people finally got the speed display sign on the east side of Country Club Road working for north bound traffic. Now, the one on the west side of the road for southbound traffic is not working. Engineer Hornby noted that the trunk watermain extension project for the Oppidan Investment project started today, October 10. Resident notices were sent out to the affected property owners. There was a CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES October 10, 2016 Page 7 of 7 preconstruction meeting last week. The goal is to complete the extension project on the north side of Highway 7 this year. Acting Administrator/ Clerk Panchyshyn stated there is a household hazardous waste collection event at the Shorewood Public Works facility scheduled for October 13 – 16 from 9:00 A.M. – 4:00 P.M. She then stated there is a paper shredding event scheduled for Saturday, October 14 from 9:00 A.M. to Noon at City Hall. She noted that October 18 is the last day to pre-register to vote. Councilmember Labadie stated before the 2016 spring clean-up event she asked staff to research where residents can bring their used children’s car seats for disposal. Acting Administrator/ Clerk Panchyshyn stated she thought the Recycling Coordinator researched that and did not find any place that takes them. Attorney Keane noted the State Supreme Court declined to review the City’s request. A meeting will be scheduled with Council to talk about that. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie asked drivers to slow down when they are driving near the schools. She stated that last year a student was struck by a vehicle outside of Minnetonka Middle School West; fortunately nothing happened. A couple of weeks ago a high school student was fatally struck near Minnetonka High School. She noted that last week she witnessed a student almost get hit by a vehicle outside of Minnetonka Middle School West. Councilmember Sundberg noted she is a former member of the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District (RPBCWD) Board of Managers. She stated the Chairman of the Board Perry Forster called her and asked if she would meet with him and RPBCWD Administrator Clair Bleser which she did do. She thought the purpose of the meeting was to reassure Shorewood that they are very aware of Silver Lake. When she was a Manager it was not. A lot of organizational changes have been made at the RPBCWD. Priorities have also been adjusted. Instead of having a strong focus on carp research they are now focused on the entire Watershed. She encouraged staff and Council to keep very engaged with RPBCWD staff. She noted she learned that the presence of wild rice in Silver Lake is complicating how Silver Lake should be classified. She stated she thought both organizations should continue to engage with each other. 12. ADJOURN Woodruff moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of October 10, 2016, at 7:49 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 Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: October 24, 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. 62996 - 62997 & ACH 41,152.75 62998 - 63036 & ACH 432,040.55 Total Claims $473,193.30 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending October 16, 2016. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents an budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may r expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval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`"?1 ,' !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'F+B'' > $&5 !'FN4KUQ Ma,<VUZ48 9:,H I2 $9 !,N/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ +'*KC.'NE.-T4'++'*-KC.-'NE.-A@& ,A &1,*OCB(('()*C)*('++('-((-CFO+-(((( +'*KC.E('O-T4'++'*-KC.-E('O-HK,/ ? ,**(B.('()*C)*('++('-((-CFOE-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,.'CB.( > $&5 !'CC4VQa,TL,Kb4K<HVTM48 9:,H I2 $9 !,E/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ ' %,^% -*('+-H[^2? % @3,H W , ?1 ,-,' %,^% -*('+,'*PFC'B.*'()*C)*('++''-((-CFE+-(((( *$&,^% -*('+-H[^2? % @3,H W , ?1 ,-,*$&,^% -*('+,'*PFC'B.*'()*C)*('++''-((-CFE+-(((( F &,^% -*('+-H[^2? % @3,H W , ?1 ,-,F &,^% -*('+,'*PFC'BC*'()*C)*('++''-((-CFE+-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,FNP(*CBC+ > $&5 !'C+4VQa,TL,0VUUKQTUZ/48 9:,H I2 $9 !,O/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ F &,^% -*('+-[?% .F.(,>#$ ,J#@@,M&,-,F &,^% ,*NCBE.'()*C)*('++('-((-C*+*-(((( F &,^% -*('+-[?% .F++,>#$ ,J#@@,M&,-,F &,^% ,'*EB.C'()*C)*('++('-((-C*+*-(((( F &,^% -*('+-[?% .CO(,>#$ ,J#@@,M&,-,F &,^% ,.NBFC'()*C)*('++('-((-C*+*-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,C+(BNF > $&5 !'CO4VQa,TL,QTUZ/,A/a48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'(/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ F &,^% -*('+-[?% ^2? % @3,[?% ,,H Y#9 ,NCCB+('()*C)*('++('-((-C*+(-(((( F &,^% -*('+-[?% ^2? % @3,H W ,,H Y#9 ,FONB.('()*C)*('++''-((-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'P'C*B'( > $&5 !'.(4</HHV4,4<K/UVUG,4T0"/Ua48 9:,H I2 $9 !,''/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *C*NC4#%3,J?@@,05$%8@3,HY9,CO.B(('()*C)*('+'('-'O-CC((-(((( *C*N."2=@#9,[5 : ,05$%8@3,HY9,*O.B(('()*C)*('+'('-F*-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,NO(B(( > $&5 !N'*4TU<KaSH,[V<R<VLK,4TUQMT<P,<<448 9:,H I2 $9 !,'*/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ CE'A ?Y ,0?$?1 6 $%,'P*((B(('()*C)*('+'('-F*-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'P*((B(( > $&5 !.EE4 <<VG/U,[/QKM,_HH44`48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'F/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ '('b*OF+.C(FH5@? ,H?@%,R @#Y 3,+EB*.'()*C)*('+*('-((-C*C.-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,+EB*. /"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*('+,-,'(!.(,/0`"?1 ,* !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# > $&5 !NNO</ MKU,R cTUG48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'C/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ T:%5= ; %-*('T:%5= ; %-L?9 ,"?#$%#$1,*.B(('()*C)*('+'('-.F-CCFE-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,*.B(( > $&5 !NF'RTUU/a,JT0KHP,VU4B48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'./4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *F(N(H266#%/Y K 9 5W,M ;2$&-*F(N(,H266#%,/Y ,_Z#6,M #& $9 `,NP(.(B(('()*C)*('+EE(-((-**((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,NP(.(B(( > $&5 !'+NK40," A<VHJKMH,VU448 9:,H I2 $9 !,'+/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 C'CN*./= $% ,>5%#$1,+FB*.'()*C)*('+'('-'F-CF.'-(((( C'CN*+M 5@2%#5$,'+-(NC,E+B*.'()*C)*('+'('-'F-CF.'-(((( C'CEOO/= $% ,>5%#$1,C*BC''()*C)*('+'('-'F-CF.'-(((( C'CO((M 5@2%#5$,'+-(NC,.NBEF'()*C)*('+'('-'F-CF.'-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,*COBNC > $&5 !*'OK<<a,"VK"KM48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'N/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ '(-(F-'+Q?=@ 9@5%8 ,-'()(C)'+,+(B(('()*C)*('+*('-((-CC((-(((( '(-'(-*('+Q?=@ 9@5%8 ,-'()'()'+,ECB(('()*C)*('+*('-((-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'CCB(( > $&5 !'ECGMKGTMa,L/H4JVUG48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'E/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 *('+-A55%*('+-A55%,*'CBOE'()*C)*('+'('-F*-C*C.-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,*'CBOE > $&5 !'E+LKMG HTU,[/QKM[TMZH,U5B*.'+48 9:,H I2 $9 !,'O/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ (*'NE(F-'[?% ,0 % ,F+OBC('()*C)*('++('-((-C*+.-(((( (*'NE(N-'[?% ,0 % ,*CB+F'()*C)*('++('-((-C*+.-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,FOCB(F > $&5 !NNEV/U,],4/MT<,LMVKUR<a48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*(/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ ..O(H85 ,M&K 9 5W,M ;2$&-..O(,H85 ,M5?&,E.PC.*B(('()*C)*('+EE(-((-**((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,E.PC.*B(( > $&5 !*(+Q[V</,GMT Q48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*'/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 T:%5= ; %-'+0G0,[#$ ,],H7# #% ,OCBFC'()*C)*('+'('-.F-CCFE-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,OCBFC /"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*('+,-,'(!.(,/0`"?1 ,F !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# > $&5 !*''J/[ZVUHP,VU4B48 9:,H I2 $9 !,**/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 FO+((*(-MV48@5 #$ ,*(.B(('()*C)*('++('-((-C*C.-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,*(.B(( > $&5 !*'.JKUUK"VU,4T UQa,VULTM0/QVTU,QK4JUT<TGa,RK"/MQ0KUQ48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*F/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 '((((E*'+F05$%8@3,E((,08d,M?,H Y#9 ,'F(B(+'()*C)*('+'('-F*-CF*'-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'F(B(+ > $&5 !CE*Z Q/Z,MT4Z,<<"48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*C/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 **''+.(G $ ?@,45 75 ?% ,-,/212 %,H Y#9 ,'PE.(B(('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( **''+.'" 5$$ @,-,c2@3,],/212 %,H Y#9 ,NC(B(('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( **''+.*<?$&, ,],R Y @576 $%,-,05 @59:,<5%,],0?$#%52,G@ $,CECB(('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( **''+.FH6#%8%5W$,Q ?#@,K? %,-,c2@3,],/212 %,H Y#9 ,*PCONB.('()*C)*('+C(+-((-C+*(-(((E **''++'/&6#$# % ?%#Y ,45& ,-,c2@3,],/212 %,H Y#9 ,NP+O+B(('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( **''N*'H52%8 85 ,4 $% ,-,c2@3,],/212 %,H Y#9 ,CPNOFB'F'()*C)*('+*('-((-CF(C-(((( **''E..0#$$ %5$:?,452$% 3,4@2=,-,c2@3,],/21,H Y#9 ,'P*(*B.('()*C)*('+C.(-((-CF(*-(('+ **'*'NCK95$56#9,R Y @576 $%,-c2@3,],/21,H Y#9 ,E.'B(('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( **'*FC.04KH,<#;%,H%?%#5$,'E,-,/212 %,H Y#9 ,.'EB(('()*C)*('++''-((-CF(C-(((( **'*++*M & Y @576 $%,QVL,T77#&?$,-,c2@3,],/212 %,H Y#9 ,OP.CNBF('()*C)*('+C.(-((-CC((-(('O **'F(''[#$ #98-"527? &,K$;5 9 6 $%,-,c2@3,],/212 %,H Y#9 ,'P'F(BN('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( ***(O++G $ ?@,45 75 ?% ,-,c2@3,H Y#9 ,'PE.(B(('()*C)*('+'('-'+-CF(C-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,FFP'+(B'F > $&5 !.F'<K/G K,TL,0VUUKHTQ/,4VQVKH48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*./4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *FE+O.*('+,0 6= 8#7,R2 ,NPC++B(('()*C)*('+'('-''-CCFF-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,NPC++B(( > $&5 !CN(AM/R<Ka,0/HTU48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*+/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ R5%,M 4 %*('+R5%,MK9 %#;#9?%#5$,4@? ,O.B(('()*C)*('+'('-F*-CCFN-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,O.B(( > $&5 ! AD(((E*4? 5@,094@ ? 348 9:,H I2 $9 !,*N/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ M ;2$&,48 9:,C*(B.C'()*()*('++''-((-*('(-(((( M ;2$&,48 9:,**CB.('()*()*('++F'-((-*('(-(((( M ;2$&,48 9:,**FB+''()*()*('++*'-((-*('(-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,E+EB+. > $&5 !C.F0KQMT"T<VQ/U,4T U4V<,_H/4`48 9:,H I2 $9 !,*E/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ /"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*('+,-,'(!.(,/0`"?1 ,C !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# F &,^% -*('+-H/4^2? % @3,H/4,HY9-,F &,^% -*('+,CPO*(BF('()*C)*('++''-((-*(E*-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,CPO*(BF( > $&5 !*E+0VR[KHQ,0/V<VUG,HaHQK0H,VU448 9:,H I2 $9 !,*O/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 N.E(E-4 &#%4 &#%,; 56,F &,^% , %#@#%3,A#@@#$1 -FBC*'()*C)*('++('-((-C*(E-(((( U5Y 6= -*('+U W @ %% ,"5 %?1 -U5Y 6= ,CFOBO*'()*C)*('+'('-'F-C*(E-(((( U5Y 6= -*('+U W @ %% ,HY9-U5Y 6= ,C*+BC.'()*C)*('+'('-'F-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,E+*BO. > $&5 !*OE0VUUKHTQ/,RK"/MQ0KUQ,TL,</ATM,],VUR HQMa48 9:,H I2 $9 !,F(/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *.N.N(.F**(^2? % @3,H2 98? 1 ," 6#%,-,F &,^% -*('+,'PFC+B'F'()*C)*('+'('-((-*(E.-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'PFC+B'F > $&5 !.EN0VUUKQTUZ/,/^ /QV4H48 9:,H I2 $9 !,F'/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *('+-H266 <#; 12? &#$1,H Y#9 -*('+,FP(+EB.''()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,FP(+EB.' > $&5 !F(.0UH"K4QP,,VU4B48 9:,H I2 $9 !,F*/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ +EO(V$ 7 9%#5$,H Y#9 ,N(B(('()*C)*('+'('-*C-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,N(B(( > $&5 !F**TLLV4K,RK"TQ48 9:,H I2 $9 !,FF/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ EN'.C.O'((('M2== =?$&,'OBO+'()*C)*('+'('-'F-C*((-(((( EN'.C+('C(('G $ ?@,T;;#9 ,H277@# ,'('BOO'()*C)*('+'('-'F-C*((-(((( EN*ON(F*+(('H277@# ,EOB.E'()*C)*('+'('-'F-C*((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,*''B.F > $&5 !F*.TU,HVQK,H/UVQ/QVTU,-Q[VU,4VQVKH48 9:,H I2 $9 !,FC/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ FF'((CA?&1 ,":-.NC.,452$% 3,4@2=,M&,.FB*.'()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC'(-(((( FF'((.4?%89? %,"? :-*++..,[-,+*$&,HQ,.FB*.'()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC'(-(((( FF'((+L 6?$,"? :-+(((,K2 :?,M&,'NOBN.'()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC'(-(((( FF'((NH#@Y W55&,":-.N..,45Y#$1%5$,M&,.FB*.'()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC'(-(((( FF'((EHH,H:?% -.F..,H%,/@=?$ ,A?3,M&,.FB*.'()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC'(-(((( FF'((O48 # %6? ,<:,M&-.+*.,0 3,<$,*FCBF('()*C)*('+'('-.*-CC'(-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,+*NB(. > $&5 !C.*"MKJ/<<,K<K4QMV4,VU4B48 9:,H I2 $9 !,F./4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ CE'EM2 %#9[?3K 9 5W,M ;2$&-CE'E,M2 %#9,[?3,NP(((B(('()*C)*('+EE(-((-**((-(((( /"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*('+,-,'(!.(,/0`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eN-"('C.O-OC"B>BeN,-," 5X 9%,U5B,('C.O-OC-H6#%8%5W$,M&,K? %,H#& W?@:,Kf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`"?1 ,+ !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# 48 9:,Q5%?@!,F.B(( > $&5 !F+(HT QJ,</ZK,0VUUKQTUZ/,"T<V4K,RK"/MQ0KUQ48 9:,H I2 $9 !,CF/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ H 7%-*('+-J4"L05$%8@3-J $$,4%3," 59 ,L ,F'FB'+'()*C)*('+'('-*'-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,F'FB'+ > $&5 !FN+QJK,0 <4J,HQTMK48 9:,H I2 $9 !,CC/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *(COEA 2 8,R# 75 ?@,-,H 7% 6= ,**(B(('()*C)*('+'('-F*-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,**(B(( > $&5 !FE+Q[VU,4VQa,[/QKM,4<VUV448 9:,H I2 $9 !,C./4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ ENO(05$%8@3,A?9% #?,HY9,'((B(('()*C)*('++('-((-CC((-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'((B(( > $&5 !CF* UVQKR,L/M0KMH,4TT"KM/QV>K48 9:,H I2 $9 !,C+/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ *(-E*('FO48?#$,H?W,"? % ,C'BO('()*C)*('+'('-F*-C**'-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,C'BO( > $&5 !C*'>KMV\TU,[VMK<KHH48 9:,H I2 $9 !,CN/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ ONN*OFE+*(H W ,],[?% ,-,/99%EC*('NFE+-HY9-(O)(*)'+-'()(')'+,.(BFE'()*C)*('++('-((-CF*'-((((/99%,eEC*('NFE+-((((' ONN*OFE+*(H W ,],[?% ,-,/99%EC*('NFE+-HY9-(O)(*)'+-'()(')'+,.(BF+'()*C)*('++''-((-CF*'-((((/99%,eEC*('NFE+-((((' ONN*OFE+*(H,],[,<#$ ,-,/99%EC*('NFE+-HY9-(O)(*)'+-'()(')'+,.(BF+'()*C)*('++F'-((-CF*'-((((/99%,eEC*('NFE+-((((' 48 9:,Q5%?@!,'.'B'( > $&5 !C'.[/MUKM,4TUUK4Q48 9:,H I2 $9 !,CE/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 *OOF'C.N/&&#%#5$?@,H Y#9 ,48? 1 -H 7%-*('+,.C(B(('()*C)*('+'('-'O-CF*'-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,.C(B(( > $&5 !C(E[0,0 K<<KM,],HTUH,VU448 9:,H I2 $9 !,CO/4J,K$?=@ &!,Q 2 *'ECECM5?&,0?#$%,O(*BC('()*C)*('+'('-F*-C*.(-(((( *'EN'+M5?&,0?#$%,'PF.(BNO'()*C)*('+'('-F*-C*.(-(((( *'EECNM5?&,0?#$%,'PF.+BC*'()*C)*('+'('-F*-C*.(-(((( 48 9:,Q5%?@!,FP+(OB+' > $&5 !C''b4K<,KUKMGaP,VU4B48 9:,H I2 $9 !,.(/4J,K$?=@ &!,L?@ H%6%e.'OC.NOE..+..,0 3,<?$ ,-,(O)(N)'+-'()(+)'+,*CB.E'()*C)*('+'('-.*-CFE(-(((( /"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*('+,-,'(!.(,/0`"?1 ,N !"#$% &#'"(!)*! +, - *./0,# *$&/*#+""*$%-,1#(2#3#(# "# 48 9:,Q5%?@!,*CB.E Q5%?@,;5 ,48 9:,M2$!,CF*P(C(B.. Q5%?@,5;,U26= ,5;,48 9: !,.( /"-45672% ,48 9:," 55;,<# %,=3,> $&5 ,_'()*()*('+,-,'(!.(,/0`"?1 ,E #3B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: 2017 Community Tree Sale Meeting Date: October 24, 2016 Prepared by: Julie Moore, Communications/Recycling Coordinator CC: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk Background The City of Shorewood has participated in the Minnetonka tree sale for four of the past five years with huge success. Residents have been very open to the tree sale and we have added a diverse selection of trees to the community. Minnetonka has again offered to let Shorewood participate in their spring tree sale. This year, we will continue the pre-sale option utilized for the 2017 sale before we order trees. All trees ordered are guaranteed free of neonictinoids as per our new Bee Safe ordinance. To meet the needs of residents that do not want to order so far in advance, we would still purchase a limited selection of trees that we would have to pre-pay for and get reimbursed upon ordering. In the past we have ordered $7,400 in trees. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends Council authorize the expenditure of funds up to $7,400 for trees to be pre-paid by the city and reimbursed by residents who do not pre-order trees. Any pre-orders received will be deducted from the $7,400, making the city pre-paid order lower. Timeline Upon City Council approval, the pre-order form will be in the December newsletter and advertised on the city website, and the trees purchased by the city will be advertised starting in the February newsletter. 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: Accepting Donations for the 2017 Arctic Fever Event Meeting Date: October 24, 2016 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Policy Consideration: All donations to the City of Shorewood must be accepted by the City Council. Background: The city has received the following donations for the 2017 Arctic Fever Event on January 13-15, 2017: Shorewood Professional Building - $50.00 Lucky's Station LLC - $500.00 WSB & Associates, Inc. - $500.00 American Legion Post 259 - $500.00 Clarence Clofer Auxliary Unit 259 - $150.00 The contributions are voluntary in nature. Financial or Budget Considerations: These donations will help to cover expenses related to the 2017 Arctic Fever event scheduled from Friday, January 13 – Sunday, January 15, 2016. Options: Accept the Donations, or Reject the Donations Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the donations be accepted, and a thank you note will be mailed to the donors. 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 #3D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Accept Proposal for Professional Services - Construction and Materials Testing for 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements (Oppidan), City Project 16-04. Meeting Date: October 24, 2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Attachments Proposal for Professional Services from AET Policy Consideration: Should the City Council enter into a contract with AET (American Engineering Testing, Inc.) to perform construction geotechnical services for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements (Oppidan), City Project 16-04? Background: The City Council approved plans and specifications, and authorized advertisement for bids for the 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements (Oppidan), City Project 16-04, and awarded the construction contract on October 26, 2016. The proposed improvement extends trunk watermain to serve the Oppidan Shorewood Senior Living development on Chaska Road, south of TH 7. . Tasks for the project include project management, soil observations and testing for pavement subgrades, materials testing including subgrade materials, aggregate base, bituminous, concrete, and lab tests. Geotechnical services are necessary for most construction projects and are recommended for construction projects such as the watermain extension project. The total fee is estimated with contingencies to be $11,993.00. Staff has reviewed the proposal tasks and finds this to be in order. Financial Considerations: Costs for this proposal have been included in the budgeted amount of the 2016 Trunk Watermain Improvements (Oppidan), City Project 16-04. Options: 1. Accept the proposal, as presented. 2. Reject the proposal and provide staff with alternative direction. Recommendation: Staff is recommending that a motion accepting the proposal from AET be accepted by Council. 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 AmERICAN CONSULTANTS ENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL EC TESTING, INC. GEOMATETRIALHS NICAL FORENSICS PROPOSAL FOR PROJECT TESTING SERVICES AET PROPOSAL No. 20-14949 October 11, 2016 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attn: Paul Homby, PE RE: Proposal for Construction and Materials Testing 2016 Trunk Watermain Extension Project WS13 Project No. 02925-160 City Project No. 16-04 Shorewood, Minnesota Dear Mr. Hornby: Thank you for the opportunity to provide a proposal to perform testing services on the referenced project. American Engineering Testing, Inc., (AET) is pleased to provide this proposal which presents our anticipated scope of services, our unit rates, and an estimated total cost to perform these services. Project Information We understand the City of Shorewood will be performing improvements on Yellowstone Trail, Glenco Road, Park Street and Chaska Road. The project will consist of installation of utilities and reconstruction of the streets. According to the plans and specifications provided, we understand the project will include the following: * Installation of utilities and other improvements ® Excavation, grading and placement of aggregate base ® Construction of new concrete curb & gutter * Placement of new bituminous paving Project Approach During the construction improvements, AET will provide experienced Engineering Technicians to perform sampling and material testing services in accordance to the project plans, specifications and the 2016 Mn/DOT Standard Specification. For this project, Mr. Gene Erzar will be AET's Project Manager. He can be reached at (612) 916-8824 (cell). This document shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of American Engineering Testing,Inc. 5548 Barthel Industrial Drive, Suite 500-Albertville, IVIN 55301 Phone 763-428-5573-Toll Free 800-972-6364- Fax 763-428-5575- www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida,Minnesota,South Dakota&Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER City of Shorewood AET Proposal No. 20-14949 October 11, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Scope of Services Based on our review of the available plans and our experience on similar projects, our anticipated scope of services is outlined below. These services will be provided on a part-time, will-call basis coordinated through authorized WSB field personnel. Soils Sampling and Testing Our estimate of the sampling and testing to be performed on the grading and base items is based on the requirements of Mn/DOT's "Specified Density Method" and in accordance with project specifications. AET will perform Mn/DOT laboratory sieve analysis testing as well as in-place density and moisture testing on the following materials: Utility trench backfill Embankment fill ® Subgrade Preparation * Aggregate Base The Mn/DOT Dynamic Cone Penetrometer will be used to verify density on the Aggregate Base sections of the project following the Mn/DOT Penetration Index procedures in accordance with the 2016 Mn/DOT Schedule of Materials Control (SMC). Concrete Testing During the placement of the concrete, AET will perform field testing consisting of slump, air content and temperature of the plastic concrete, followed by casting of cylinders for compression testing. The Mn/DOT SMC schedule requires three compressive strength test cylinder to be tested at an age of 28 days. AET recommends five (5) compressive strength cylinders be cast per every 300 cubic yards of each type of concrete placed each day then retrieved the following day for testing in our laboratory. These cylinders will be tested at the following ages, one at 7 days, three at 28 days, and the fifth cylinder be held in reserve for future testing if the 28 day strength requirement is not met in the 28 day period. Concrete Plant Inspection This proposal does not incorporate the time and cost to perform concrete plant inspections. These services could be provided at your request. Bituminous Pavement Sampling and Testing As bituminous paving is being completed, a certified Engineering Technician will obtain companion samples, provided by the contractor, during each day of paving. Samples will be tested in our laboratory for the following: Gyratory density, Rice specific gravity and VMA ® Asphalt extraction and aggregate gradation City of Shorewood AET Proposal No. 20-14949 October 11, 2016 Page 3 of 4 After the completion of the paving, we will be available to obtain companion core samples, provided by the contractor, for laboratory testing. Unit rates are included on the attached fee schedule; however, our estimated total does not include these services. This testing would include the following: The thickness of each layer of the core sample m The density of each layer of the core sample AET can run the Mn/DOT program to determine random core locations of bituminous based on tonnage (lot sizes) and pavement placement patterns if requested. This information will be given to WSB to pass along to the paving contractor. AET assumes the tonnage and pavement placement patterns will be provided to us by WSB. AET is available to perform observations and testing of the bituminous paving if requested. Unit rates are included on the attached fee schedule; however, our estimated total does not include these services: o Perform roll pattern testing in the field as the bituminous is being placed, measuring in-place thickness and density using a Nuclear Density gauge (by Engineering Technician II) Extract cores from the finished surface Bituminous Plant Inspection This proposal does not incorporate the time and cost to perform bituminous plant inspections. These services could be provided at your request. Estimated Dees All services will be invoiced on a unit cost basis according to the attached Fee Schedule. Our estimated total cost is $11,993.00. If our scope of services should change, or additional time or tests are needed to complete the required testing services, we will contact our client for additional funds. Often, variations in the overall cost of the services occur due to reasons beyond our control, such as weather delays, changes in the contractor's schedule, unforeseen conditions or retesting. These variations will affect the actual invoice totals, either increasing or decreasing our total costs for the project from those estimated in this proposal. If more time or tests are required, additional fees may be needed to complete the project testing services. If less time or tests are needed, a cost savings will be realized. Terms and Conditions All AET Services are provided subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the enclosed Service Agreement—Terms and Conditions, which, upon acceptance of this proposal, are binding upon you as the Client requesting Services, and your successors, assignees, joint City of Shorewood AET Proposal.No. 20-14949 October 11, 2016 Page 4 of 4 venturers and third-party beneficiaries. Please be advised that additional insured status is granted upon acceptance of the proposal. Acceptance AET requests written acceptance of this proposal in the Proposal Acceptance box below, but the following actions shall constitute your acceptance of this proposal together with the Terms and Conditions and Amendments: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the Services described above, 2) authorizing AET's presence on site or 3) written or electronic notification for AET to proceed with any of the Services described in this proposal. Please indicate your acceptance of this proposal by signing below and returning a copy to us. When you accept this proposal, you represent that you are authorized to accept on behalf of the Client. General Remarks If you have any questions regarding this proposal, or if we can be of further assistance, please call Gene Erzar at (612) 916-8824 Sincerely, American Engineering Testing,Inc. PREPARED BY: CLIENT ACCEPTANCE: Gene Erzar Paul Hornby, PE—City Engineer Engineering Assistant Date Date REVIEWED BY: John J. Haupt, P.E. Senior Engineer 4-1) � Date Attached: Fee Schedule Service Agreement—Terms and Conditions FEE SCHEDULE PROJECT TESTING SERVICES AMERICAN 2016 TRUNK WATERMAIN EXTENSION PROJECT SHOREWOOD,MN ENGINEERING WSB PROJECT NO.02926-160 TESTING, INC, SHOREWOOD CITY PROJECT NO.16-04 9!/,I /,l9Jfi AET PROPOSAL No.20-14949 TOTAL AMOUNTS PROJECT BUDGET INVOICED THROUGH Invoice Amount SERVICE DESCRIPTION ESTIMATED UNIT BUDGET UNITS RATE AMOUNT #Units Amount #Units Amount Observations and Compaction Testing 1.Engineering Assistant for travel,subgrade test rolls,consultation and reporting (services provided on a will-call basis-assumes 2 trips to the jobsite). 5 hours $115.00 $575.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 2.Engineering Technician 11 travel time for soil compaction testing(services provided on a will-call basis-assumes 20 trips to the jobsite). 24 hours $83.00 $1,992.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 3.Personal or Company vehicle mileage. 1300 miles $0.75 $975.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 4.Soil compaction tests(nuclear gauge,dcp or sand cone). 50 tests $30.00 $1,500.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 5.Standard Proctor tests(Methods A or B). 4 tests $125.00 $500.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 6.Standard Proctor tests(Method C). 0 tests $135.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 7.Clay Preparation 4 tests $60.00 $240.00 S.Sieve tests of granular fill and Class 5 aggregate base. 4 tests $105.00 $420.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 Concrete Testing 1.Engineering Technician If for travel and testing of concrete(services provided on a will-call basis-assumes 3 trips to the jobsite). 10 hours $83.00 $830.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 2.Personal or Company vehicle mileage. 190 miles $0.75 $142.50 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 3.Curing,handling and compressive strength testing of 4"x 8"or 6"x 12 concrete test cylinders(includes handling of non-tested cylinders). 20 cyls. $25.00 $500.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 4.Plastic concrete cylinder molds(4"x 8"or 6"x 12"). 20 cyls. $3.00 $60.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 5.Concrete cylinder pick-up service from jobsite. 2 trips $75.00 $150.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 Bituminous Testing 1. Engineering Technician II travel and obtaining samples for laboratory testing (services provided on a will-call basis-assumes 4 trips to the jobsite). 10 hours $83.00 $830.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 2. Personal or Company vehicle mileage. 270 miles $0.75 $202.50 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 3.Removal of cores from finished bituminous surface(includes all personnel, equipment rental and patching materials). 0 hours $185.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 4.Thickness and density tests of bituminous core samples. 0 tests $42.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 5.Nuclear densty compaction tests. 0 tests $28.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 6.Nuclear gauge rental charge. 0 trips $10.00 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 7.Superpave gyratory. 4 tests $500.00 $2,000.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 Project Management&Coordination 1.Project Manager for coordination of AET personnel and activities,attending meetings(if requested),consultation and report preparation. 8 hours $115.00 $920.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 2.Personal or Company vehicle mileage. 0 miles $0.75 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 0.0 $0.00 TOTAL MONTHLY ESTIMATED BUDGET $11,993.00 INVOICED $0.00 INVOICE $0.00 THROUGH TOTAL Page 1 of 1 CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT-TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 1 of 5 SECTION 1-RESPONSIBILITIES 1_1 — This Service Agreement — Terms and Conditions ("terms and conditions") is applicable to all Services provided by American Engineering Testing, Inc. (AET). As used herein "Services" refer to the scope of Services described in the proposal submitted by AET to Client. The proposal, these terms and conditions and any appendices attached hereto shall comprise the Agreement between AET and Client for Services described in the proposal and are binding upon the Client, its successors, assignees,joint ventures and third-party beneficiaries. AET requests written acceptance of the Agreement, but the following actions shall also constitute Client's acceptance of the Agreement: 1) issuing an authorizing purchase order for any of the Services, 2) authorizing AET's presence on site, or 3) written or electronic notification for AET to proceed with any of the Services. 1_2- Prior to AET performing Services, Client will provide AET with all information that may affect the cost, progress,safety and performance of the Services. This includes, but is not limited to, information on proposed and existing construction, all pertinent sections of contracts between Client and property owner,site safety plans or other documents which may control or affect AEI's Services. If new information becomes available or changes are made during AET's Services, Client will provide such information to AET in a timely manner. Earthwork and construction activities are done to support a particular structure (type, size, and shape) or facility at a specific location and elevation. If the type of structure or facility (structural type, size, shape, location, elevation, etc.) changes,the earthwork or construction activities completed may no longer provide suitable structural support or be capable of supporting the intended construction. Additional earthwork or redesign of all or a part of the structure or facility maybe needed. Failure of Client to timely notify AET of changes to the project including,but not limited to, location, elevation, loading, or configuration of the structure or improvement will constitute a release of any liability of AET. Client will provide a representative for timely answers to project-related questions by AET. 1.3 - AET observes and tests earthwork and other construction operations and materials, and may provide opinions, conclusions and recommendations regarding the same. However, AET's Services do not relieve the contractors of their contractual responsibility to perform their work in accordance with approved plans, specifications and building code requirements. 1.4-AET personnel do not have authority to accept, reject, direct or otherwise approve the work of the contractor.AET cannot stop work or waive or alter the requirements of the project documents.Any authority given to AET by Client must be in writing prior to the start of Services. 1.5-AET does not perform construction management, general contracting or surveying services and our involvement with the project does not constitute any assumption of those responsibilities. 1.6 - Services performed by AET often include sampling at specific locations. Client acknowledges the limitations inherent in sampling. Variations in conditions occur between and beyond sampled/tested locations. The passage of time, natural occurrences and direct or indirect human activities at the site or distant from it may alter the actual conditions. Client assumes all risks associated with such variations. 1.7-AET is not responsible for interpretations or modifications of AEI's recommendations by other persons. 1.8 - Should change in conditions be alleged, Client agrees to notify AET before evidence of alleged change is no longer accessible for evaluation. 1.9 -Test borings and/or cone penetration test soundings to a proper depth below foundation grade and the base of suitable bearing soils are recommended for projects where supporting soils will be subjected to increased loads to explore the deeper unseen soil and ground water conditions.Judgments made by AET personnel regarding the suitability of materials and ground water conditions below the bottom of an excavation are limited if sufficiently deep test borings/soundings are not provided by the Client prior to our observations and judgments. AET's opinions, conclusions and recommendations are qualified to that extent. 1.10 — Pricing in the proposal assumes use of these terms and conditions. AET reserves the right to amend pricing if Client requests modifications to the Agreement or use of Client's alternate contract format. Any contract amendments made after Client has authorized the Services shall be applicable only to Services performed after the effective date of such amendment. The proposal and these terms and conditions, including terms of payment, shall apply to all Services performed prior to the effective date of such amendment. 1.11—The AET proposal accompanying these terms and conditions is valid for sixty (60) days after the proposal issuance date to the Client. Any attempt to authorize Services after the expiration date is subject to.AET's right to revise the proposal as necessary. SECTION 2-WILL CALL SERVICES 2.1 - If AET's Services are performed on a will-call basis at the direction of the Client or its authorized representatives, Client acknowledges the inherent limitations associated with performing engineering judgments and testing Services on a will-call basis, including without limitation, the inability to completely evaluate, document or judge work and conditions not directly observed or tested by AET.AEI's opinions, conclusions,and recommendations are qualified to the extent of those limitations. ACS 403C(10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT-TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 2 of 5 2.2- Density tests of fill soils represent conditions only at the locations and elevations tested and do not necessarily represent conditions laterally or below. AET can only provide judgments regarding the engineered fill system to adequately support the design construction loadings by monitoring the filling process on a continuous basis for consistency of soil type, moisture content, lift thickness,and compaction effort. 2.3—AET requires a minimum of 24 hours notice of the need for Services. AET will not be liable for claims, damages, or delays related to failure of Client to provide adequate advance notice to AET. SECTION 3-SITE ACCESS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION STAKING 3.1-Client will furnish AET safe and legal site access. 3.2 - AET is not responsible for locating underground facilities on construction sites. Client shall ensure that underground facilities have been previously located and cleared. AET will not be responsible for any damages to underground facilities not located or incorrectly identified.An underground facility is an underground line,fixture, system, and its appurtenances used to produce, store, convey, transmit, or distribute communications, data, power, heat, gas, oil, petroleum products, water including storm water,steam,sewage,and similar substances. 3_3 -The location and elevation of a proposed structure or facility is staked (with offsets) and controlled by surveying or GPS equipment by others. AEI's measurements are made in relation to that information. The reliability of any opinions, conclusions, and recommendations based on those measurements is strictly dependent on the accuracy of the staking or GPS information provided by others. 3_4- During construction, observations and testing Services are based on the positioning of the formwork by the contractor or its subcontractor. AET will not be responsible for any errors or damages resulting from improper location or positioning of the formwork. SECTION 4-SAFETY 4.1 - Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials or unsafe conditions at the site. Client or its authorized representative(s) is responsible for the safety of the jobsite. If,during the course of AEI's Services,such materials or conditions are discovered,AET reserves the right to take measures to protect AET personnel and equipment or to immediately terminate Services.Client shall be responsible for payment of such additional protection costs. 4.2 - AET shall only be responsible for safety of AET employees at the site; the safety of all others shall be Client's or other persons'responsibility. SECTION 5-SAMPLES 5.1-Client shall inform AET of any known or suspected hazardous materials prior to submittal to AET.All samples obtained by or submitted to AET remain the property of the Client during and after the Services. Any known or suspected hazardous material samples will be returned to the Client at AET's discretion. 5_2 - Non-hazardous samples will be held for thirty (30) days and then discarded unless, within thirty (30) days of the report date, the Client requests in writing that AET store or ship the samples. Storage and shipping costs shall be borne solely by Client. SECTION 6-PROJECT RECORDS The original project records prepared by AET will remain the property of AET. AET shall retain these original records for a minimum of three years following submission of the report, during which period the project records can be made available to Client at AEI's office at reasonable times. SECTION 7-STANDARD OF CARE AET performs its Services consistent with the level of care and skill normally performed by other firms in the profession at the time of this service and in this geographic area, under similar budgetary constraints. SECTION 8-INSURANCE AET maintains insurance with coverage and limits shown below. AET will furnish certificates of insurance to Client upon request. ACS 403C(10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT-TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 3 of 5 8.1—AET maintains the following insurance coverage and limits of liability; Workers'Compensation Statutory Limits Employer's Liability $100,000 each accident $500,000 disease policy limit $100,000 disease each employee Commercial General Liability $1,000,000 each occurrence $1,000,000 aggregate Automobile Liability $1,000,000 each accident Professional Liability Insurance $1,000,000 per claim $1,000,000 aggregate 8.2 - Commercial General Liability insurance will include coverage for Products/Completed Operations extending one (1) year after final acceptance of the Project by Owner, Property Damage including Completed Operations, Personal Injury, and Contractual Liability insurance applicable to AET's indemnity obligations under this Agreement. 8.3 -Automobile Liability insurance shall include coverage for all owned, hired and non-owned automobiles. 8_4 - Professional Liability Insurance is written on a claims-made basis and coverage will be maintained for one (1) year after final acceptance of the Project by Owner. Renewal policies during this period shall maintain the same retroactive date. 8_5 -To the extent permitted by applicable state law, and only upon Client's signing of the proposal and return of the same to AET, Client and Owner shall be named an "additional insured" on AET's Commercial General Liability Policy(Form CG D4 14 04 08, which includes blanket coverage for Products/Completed Operations and on a Primary and Non-Contributory basis) and Automobile Liability Policy. Client and Owner shall be extended "waiver of subrogation" status for applicable coverages. Any other endorsement,coverage or policy requirement shall result in additional charges. 8.6 -AET will maintain in effect all insurance coverage required by this Agreement at its sole expense, provided such insurance is reasonably available, with insurance carriers licensed to do business in the state in which the project is located and having a current A.M. Best rating of no less than A minus (A-). Such insurance shall provide for thirty (30) days prior written notice to Client for notice of cancellation or material limitations for the policy or ten (10)days' notice for non-payment of premium. 8_7 -AET reserves the right to charge Client for AEI's costs for additional coverage requirements unknown on the date of the proposal, e.g., coverage limits or policy modification including waiver of subrogation, additional insured endorsements and other project specific requirements. SECTION 9-DELAYS If delays to AET's Services are caused by Client or Owner, work of others, strikes, natural causes, weather, or other items beyond AET's control, a reasonable time extension for performance of Services shall be granted, and AET shall receive an equitable fee adjustment. SECTION 10-PAYMENT INTEREST AND BREACH 10.1-Invoices are due net thirty(30)days. Client will inform AET of invoice questions or disagreements within fifteen (15)days of invoice date; unless so informed, invoices are deemed correct. 10.2 —Client agrees to pay interest on unpaid invoice balances at a rate of one and a half percent (1.5%) per month, or the maximum allowed by law,whichever is less, beginning thirty(30)days after invoice date. 10.3—Invoices remaining unpaid for sixty(60) days shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement, permitting AET, in its sole discretion and without limiting any other legal or equitable remedies for such breach, to terminate performance of this Agreement and be relieved of any associated duties to the Client or other persons. Further,AET may withhold from Client data and reports in AET's possession. If Client fails to cure such breach, all reports associated with the unpaid invoices shall immediately upon demand be returned to AET and Client may neither use nor rely upon such reports or the Services. 10.4-Client will pay all AET expenses and attorney fees relating to collection of past due invoices. SECTION 11-MEDIATION 11.1 - Except for enforcement of AEI's rights to payment for Services rendered or to assert and/or enforce its lien rights, including without limitation assertion and enforcement of mechanic's lien rights and foreclosure of the same, Client and AET agree that any claim, dispute or other matter in question arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be subject to mediation as a condition precedent to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings by either party; provided however that if,either party fails to respond to a request for mediation within sixty (60) days, the party requesting mediation may without further notice, proceed to arbitration or the institution of legal or equitable proceedings. ACS 403C(10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT-TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 4 of 5 11.2-Mediation shall be in accordance with the Construction Industry Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Request for mediation shall be in writing and the parties shall share the mediator's fee and any filing fees equally. The mediator shall be acceptable to both parties and shall have experience in commercial construction matters. SECTION 12-LITIGATION REIMBURSEMENT Except for matters relating to non-payment of fees, which is governed by Section 10.4 hereof, payment of attorney's fees and costs associated with lawsuits or arbitration of disputes between AET and Client, which are dismissed or are judged substantially in either party's favor, shall be paid by the non-prevailing party. Applicable costs include, but are not limited to, attorney and expert witness fees,court costs,and AET costs. SECTION 13-MUTUAL INDEMNIFICATION 13.1-Subject to the limitations contained in Sections 14 and 15,AET agrees to indemnify Client from and against damages and costs to the extent caused by AET's intentional acts or negligent performance of the Services. 13.2 - Client agrees to indemnify AET from and against damages and costs to the extent caused by the intentional acts or negligence of the Client, Owner, Client's contractors and subcontractors or other third parties. 13.3 - If Client has an indemnity agreement with other persons or entities relating to the project for which AET's Services are performed,the Client shall include AET as a beneficiary. 13.4 - AET's indemnification to the Client, including any indemnity required or implied by law, is limited solely to losses or damages caused by its failure to meet the standard of care and only to the extent of its negligence or intentional acts. SECTION 14-WAIVER OF CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES INCURRED EVEN IF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES WAS FORESEEABLE. CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF USE AND LOSS OF INCOME OR PROFIT. SECTION 15-LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Client agrees to limit AET's liability to Client resulting from AET's negligent acts, errors or omissions,such that the total liability of AET shall not exceed$20,000. SECTION 16—UNIONIZATION AET reserves the right to negotiate an appropriate fee increase or to terminate its contract on three (3) days written notice to Client without incurring penalties or costs from Client, Owner and their successors, assignees,joint-venturers, contractors and subcontractors, or any other parties involved with the project for claims, liabilities,damages or consequential damages,directly or indirectly related to AET being required to provide unionized personnel on the project. Reservation of this right on the part of AET represents neither approval nor disapproval of unions in general or the use of collective bargaining agreements. SECTION 17-POSTING OF NOTICES ON EMPLOYEE RIGHTS Effective June 21, 2010, prime contracts with a value of$100,000 or more and signed by federal contractors on projects with any agency of the United States government must comply with 29 CFR Part 471, which requires physical posting of a notice to employees of their rights under Federal labor laws. The required notice may be found at 29 Code of Federal Regulations Part 471, Appendix A to Subpart A. The regulation also has a "flow-down" requirement for subcontractors under the prime agreement for subcontracts with a value of$10,000 or more. AET requires strict compliance of its subcontractors working on federal contracts subject to this regulation. The regulation has specific requirements for location of posting and language(s)for the poster. SECTION 18-TERMINATION After 7 days written notice, either party may elect to terminate work for justifiable reasons. In this event, the Client shall pay AET for all Services performed,including demobilization and reporting costs to complete the file. SECTION 19-SEVERABILITY Any provisions of this Agreement later held to violate a law or regulation shall be deemed void, and all remaining provisions shall continue in force. However, Client and AET will in good faith attempt to replace an invalid or unenforceable provision with one that is valid and enforceable, and which comes as close as possible to expressing the intent of the original provision. SECTION 20-GOVERNING LAW This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to its conflicts of law provisions. ACS 403C(10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. CONSTRUCTION SERVICE AGREEMENT-TERMS AND CONDITIONS Page 5 of 5 SECTION 21-ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement, including these terms and conditions and attached proposal and appendices, is the entire agreement between AET and Client. Regardless of method of acceptance of this Agreement by the Client, this Agreement supersedes any previous written or oral agreements, including purchase/work orders or other Client agreements submitted to AET after the start of our Services. Any modifications to this Agreement must be mutually acceptable to both parties and accepted in writing. No considerations will be given to revisions to AET's terms and conditions or alternate contract format submitted by the Client as a condition for payment of AET's accrued Services. ACS 403C(10/14) AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING,INC. AimERICAN CONSULTANTS ENVIRONMENTAL i VGIE1ii^tiG " GEOTECHNICAL TESTING,G, INC. MATERIALS FORENSICS Dear Client, The following paperwork is enclosed: 1. AET's Proposal With Terms and Conditions(Please sign and return to your AET contact) 2. Proof of Insurance (Please give to your accounting department) 3. W9 (Please give to your accounting department) ***If your company is South Dakota or Iowa Sales Tax exempt, please send your tax exempt certificate back with your signed proposal. Please let me know if you have any questions and thank you for choosing AETI Thank you, Robert Krogsgaard CFO, American Engineering Testing This document shall not be reproduced,except in full,without written approval of American Engineering Testing,Inc. 550 Cleveland Avenue North', St. Paul, MN 55114 Phone 65'I-659-9001 ° Toll Free 300-972-6364 Fax 651-659-1379, www.amengtest.com Offices throughout Florida,Minnesota,South Dakota&Wisconsin AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER A(C CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(MM/DD/YYYY) 12/23/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT Ann ROSS NAME: HUB International, formerly BW Insurance Agency AICONNo EW: (651)288-5137 FAc No: (651)286-0560 245 E Roselawn Ave E-MAIL ANN,ROSS @HUBINTERNATIONAL.COM ADDRESS: INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# St. Paul MN 55117-1940 INSURERA:Travelers Indemnity Co 25658 INSURED AMERICAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC, INSURERB:Travelers Group 25674 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC, AMERICAN INSURERC:Continental Casualty Company 02128 PETROGRAPHIC SERVICES INC INSURER D: 550 CLEVELAND AVE N INSURER E: ST PAUL MN 55114-1804 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:16-17 GL/A/WC/P REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL UBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS LTR IN$D WVD POLICY NUMBER MM/DD/YYYY MM/DD/YYYY X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1000000 A CLAIMS-MADE ❑X OCCUR PREM SESOEa oNc ,.,,ce $ 50000 P630539KB896PHX16 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 MED EXP(Any one person) $ 5000 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 1000000 GENT AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 1000000 POLICY I PRO JECT ❑ LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG $ 1000000 X OTHER: $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY CEa M aOBINED ccident S INGLE LIMIT $ 1000000 B X ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ ALL OWNED SCHEDULED P810797K914000F16 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ AUTOS NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ HIRED AUTOS AUTOS Per accident $ UMBRELLA LIAR HOCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ DED I I RETENTION$ $ WORKERS COMPENSATION OT - AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y/N X STATUTE I ERH _.--------_.---_ ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ 100000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N N/A B (Mandatory in NH) POUB709K909316 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYE $ 100000 If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ 500000 C PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ECH254066939 1/1/2016 1/1/2017 EACH CLAIM 1000000 INCL POLLUTION CLAIM MADE/070287 RETRO AGGREGATE 1000000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS!LOCATIONS/VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached if more space is required) CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Craig McNulty/STPCT ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD INS025 r2nt4nn Form Request for Taxpayer Give Form to the ter. Do not (Rev.December 2014) Identification Number and Certification send requester. the IRS. Department ofthe Treasury Internal Revenue Service 1 Name(as shown on your income tax return).Name is required on this line;do not leave this line blank. American Engineering Testing, Inc. N 2 Business name/disregarded entity name,if different from above N m m Q 3 Check appropriate box for federal tax classification;check only one of the following seven boxes: 4 Exemptions(codes apply only to ° Individual/sole proprietor or C Corporation ✓❑ S Corporation ❑ Partnership ❑Trust/estate certain entities,not individuals;see ❑ ❑ instructions on page 3): c single-member LLC Exempt payee code(ifany) 0° ❑Limited liability company.Enter the tax classification(C=C corporation,S=S corporation,P=partnership) o Note.For a single-member LLC that is disregarded,do not check LLC;check the appropriate box in the line above for Exemption from FATCA reporting N the tax classification of the single-member owner. code(if any) d Cf ❑Other(see instructions) (Applies to accounts maintained outside the U.S.) 5 Address(number,street,and apt.or suite no.) Requester's name and address(optional) U Q 550 Cleveland Ave. N. 6 City,state,and ZIP code St. Paul, MN 55114 7 List account number(s)here(optional) Taxpayer Identification Dumber(TIN) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box.The TIN provided must match the name given on line 1 to avoid Social security number backup withholding. For individuals,this is generally your social security number(SSN). However,for a resident alien,sole proprietor,or disregarded entity,see the Part I instructions on page 3. For other , — — entities,it is your employer identification number(EIN). If you do not have a number,see How to get a TIN on page 3. or Note. If the account is in more than one name,see the instructions for line 1 and the chart on page 4 for Employer identification number guidelines on whose number to enter. 4 1 - 0 1 9 1 7 7 5 T21 Certification Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number(or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me);and 2. 1 am not subject to backup withholding because: (a)I am exempt from backup withholding,or(b)I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service(IRS)that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report all interest or dividends,or(c)the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding; and 3. 1 am a U.S.citizen or other U.S.person(defined below);and 4.The FATCA code(s)entered on this form(if any)indicating that I am exempt from FATCA reporting is correct. Certification instructions.You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions,item 2 does not apply.For mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property,cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement(IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends,you are not required to sign the certification, but you must provide your correct TIN.See the instructions on page 3. Dlgilally signed by Phillip Chwlalkowski Sign Signature of DN: Phillip Chwalkowski,e=American Engineering Testing, Here U.S.person. Phillip Chwialkowski oo,eon, o4.zeo9io;k.os o oomengtest,`om,`US Date General Instructions -Form 1098(home mortgage interest),1098-E(student loan interest),1098-T (tuition) Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code unless otherwise noted. -Form 1099-C(canceled debt) Future developments.Information about developments affecting Form W-9(such -Form 1099-A(acquisition or abandonment of secured property) as legislation enacted after we release it)is at www.irs.gov/fw9. Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S.person(including a resident alien),to Purpose of Form provide your correct TIN. An individual or entity(Form W-9 requester)who is required to file an information If you do not return Form W-9 to the requester with a TIN,you might be subject return with the IRS must obtain your correct taxpayer identification number(TIN) to backup withholding.See What is backup withholding?on page 2. which may be your social security number(SSN),individual taxpayer identification By signing the filled-out form,you: number(ITIN),adoption taxpayer identification number(ATIN),or employer . Certify that the TIN you are giving is correct(or you are waiting for a number identification number(EIN),to report on an information return the amount pai to to be issued), you,or other amount reportable on an information return.Examples of information returns include,but are not limited to,the following: 2.Certify that you are not subject to backup withholding,or -Form 1099-INT(interest earned or paid) 3.Claim exemption from backup withholding if you are a U.S.exempt payee.If -Form 1099-DIV(dividends,including those from stocks or mutual funds) applicable,you are also certifying that as a U.S.person,your allocable share of any partnership income from a U.S.trade or business is not subject to the -Form 1099-MISC(various types of income,prizes,awards,or gross proceeds) withholding tax on foreign partners'share of effectively connected income,and Form 1099-B(stock or mutual fund sales and certain other transactions by 4.Certify that FATCA code(s)entered on this form(if any)indicating that you are brokers) exempt from the FATCA reporting,is correct.See What is FATCA reporting?on Form 1099-S(proceeds from real estate transactions) page 2 for further information. -Form 1099-K(merchant card and third party network transactions) Cat.No.10231X Formes-9(Rev.12-2014) #3E 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 3 Meeting Date: October 24, 2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Work Order 3 and Resolution Approving Work Order 3 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, safety of pedestrians at the storm sewer outlet locations became a concern and fencing adjacent to the sidewalk was installed to provide a barrier between pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk and the newly installed storm outfall locations. 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. Work Order No. 1 and Work Order No. 2 were previously approved by Council increasing the contract amount to $859,044.00.The total for Work Order 3 is $3,025.28 increasing the contract amount to $862,069.28. Work orders to date have increased the contract approximately 12.0%. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the enclosed Resolution 16- Approving Work Order 3. Payment for this work order will be made on the next payment request. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 STATE AID FOR LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Rev.July2010 CHANGE ORDER Page 1 of 1 SP 216 - 101 - 005 Minn. Proj. No. ( ) CO No. 3 Project Location: Shorewood, MN Local Agency: City of Shorewood City Project No. 14-10 Contractor: S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Contract No. Address/City/State/Zip: 650 Quaker Avenue, Jordan, MN 55352 Total Change Order Amount$ $3,025.28 In accordance with the terms of this Contract, you are hereby authorized and instructed to perform the work as altered by the following provisions: Add Pay Item No. 107 2557.605 — SPLIT RAIL FENCE — Quantity of 4 EACH at Unit Price of $756.32. Estimate Of Cost: (Include any increases or decreases in contract items, any negotiated or force account items.) ""Group/Funding Item I Unit + or— -+ Or— Category No. Description Unit Price Quantity Amount$ 216 — 101 - 005 107 SPLIT-RAIL FENCE EACH $756.32 + 4.00 $ 3,025.28 Net Change this Change Order $ 3,025.28 "Group/Funding category is required for Federal Aid projects Approved by Project Engineer: Date: 9/12/2016 Print Name: Paul Hornby, PE Phone: 651-286-8453 Approved by Contractor: Date: 9/12/2016 Print Name: Jay Hembroff Phone: 952-595-5106 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: CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16 - A RESOLUTION APPROVING WORK ORDER 3 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 Smithtown Road located between the Lake Minnetonka Reginal Trail(LRT) and Country Club Road to S. M. Hentges, Inc. of Jordan, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No. 2 were necessary to construct the improvements and associated work previously recommended by staff and approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No. 2 increased the project construction costs in the amount of$89,171.00, from the original contract amount of $769,873.00 to $859,044.00; and WHEREAS, Work Order 3 is necessary to provide safety to pedestrians utilizing the sidewalk at the newly installed storm sewer outfall; and WHEREAS, Work Order 3 will increase the project construction costs in the amount of$3,025.28, to $862.069.28; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. Work Order 3 in the total amount of$3,025.28 is hereby approved. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24h day of October, 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk � #sa MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Hexum, Marc and Kerri—Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Build on Substandard Lot,Setback Variance and Impervious Surface Variance Meeting Date: 24 October 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a conditional use permit and variances to the Hexums to build a new home at 5205 Howards Point Road? Background: See attached Planning Director's memorandum for detailed background on this item. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application at its 4 October meeting, at which time the Commission voted to recommend approval of the CUP and variances as revised. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The applicants' application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Options: Approve the CUP and variances; deny them; or modify them. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the request. Next Steps and Timelines: If Council is in agreement, a building permit can be issued upon receipt of construction drawings. 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 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 September 2016 RE: Hexum, Marc and Kerri – Setback Variance, Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Build on a Substandard Lot and Impervious Surface Variance FILE NO.: 405 (16.22) BACKGROUND Marc and Kerri Hexum own the property at 5205 Howards Point Road (see Site Location map – Exhibit A, attached). As explained in their request letter (Exhibit B), the Hexums proposed to demolish the existing house and garage, replacing it with a new home with an attached garage. The subject property is quite substandard with respect to its R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning classification. Instead of 40,000 square feet in area, the lot is only 13,534 square feet. Instead of 120 feet in width, the lot is 82 feet in width. Similarly, the buildings on the property do not comply with any of the R-1A/S setback requirements and the amount of impervious surface on the site is 51.2 percent, whereas the limit is 25 percent. Their proposal requires a conditional use permit (construction on a substandard lot) and four variances: 1) lot area; 2) lot width; 3) front yard setback; 4) maximum impervious surface in excess of 25 percent. Exhibit C shows how the proposed home will sit on the property. Exhibits D and E show proposed floor plans and Exhibits F and G show proposed building elevations. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION A.Substandard Lots of Record. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(3) of the Shorewood Zoning Code provides criteria for building on a substandard lot of record (a lot that existed prior to current zoning requirements and does not meet area or width requirements). The Code states that a lot is considered to be buildable if it complies with the following criteria: Memorandum Re: Hexum CUP and Variances 30 September 2016 1. The lot must be in separate ownership from adjoining properties. The Hexums do not own the lots on either side of theirs. 2. The lot must meet at least 70 percent of the width and area requirements for the zoning district in which it is located. This requires a lot to be 84 feet wide and 28,000 square feet in the R-1A/S zoning district. The subject property is two feet short of the 84-foot width requirement. The lot is 14,466 square feet short of the area requirement. The variances are discussed in B., below. 3.With the exception of a 15-foot variance for the front of the building, the proposed building complies with the required setbacks of the zoning district. The existing home is eight feet short of the side yard setback requirement,22 feet short of the front yard requirement and 10 feet short of the rear setback requirement. 4. The floor area of structures cannot exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot. Total hardcover cannot exceed 25 percent of the lot. Floor plans for the proposed home indicate that the home is within the 30 percent. Proposed total hardcover (impervious surface) is 28.2 percent, versus the current coverage of 52.2 percent. B. Variances. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b.of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Before reviewing those criteria it may be useful to consider that the existing home could be enlarged by adding additional space above the existing footprint of the home. This does not improve the property with respect to better conformance with the Zoning Code. Following is how the applicant’s request conforms to the criteria for variances: 1. Despite the substandard width of the lot, the applicants have designed the new home to improve the property with respect to side yard and lakeshore setbacks and a drastic reduction of hardcover. 2. The applicants’ “practical difficulties” are not economic in nature, nor is it the result of their actions. The lot and the existing home and garage existed prior to current zoning standards. 3. Granting the variance does not confer any special privilege on the applicant that would be denied to other properties. Presumably similar consideration would be given to any owner who is willing to increase the conformity of a substandard property to the extent proposed by this applicant. 4. The proposed home does not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. Note the proximity of the garage across the street (Exhibit C). -2- Memorandum Re: Hexum CUP and Variances 30 September 2016 5. The variance is the minimum necessary to make reasonable use of the property. The proposed house and garage are very much in scale with the size of the existing lot. 6. The following table provides a comparison of the zoning requirements, the existing site and the applicants’ proposed plans. R-1A/S Requirement Existing Proposed Front Yard Setback 50’ 28’ 35’ Side Yard Setback Total 30’, no less than 10’ 11’/11’ 12.5’/20’ Rear Yard Setback 44.2’* 34’ 44.2’* Percent Impervious 25% 51.2% 28.2% Floor Area Ratio 30% max. unknown <30% *Includes average lakeshore setback provision Based upon the preceding analysis, the request is considered to be consistent with the criteria for granting variances. It is worth noting that Section 1201.03 Subd. 1. g. provides for the rebuilding of single-family residential units on substandard lots as long as setbacks are complied with to the extent possible. In the end, this property will conform far more to Shorewood’s existing building and zoning standards than if the variance were not granted. Approval of the applicant’s plans is therefore recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Marc and Kerri Hexum -3- i � � � X �� � �� � �� y �� � � C �. n September 6, 2016 Dear members of the Planning Commission, We are requesting a CUP for our lot being substandard in its zone and variances for: lot area, lot width, roadside setback, and hardcover. We are looking to replace the existing home and be able to have a 2 -car attached garage on the property. As you can see by the variances being requested, we have an unusual lot for the zone it is in. The CUP and two of the variances are difficulties beyond our control as the property is small and sets in a zone that requires larger area and width. This lot is simply" substandard". The variance for a roadside setback is unique and unusual to the property also. There is a 15 foot road easement that exists on the property that is for the benefit of the city and neighborhood for ease of access. In Shorewood, the front yard setback is measured from the edge of that easement, not from the edge of the property. Again, this is unusual and beyond our control, and greatly diminishes the area of the lot. This easement also cuts into our ability to use this part of the land for our own greenspace. Given the small size of the lot and the easement, it additionally creates the need for a hardcover variance. With the aforementioned hardships notwithstanding, we are reducing the hardcover on the lot from 51% to 29 %. You can see from the amount of existing hardcover the uniqueness of livability for the homeowners. We have put a great amount of thought and effort into minimizing hardcover while maintaining reasonable use of the land. We respectfully request that you give careful consideration to our request and grant us the variances needed for our home. Thank you, Marc & Kerri Hexum Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER EXISl'ING G Ip0 I2 -5011 PIN,- I 14" PINE O��y -15.0 - ' ACxs ` _ I UIIDING SE �lk",no -- ►1 MINIMUM MUSt BE CODE. Y DESIGN of FOK OR 2% G� , x�GtipP� , , , G .. o °� �D �\ d q PROPOSED DWELLING O CD °o cn ° b X y^ ° (P ° O ti _ ZA POINT OF BEGINNING r . . 90.99 (0) ' �, , 9 00, oo ++ w 90 -- 0 19.7 I - N '00,00" ARAGE --- - - --�I E ----- - - - - -- 52.6 - - - - - -- {I Z - -- 30.0 o jam• =`_-- ---- - - - --� cw o.CA --------- - - - - -- 96.0 - - -- I z 1`� `— - - - --- =� INUK 11-1tAJ I UUKIVtK J.�. LOT 3 --� 96.20 JN 90'00'00" E O''G�pP� 04 . �NE 6 6 a� ��' 1 CLIENT 521 S l DATE \ 9/6/16 SURVEY DRAFTEI SHEET l Exhibit C PROPERTY SURVEY IT'N/J1Td1 SCREEN I i PATIO i 's car — W H` U 1 I 3CS2EENED i i PW13 � W°J®° XOOX 4 -PANEL £CIDER I tam' I f _ I V- 4IO'CLG. / GATHERING OOM ) 16°X8° OX)(O 4 -PA2EL £CIDER LID I U U ��D. V�6. / 9'•4 Vt "CLG. •/u�7 -.ROOM I PINING ROOM l I I IB�9 I I I PAL LITE � _ __ — _} —__ __ _ __ I It I 2 LI e FULL LITE - I a I1 S Xl UP - - 4KAJ° O 15LA`5J' ___ 1 ____ i i I 7— 6 °CA. ) i TR 51h5C CU i /v v i i / T I i 15 9- 4IO -Ua ) V2 "CLG. 2° 5. X F O16ER / ITCH N Iml I� I w !b CWKTOP w X C' / 06. v upoD cT 42----------- I ' i ' I'M _ — _ _ _ ________ _ •_ 1 BiEP 2' - I rsrAlRSAeovE>� MUD,/ � II -0 11 r i CO��V�-E�ppRyEp i b ci j 24' $a tJ1LLJ_ i I I 1 9 WWI" ' CONG 1 MWTU TED \ MEW. „ _______________, FP SAP m m I i ' OPT'L, j ` VALIa11dY i /2-GA 3, GARAGE 0 •\ / I Dfammy `TORO°) Exhibit D PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 15' -0° i 20' -61 it I I I I I I � j BCrEEnED I I 0�rEA L II I it /tl U' -B•I 9J�OPT'tJl � _ __ __ PITCH io FEAK I _ / II I _ L ___r_r l / d VAULTED QG. % BT" ITY I �ml III - ' I I MDROV1 I I 13ATH I I 1 11 GRPT I 1 / ❑ VA' TED CL 1 ❑ CFFT14 / = I j `O3 L6�RI 48x11 m % ___ RIB __ -- I I \ I III ` I W.I.C. \ --------- HALL I I / I / I I � I I � L— �/ 1° - -- I G PT oom 03 I I Cfd'T I I i — II II' -6' X 0 DT \ O's I I RP I . LAUNDRY W / —__._ -- EWH I / o T X ----- cr I l I Cr I / / I r ROD 9 PORN e/ _ Exhibit E PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR TOP OF BUFF; FIFBT FLGOI TOP OF BUPF Ct1 FRONT ELEV WITH GARAGE (® REAR ELEVATION 9cA X, 1141,11.ml- Exhibit F PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Front and Rear ROOF O-q F OOR UMF I7 b5� - r1 I"I"I PJ•':7.T�RLynm �n.n I�n..l�.nn_...�I�... I�n.n�n.. t•mq��n�n '������m iil�� Immlmmm�iln••-- -•—._. '�� `IS" � 1 � II�n11.11��,1,ljmulmli� „ I ' ■■ mm 1 X11 11.1111 �IIII IIlf�lllnsl 1 ■■ i'i''' mmli ' 141'; 11l IInMR�Ii41 ii1�1�111�11�1i ,RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION '.. U 8CALE, 1/4 " -I' -0° :CPTRIGNT ?DIE, ALEX "ER DE5164 GROUP, 4VC. �-°2 Ful 12 d35 SFCOW FLOOR TOP OF EUBFLR m m FIRST FLOOR TOP OF SUPFLR SEC04D FLOOR iOP of SU6FiR FIRST FLOOR TOP OF SUBFLR _ IL } i 1 uj JU U� l' N X Lp N ul Exhibit G GARAGE RICzHT SIDE ELEV PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Right Side CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AREA, SETBACK AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES AND A VARIANCE TO BUILD ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT TO MARK AND KERRI HEXUM WHEREAS , Marc and Kerri Hexum (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 5205 Howards Point Road, City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is currently eight feet short of the side yard setback requirement, 22 feet short of the front yard requirement and 10 feet short of the rear yard requirement; and WHEREAS , the Applicants propose to demolish the existing home and build a new home which would comply with all required setbacks except for the front; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have requested a conditional use permit and variance to build on a substandard lot, a setback variance and a variance to the impervious surface requirements of the R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district; and WHEREAS , the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 30 September 2016, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 4 October 2016, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 24 October 2016, at which time the Planner’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The subject property is located in an R-1A/S, Single-Family Residential/ Shoreland zoning district, which requires a total side yard setback of 30 feet with neither side less than 10 feet. 2.The subject property is substandard in lot area, having only 13,534 square feet of area where 40,000 feet is required. 3. The Applicants propose to construct a new home located 35 feet from the front property line, where 50 feet is required. 4. The property currently has 51.2 percent of hardcover, whereas 25 percent is the maximum for the Shoreland District. The Applicants’ plan proposes 28.2 percent impervious surface. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicants’ plans present drastically better conformance to zoning requirements and have satisfied the criteria for the grant of variances under the Shorewood City Code and has established “practical difficulties” as defined by Minnesota Statutes. 2.Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a conditional use permit and variance to build on a substandard lot, a front yard setback variance, and a variance for impervious surface. 3. 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 24th day of October 2016. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -22- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Lot ' 1, "Howards Point ", described as follows: Cominencing at the Northeast corner of .Lot 3, Howards Point; thence West along the South line of said Lot 1 a distance of 96.20 feet; thence North, at a right. angle, 65.33 feet; thence East, at a right angle,. 6.0.0 feet; thence North '79 degrees East (assuming the South line of said Lot 1 as bearing East and West) 91.45 feet to the point of beginning of the tract .of land to be described; thence South 79 degrees West, 82.28 feet; thence North 9'degrees 40 minutes West, .67.00 feet; thence North 72 degrees 35 minutes East, 30.00 feet; thence North 59 deg-rees 19 minutes East to the shore line of Labe Minnetonka; thence Southeasterly along: said shore line to a line bearing .North 70 degrees 01 minutes East from the point of beginning; thence South 70 degrees 01 minutes West to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for., driveway and utility purposes over and across the West 15 feet of the premised as contained in Hennepin: County Recorder Document No. 4829059; Together with a nonexclusive easement for driveway and utilities over and across the West 30 feet of that part of Lot 1. lying South of the South line of the above - described land and lying East of a line extending across Lot 1 at right angles to the South line of said Lot from a point thereon distant 96.2 feet West from the Northeast conger of Lot 3, all in. Howards Point, as shown by Hennepin County Recorder Document No. 4829058; Exhibit A � #sB MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Benjamin,John—Request for Rezoning Meeting Date: 24 October 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director's Memorandum Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a request by John Benjamin for a rezoning for the property at 24250 Smithtown Road? Background: See attached Planning Director's memorandum for complete background on this item. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its 4 October meeting to consider the request and voted to recommend denial of the request. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant's application fees cover the cost of processing the application. Options: Deny the request or approve the request. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the request for rezoning. Next Steps and Timelines: Denial of the request stops further action. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 Phone: (952) 960 -7900 • FAX: (952) 474 -0128 • Email: planning @ci.shorewood.mn.us PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. BACKGROUND Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 28 April 2016 Benjamin, John — Request for Rezoning from R -2A to C -I 405 (16.06) Mr. John Benjamin has arranged to purchase the property at 24250 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). He has requested that the property be rezoned from R -2A, Single- and Two - Family Residential to C -1, General Commercial. The property contains 1.59 acres and is currently occupied by a single - family residence (see Survey — Exhibit B, attached). Land use and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follow: North: Shorewood Public Works Department; zoned R -2A East: South Lake Public Safety Building (Police and Fire); zoned R -2A South: Auto repair and self -serve car wash; zoned C -1 West: Candy store, in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial As noted in the applicant's project narrative (Exhibit C), the property is characterized by a rather significant change in grade — as much as 18 feet. Access to the site is located at its southeast corner where the existing driveway to the home opens onto the private driveway owned by the City and which serves the Public Works Department site and the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Building. There is some question as to the arrangements for this access onto the City's driveway. Initial discussions with the applicant's consultant were based on the future construction of an office building on the site, which is illustrated in the applicant's project narrative (Exhibit C). The site sketch provided illustrates how a single -story office building containing approximately 12,880 square feet of floor area, and its associated parking might fit on the site. More recently, the applicant has indicated that he is considering proposing a motel/hotel facility for the property. Memorandum Re: Benjamin Rezoning 28 April 2016 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan. Section 1201.04 Subd. l .d. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth the considerations to be used by the Planning Commission in evaluating requests for amendments to the Code — in this case, a change in the zoning district. Perhaps the most significant consideration is consistency with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Staff met with the applicant's consultant prior to it malting an application for the rezoning. The consultant was directed at that time to the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study, which had been adopted previously into the Comprehensive Plan as effectively the area plan for the vicinity in which the site is located. Specific to the subject site, the Study recommends as follows: "The single family residential property on the north side of County Road 19 is surrounded by commercial dei,elopment in Tonka Bay and public facilities (public ii�orks, police and fire). The City should be open to a rezoning of this site to R -C, Residential / Commercial. " The applicant subsequently chose to apply for C -1, General Commercial zoning, presumably for its considerably greater latitude in land use choices, its less restrictive zoning standards (e.g. setbacks, height, etc.) and its less restrictive regulations (e.g. hours of operation). In light of the applicant's most recent idea for a motel facility, the C -1 district would be his only way to achieve that use of the land. Motels are not allowed in the R -C district. B. Site Plan. The site plan submitted with the rezoning request is simply intended to illustrate how the proposed use of the property might fit. The plan suggests using the existing driveway which is located quite close to County Road 19. This location may present issues with respect to stacking on the City's access drive. The applicant indicates that he is exploring what, if any, access easement rights the subject property may have over the City's property. The plan illustrated in Exhibit C appears to maximize the site, even using C -1 setback requirements. Notably missing is any kind of storm water ponding that may be necessary to control drainage on the property. C. Traffic. Based on the Smithtown Crossing recommendation to consider R -C zoning in place of the current single - family residential use, it is reasonable to expect some increase in the number of trips generated by the new use of the site. It is interesting to note in the applicant's narrative the difference in trips between general office and medical office. It should also be noted that the trip generation table provided on page 2 of the narrative uses an office building with 18,260 square feet versus the 12,880 square feet illustrated on his site plan. RECOMMENDATION There are enough open ended issues related to this request to warrant additional study. Above all, however, is the fact that the C -1 zoning is not consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. As such approval of the zoning request is not recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Lany Brown Paul Hornby John Benjamin Brad Scheib -2- Wpm �z Cn 1+ r --1 ru �U U Subject Prooert N Ri int 0 250 500 1,000 it TT Feet "e� O � L II 0 30 60 90 SCALE IN FEET • FOUND IRON MONUMENT O SET IRON MONUMENT MARKED WITH LICENSE NUMBER 22033 W.0 CATCH BASIN 0 GATE VALVE O SPRINKLER BOX ED AIR CONDITIONER M ELECTRIC BOX 1j UTILITY POLE (--- GUY WIRE (D TELEPHONE MANHOLE © COMMUNICATION BOX 0 GAS METER SIGN WALL — x —X —X— YORE FENCE — o —o —o— WOOD FENCE —I— ELECTRIC —wn OVERHEAD WIRES T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE c UNDERGROUND CABLE c UNDERGROUND GAS !1'YWYYWI TREEUNE nvzs SPOT ELEVATION ,_992-' EXISTING CONTOUR LINE y . CONIFEROUS TREE DECIDUOUS TREE BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE D GRAVEL SURFACE PAVER SURFACE FIELD BOOK PAGE FIELDV 2786 50 CHIEF: F.M. DRAWI DRAWING NAME: kgf 36653— TOPO.dwa CHECH JOB NO. 36653 BY: FILE NO. 610 IL.J.N. i ( L7 PR--PER—.,- R 2 (^ ..,,.,._ ',..J RESwcnn N :NO 19 GOUHr aU HIGHWA 191NP�r 57 STA -i REVISIONS Exhibit B DESCRIPTION BOUNDAR SURVEY SUEY V TOPOGRAPHII Benjamin Rezoning °t Smithtown Crossing Parcel Rezoning Project Narrative - 24250 Smithtown Rd Introduction The applicant John Benjamin is representing Bonnie Witrak for this project. John Benjamin, as nominee for Bonnie Witrak, has entered into a contract to purchase the property at 24250 subject to receiving the necessary entitlements to construct an office building on the property. The applicant has retained the assistance of professional service firms including planning and landscape architecture (Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.), architecture (RSP Architects), municipal /civil engineering (BKBM), and traffic /transportation planning (Wenck Associates). Requested Action The applicant is seeking a rezoning of 24250 Smithtown Road from R -2A, Single /Two Family to C -1, General Commercial to allow for general office, medical office, or other uses as permitted in the C -1 General Commercial district. Site Context The approximately 1.59 acre site is located on the north side of Smithtown Road (County Road 19) and boarded to the north by the Shorewood Public Works Facility, to the east by the South Lake Public Safety Building and to the west by commercial development in Tonka Bay. The site is currently occupied by a single - family home. The site sits up on a hill /null with approximately 18 feet of grade change. Access to the site is provided by a driveway onto a private drive serving the city Public Works facility. The applicant is doing title work to research any existing easement or shared driveway agreement. Access to the site will likely remain in this general configuration in order to minimize additional access points onto Smithtown Road (CR 19). Additional detail on the natural resources and infrastructure availability to the site will be determined at time of a more detailed site plan approval. Analysis The property is guided commercial in the Comprehensive Plan as a result of adoption of the recommendations contained in the 2012 Smithtown Crossing Study (Resolution 12 -067). The requested rezoning from R -2A to C -1 will bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (Smithtown Crossing Study) notes that this area is ready for redevelopment. The conversion of this property from residential to commercial achieves the Comprehensive Plan intent of transforming non - conforming residential uses to complementary commercial uses so that a cohesive, compact activity center can be created in this general location. Exhibit C 24250 Smithtown Road — Rezoning Project Narrative — 5 April 2016 PROJECT NARRATIVE Further direction on the vision for the area can be found in the 2012 Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. The study noted that this area is the northern gateway to the community. Development in this area was determined to be disjointed and containing a number of underutilized properties. Redevelopment is sought to make better use of land, enhance the tax base, grow jobs, and reflect the character of the community. The study envisioned that retail and office in this area would be an appropriate transition between the higher intensity commercial adjacent in Tonka Bay and the surrounding lower density housing. Other than the existing single - family homes retaining their residential zoning, all of the other properties in the study area were recommended to be rezoned to C -1, General Commercial. Rezoning of this property to C -1, General Commercial will be in keeping with the commercial intent for this area and will be appropriate given that the Tonka Bay sites to the west are zoned C -2, General Commercial and both the public works facility to the north and public safety facility to the east are of a commercial nature in use. Current projected uses forthe site are anticipated to be office or medical office related uses. These uses are consistent with the guiding principles outlined in the Smithtown Crossing Study the purpose of the C -1, General Commercial. The site is located on a minor arterial, Smithtown Road /County Road 19. As a minor arterial, this road is designed to accommodate a higher volume of traffic consistent with the proposed use. The attached concept site plan was prepared by RSP Architects to demonstrate the feasibility of developing the site for an office related use and was developed using the development standards of the C -1, General Commercial District. The exact end use has not been determined; however, a general office or medical office use is envisioned for the property. An estimate of vehicle trips generated on the site was made usin the Trip Generation, Ninth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The following is a summary of the potential trip characteristic based on the assumptions made for the attached concept. Table 1: Weekda Trip Generation for Existing and Proposed Land Uses Previous Use In Out Total In Out Total Single - Family 1 d.u. 0 1 1 1 0 1 Detached Housing Proposed Use In Out Total In Out Total Total Option A: 18,260 sf 25 3 28 5 22 27 201 General Office Total Added Trips 25 2 27 4 22 26 191 Option A Option B: 18,260 sf 34 10 44 18 47 65 660 Medical Dental Office Total Added Trips 34 9 43 17 47 64 650 Option 6 sf =square feet; d.u. = dwelling unit 2 Page 24250 Smithtown Road — Rezoning Project Narrative — 5 April 2016 Upon rezoning the site, a more detailed site plan and building plans (including elevations) will be prepared to facilitate required development approvals for the site. This site plan will be prepared following the appropriate zoning standards and the redevelopment guiding principles as outlined in the Smithtown Crossing Study. The applicant has completed a market study for the property as part of evaluating the project feasibility and potential end uses. The market study supports the development of the site for general office or medical office purposes as well as other uses supported by the C -1 General Commercial District. 31 Page 24250 Smithtown Road — Rezoning Project Narrative — 5 April 2016 x I =41 311 rD z 0 41 1174- > LA 7 PH umolql!ws osztZ 2 �T:7 ^--\`] ol z C, O O O CD 0 Cz ICI - 1 E � r�- k Him r�- k Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. May 26, 2016 Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen, The following supplemental materials is being submitted on behalf of our client, Bonnie Witrak, and her nominee/representative John Benjamin regarding the request to rezone 24250 Smithtown Road from its current R2A zoning to the C-1 General Commercial zoning. This letter supplements the original materials submitted on April 5, 2016 and is in preparation for the Planning Commission on Tuesday, June 7, 2016. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The 28 April staff report highlights the importance of the reque comprehensive plan. There are a number of key points we wish to highlight relative to comprehensive plan consistency: 1.The Smithtown Crossing Study dated June 2012 and prepared by the City was amended to the Comprehensive Plan by resolution no. 12-067. 2.The Smithtown Crossing Study did not include a traditional land Comprehensive Plan land use map figure: Proposed Land Use Map.The Proposed Land Use Map on file with the City shows the subject parcel as guided Lo to Medium Density Residential. 3.The Smithtown Crossing Study did recognize the parcel at 24250 Smithtown Road as part of the study area. The Land Use and Zoning of this parcel was clearly identified as a Planning Issue. The study recognized that the properties within the study area w with the exception of the parcels that were occupied by resident. The parcels within the study area zoned residential included the subject parcel and two additional par the extreme west end of the study boundary. These two westerly p as Buffer or Transition parcels where a transition is clearlthe existing and proposed land use form from commercial uses to residential uses.In contrast, the subject parcel is not a transitional parcel. The subject parcel is bounded by commercial uses in Tonka Bay to the west; County Road 19 and fronting commercial uses to the south; City Public Works facility to the north; and the South Lake Public Safety Building to the east. Given the adjacent land uses are more industrial or commercial in character, it is our interpretation that the subject parcel is not intended to be treated in a similar manner as the residential parcels the west side of the study area. We contend that the intent of the redevelopment study Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1659 (612) 338-0800 Fax: (612) 338-6838 www.hkgi.com 24250 Smithtown Road Rezoning Request Supplemental Information 26 May 2016. proposing to guide parcels within the study area to mixed use or commercial land use designations is the correct interpretation for the subject parcel. 4.The Smithtown Crossing Study states: The City should be open to- C, Residential/Commercial . The purpose of the R-C district is stated in the zoning code as follows: The R-C District is intended for a between commercial and residential uses. More specifically, the R-C District is established to buffer residential uses from adjacent high intensity use areas by permitting residentially co- oriented commercial uses and controlling those uses which can be compatib given adequate control. Given the subject parcel is not adjacent to any residential uses, C-1 zoning is a more applicable and correct zoning designation than the R-C zoning. Furthermore, the language in the Smithtown Crossing Study does not compel the consider R-C zoning for the subject parcel. Given the above points, we believe that the request to rezone to-1 is consistent with the intentions expressed in the Smithtown Crossing Study and thus, the Comprehensive Plan. However, we also recognize that the Proposed Land Use Map has not been updated to Study. Therefore we request that a condition of approval be addehat stipulates that the City update the proposed land use map to reflect the subject parcel as commercial . Site Access As noted in the Staff report dated 28 April 2016, there is some subject parcel. This has been researched by the applicants legal staff and information h to City Staff that documents the permitgranting access to the site. The details of how the site is bes accessed will be a subject of site plan review and approval per on 1201.3 Subd. 17 of the City of Shorewood Zoning Code. Traffic Implications As with any development project, new traffic will be generated. At this stage in the redevelopment process, the actual use has not been determined other than the prospect of an office user or potential hotel use. WSB and Associates is currently conducting a traffic study for the City of Shorewood that encompasses the project area. Information can be learned from this study which to date has not been made available to us. The applicants traffic engineers have looked at the site and the area and provided some general information on traffic generation two story building configuration on the site. As per city policy, detailed traffic analysis will be required as part of the site plan review (City of Shorewood Zoning Code Section 1201.3). The actual development intensity of the site will be based in part on the ability to ads within the area. The applicant is aware traffic improvements may be necessary depending on the selected user, development program, and associated traffic impacts. We request that a full traffic study be required as a of approval for the rezoning request to C1 zoning. 24250 Smithtown Road Rezoning Request Supplemental Information 26 May 2016. In Summary we are requesting that the City move the following ac Smithtown Road to C-1 General Commercial subject to the following conditions: 1.That the City amend the Proposed Land Use Map to show 24250 as commercial land use designation. 2.That the City and property owner agree on a preferred access arr ingress and egress to the property and that such access be negot approval process. 3.That a detailed traffic study be completed as part of the site plan approval process. Please let me know should you have any questions pertaining to this supplemental information. You can contact me with any questions. I can be reached at brad@hkgi.comor via phone at 612.252.7122. Sincerely, Brad Scheib, AICP Vice President cc: John Benjamin Bonnie Witrak -D-R-A-F-T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR REZONING FOR JOHN BENJAMIN WHEREAS, John Benjamin (Applicant) has an interest in the property located at 24250 Smithtown Road, which property is legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested that the subject property be rezoned from R- 2A, Single and Two-Family Residential to C-1, General Commercial; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City's Planning Director, whose recommendations are set forth in a staff report, dated 28 April 2016, which staff report is on file in the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 4 October 2016 and, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested rezoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its regular meeting held on 24 October 2016 reviewed the material submitted by the Applicant, written and oral public testimony, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's staff report. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant's property is located in an R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential zoning district, contains 1.59 acres of land, and is occupied by a single-family dwelling. 2. Land uses and zoning surrounding the subject property are as follow: North: Shorewood Public Works Department; zoned R-2A East: South Lake Public Safety Building (Police and Fire); zoned R-2A South: Auto Repair and self-service car wash; zoned C-1 West: Candy store, in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial 3. The Shorewood Comprehensive Plan recommends R-C, Residential/Commercial zoning for the subject property. 4. The existing driveway to the home on the property is very close to the intersection of the Public Works/Public Safety driveway and County Road 19. It is unknown if the subject property has an easement over the Public Works driveway. CONCLUSIONS A. The request for rezoning results in the potential for more intense activity than the recommended R-C zoning. B. Increased traffic from a more intense future use is of concern to the City. C. The requested C-1 zoning is not consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. D. The Applicant's request for rezoning as set forth above is hereby denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of October 2016. SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: JEAN PANCHYSITYN, CITY CLERK f , I . ,: That part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, lying East of the West 220.82 feet of Lot 3; and lying Southerly and Westerly of the following described line A: Line A: Beginning at a point on the East line of the West 220.82 feet of Lot 3 a. distance of 430 feet North of the Northerly boundary of County Road 19; thence East at right angles to a point distant 70 feet West of the East line of Lot 3; thence South parallel to the East line of Lot 3 to the Northerly boundary of County Road 19 and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property 24250 Smithtown Road, Shorewood, Minnesota _ a Exhibit A #8C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: City Code Amendment – Revised Floodplain Management Regulations Meeting Date: 24 October 2016 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: A – Summary of Floodplain Changes map B – Draft Ordinance Policy Consideration: Should the City Code be amended to adopt revised Floodplain Management Regulations, in order for Shorewood to remain part of the National Flood Insurance Program? Background: In order for Shorewood to remain eligible for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program, the City is required to adopt revised Floodplain Management Regulations, the most significant part of which includes an updated Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Exhibit A, attached, includes a summary of changes for properties affected by the new regulations. The Planning Commission, at its 18 October meeting, held a public hearing to consider the revised Code amendment (Exhibit B), recommending adoption of the revised regulations, subject to some clarifying edits. The Code amendment itself is quite similar to the one adopted in 2004. It consists of the model ordinance provided by MNDNR, “tweaked” to suit Shorewood (e.g. references to mobile home parks, campgrounds and industrial uses have been omitted, since we don’t provide for them in our development regulations). Staff sent out a letter to the list of property owners affected by changes to the FIRM. The letter directed them to a FEMA website, which has proven to be less than useful. We intend to send out a follow-up memo, including the summary map, along with detailed directions as to how to access the far more detailed City maps. Residents will be able to pull up their property with contour lines overlaying an aerial photo showing the location of structures (particularly their homes). They will be able to determine if their house is in the flood zone or not, and they can use the map to discuss flood insurance requirements with their mortgage companies. Financial or Budget Considerations: The availability of the City maps is considered to be very valuable to Shorewood residents. Many will be able to avoid having to survey their properties for purposes of disputing floodplain designation. Options: Adopt the ordinance amendment as presented; modify the amendment; or do nothing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s conclusion that this amendment can be a very valuable tool in an attempt to enhance life-cycle housing in Shorewood. Next Steps and Timelines: The amended code must be adopted prior to 4 November in order for Shorewood to remain eligible for the NFIP. We will have someone from WSB at Monday night’s meeting to answer detailed questions you may have. It would be useful if you could send your questions to us in advance of the meeting. We also ask authorization to publish a summary of the ordinance. 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 W GC Q O Z C D O 00 CO _j N V) Z .� v � O Q u Oro � N �o 0 a�°y0 GJ v Mga CL Q W= a u u u W O U m 0 I-- _0 v . �OZcn S Ln W :3 4- — c o v 0 CL = W to V m v -O -O i i -t3 LLI V1 Z O O V O v m O OW V' 4 Q V vii Z -0 o } Q W i - - - -; z A) , Z H _ t7 I - u Ln V V Z J �___� V1 � O w o O C O 0 t u 41 O] i 0 N C i h r -- I I I I I I I I O O C Q1 v i 0 0 c 0 0 �yce���y �•5'' M-rr` � 0 O f¢Oi;� v+ • � -off". I f �yce���y �•5'' M-rr` IMMI Hum c v N c t v DAR x, I ' :y' I r I o` ' u - -- , -111 — lk.-- I m f¢Oi;� v+ • � -off". IMMI Hum c v N c t v DAR x, I ' :y' I r I o` ' u - -- , -111 — lk.-- I m CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE TO REPLACE EXISTING CHAPTER 1101 IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH A REVISED CHAPTER 1101 (FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS) Section 1 . Chapter 1101 (Floodplain Management Regulations) of the Shorewood City Code is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with: CHAPTER 1101 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS Section 1101.01 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE 1101.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1101.03 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 1101.04 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 1101.05 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 1101.06 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) 1101.07 LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 1101.08 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES 1101.09 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND PLACEMENT OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES 1101.10 ADMINISTRATION 1101.11 NONCONFORMITIES 1101.12 PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT 1101.13 AMENDMENTS 1101.01 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE Subd. 1. Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and Chapter 462 delegated the responsibility to local government units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Therefore, the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota, does ordain as follows. Subd. 2 Purpose: a. This chapter regulates development in the flood hazard areas of the City of Shorewood. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this Exhibit B 1101-1 chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. b. National Flood Insurance Program Compliance. This chapter is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 -78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. c. This chapter is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. 1101.02 GENERAL PROVISIONS Subd. 1.How to Use This Chapter: This chapter adopts the floodplain maps applicable to the City of Shorewood and includes three floodplain districts: Floodway, Flood Fringe, and General Floodplain. a. Where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are delineated on the floodplain maps, the standards in Sections 4 or 5 will apply, depending on the location of a property. b. Locations where Floodway and Flood Fringe districts are not delineated on the floodplain maps are considered to fall within the General Floodplain district. Within the General Floodplain district, the Floodway District standards in Section 4 apply unless the floodway boundary is determined, according to the process outlined in Section 6. Once the floodway boundary is determined, the Flood Fringe District standards in Section 5 may apply outside the floodway. Subd. 2. Lands to Which ChapterApplies: a. This chapter applies to all lands within the jurisdiction of Shorewood shown on the floodplain maps and/or the attachments to the maps as being located within the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe, or General Floodplain Districts. b. The Floodway, Flood Fringe and General Floodplain Districts are overlay districts that are superimposed on all existing zoning districts on the Shorewood Zoning Districts map referenced in Chapter 1201 of this code. The standards imposed in the overlay districts are in addition to any other requirements in Chapter 1201 of this Code. In case of a conflict, the more restrictive standards will apply. Subd. 3. Incorporation of Maps by Reference: The following maps together with all attached material are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The attached material includes the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas, dated November 4, 2016 and the Flood Insurance Rate Map panels enumerated below, dated November 4, 2016, all prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These materials are on file in the Shorewood City Offices. Effective Flood Insurance Rate Map panels: 1101-2 27053C0292F27053C0309F 27053C0313F 27053C0317F 27053C0295F 27053C0311F 27053C0314F 27053C0318F 27053C0308F 27053C0312F 27053C0316F 27053C0319F Subd. 4 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation: The regulatory flood protection elevation (RFPE) is an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. Subd. 5. Interpretation: The boundaries of the floodplain districts are determined by scaling distances on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. a. Where a conflict exists between the floodplain limits illustrated on the flood plain map and floodplain elevations discover in actual field conditions, the flood elevations shall be the governing factor. The Zoning Administrator must interpret the boundary location based on the ground elevations that existed on the site on the date of the first National Flood Insurance Program map showing the area within the regulatory floodplain, and other available technical data. b. Persons contesting the location of the district boundaries will be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case to the City Council, serving as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals and to submit technical evidence. Subd. 6. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this chapter to repeal, abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants, or other private agreements. However, where this chapter imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this chapter prevail. All other ordinances inconsistent with this chapter are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only. Subd. 7. Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This chapter does not imply that areas outside the floodplain districts or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter does not create liability on the part of the City of Shorewood or its officers or employees for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. Subd. 8 Severability:If any section, clause, provision, or portion of this chapter is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by a court of law, the remainder of this chapter shall not be affected and shall remain in full force. Subd. 9 Definitions:Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in this chapter must be interpreted according to common usage and so as to give this chapter its most reasonable application. ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURE. A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate to, the principal use or structure. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. The elevation of the “regional flood.” The term “base flood elevation” is used in the flood insurance survey. 1101-3 BASEMENT. Any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below ground level. CONDITIONAL USE. A specific type of structure or land use listed in the official control that may be allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the official zoning controls or building codes and upon a finding that: (1) Certain conditions as detailed in the zoning code exist. (2) The structure and/or land use conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and are compatible with the existing neighborhood. CRITICAL FACILITIES . Facilities necessary to a community’s public health and safety, those that store or produce highly volatile, toxic or water-reactive materials, and those that house occupants that may be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical facilities include hospitals, correctional facilities, schools, daycare facilities, nursing homes, fire and police stations, wastewater treatment facilities, public electric utilities, water plants, fuel storage facilities, and waste handling and storage facilities. DEVELOPMENT. Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations, or storage of equipment or materials. EQUAL DEGREE OF ENCROACHMENT. A method of determining the location of floodway boundaries so that floodplain lands on both sides of a stream are capable of conveying a proportionate share of flood flows. FLOOD. A temporary increase in the flow or stage of a stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in the inundation of normally dry areas. FLOOD FREQUENCY. The frequency for which it is expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be equaled or exceeded. FLOOD FRINGE. The portion of the Special Flood Hazard Area (one percent annual chance flood) located outside of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term “floodway fringe” used in the Flood Insurance Study for Hennepin County, Minnesota FLOOD PRONE AREA. Any land susceptible to being inundated by water from any source (see “Flood”). FLOODPLAIN. The beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. 1101-4 FLOODPROOFING. A combination of structural provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction or elimination of flood damages. FLOODWAY. The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining floodplain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. LOWEST FLOOR. The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building’s lowest floor; provided, that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the applicable non-elevation design requirements of 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.3. MANUFACTURED HOME. A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when attached to the required utilities. The term “manufactured home” does not include the term “recreational vehicle”. NEW CONSTRUCTION. Structures, including additions and improvements, and placement of manufactured homes, for which the start of construction commenced on or after the effective date of this chapter. OBSTRUCTION. Any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory floodplain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water. ONE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. Lands inundated by the “Regional Flood” (see definition). PRINCIPAL USE OR STRUCTURE. All uses or structures that are not accessory uses or structures. REACH. A hydraulic engineering term to describe a longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge crossings would most typically constitute a reach. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE. A vehicle that is built on a single chassis, is 400 square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, is designed to be self- propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck, and is designed primarily not for use as a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, 1101-5 travel, or seasonal use. For the purposes of this chapter, the term recreational vehicle is synonymous with the term “travel trailer/travel vehicle”. REGIONAL FLOOD. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude of the 1% chance or 100-year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in a flood insurance study. REGULATORY FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION (RFPE) An elevation not less than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments on the floodplain that result from designation of a floodway. REPETITIVE LOSS. Flood related damages sustained by a structure on two separate occasions during a ten year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event on the average equals or exceeds 25% of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. A term used for flood insurance purposes synonymous with “One Hundred Year Floodplain”. START OF CONSTRUCTION. Includes substantial improvement, and means the actual start of construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement or other improvement that occurred before the permit’s expiration date. The actual start is either the first placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation, such as clearing, grading and filling; nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways; nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, foundations, or the erection of temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of a building, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the building. STRUCTURE. Anything constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached garages, cabins, manufactured homes, recreational vehicles not meeting the exemption criteria specified in Section 9.22 of this chapter and other similar items. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE. Damage of any origin sustained by a structure where the cost of restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. 1101-6 SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT. Within any consecutive 365-day period, any reconstruction, rehabilitation (including normal maintenance and repair), repair after damage, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the improvement. This term includes structures that have incurred “substantial damage,” regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either: (1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which have been identified by the local code enforcement official and which are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions. (2) Any alteration of a “historic structure,” provided that the alteration will not preclude the structure’s continued designation as a “historic structure.” For the purpose of this chapter, “historic structure” is as defined in 44 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 59.1. Subd.10. Annexations: The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into Section 2.3 above may include floodplain areas that lie outside of the corporate boundaries of the City of Shorewood at the time of adoption of this chapter. If any of these floodplain land areas are annexed into the City of Shorewood after the date of adoption of this chapter, the newly annexed floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this chapter immediately upon the date of annexation. Subd. 11. Detachments. The Flood Insurance Rate Map panels adopted by reference into Section 2.3 above will include floodplain areas that lie inside the corporate boundaries of municipalities at the time of adoption of this chapter. If any of these floodplain land areas are detached from a municipality and come under the jurisdiction of Shorewood after the date of adoption of this chapter, the newly detached floodplain lands will be subject to the provisions of this chapter immediately upon the date of detachment. 1101.03 ESTABLISHMENT OF FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS Subd. 1 Districts: a. Floodway District. The Floodway District includes those areas within Zones AE that have a floodway delineated as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 2.3, as well as portions of other lakes, wetlands, and basins within Zones AE (that do not have a floodway delineated) that are located at or below the ordinary high water level as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subdivision 14. b. Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District includes areas within Zones AE that have a floodway delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 2.3, but are located outside of the floodway. For other lakes, wetlands and other basins within Zones AE that do not have a floodway delineated, the Flood Fringe District also includes those areas below the 1% annual chance (100-year) 1101-7 flood elevation but above the ordinary high water level as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.005, subdivision 14. c. General Floodplain District. The General Floodplain District includes those areas within Zone A as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted in Section 2.3. Subd. 2. Applicability: Within the floodplain districts established in this chapter, the use, size, type and location of development must comply with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations. In no cases shall floodplain development adversely affect the efficiency or unduly restrict the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributaries to the main stream, drainage ditches, or any other drainage facilities or systems. All uses not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 are prohibited. In addition, critical facilities, as defined in Section 2.915, are prohibited in all floodplain districts. 1101.04 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) Subd. 1. Permitted Uses: The following uses, subject to the standards set forth in Section 4.2, are permitted uses if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district: a. Open space uses, including but not limited to private and public golf courses, tennis courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, fishing areas, and single or multiple purpose recreational trails. b. Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play areas. c Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines and pipelines, provided that the Department of Natural Resources’ Area Hydrologist is notified at least ten days prior to issuance of any permit. Subd. 2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses: a. The use must have a low flood damage potential. b. The use must not obstruct flood flows or cause any increase in flood elevations and must not involve structures, obstructions, or storage of materials or equipment. c. Any facility that will be used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses: The following uses may be allowed as conditional uses following the standards and procedures set forth in Section 10.4 of this chapter and further subject to the standards set forth in Section 4.4, if otherwise allowed in the underlying zoning district or any applicable overlay district. 1101-8 a. Structures accessory to the uses listed in 4.11 – 4.13 above and the uses listed in 4.32 - 4.33 below. b. Extraction and storage of sand, gravel, and other materials. c. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and water control structures. d. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials. e. Placement of fill or construction of fences that obstruct flood flows. Farm fences, as defined in section 2.918, are permitted uses. f. Travel-ready recreational vehicles meeting the exception standards in Section 9.3. g. General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. Subd. 4. Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses: a. All Uses. A conditional use must not cause any increase in the stage of the 1% chance or regional flood or cause an increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected. b. Fill; Storage of Materials and Equipment: (1) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. (2) Fill, dredge spoil, and other similar materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method. Permanent sand and gravel operations and similar uses must be covered by a long-term site development plan. (3) Temporary placement of fill, other materials, or equipment which would cause an increase to the stage of the 1% percent chance or regional flood may only be allowed if the City Council has approved a plan that assures removal of the materials from the floodway based upon the flood warning time available. c. Accessory Structures. Accessory structures, as identified in Section 4.31, may be permitted, provided that: (1) structures are not intended for human habitation; (2) structures will have a low flood damage potential; (3) structures will be constructed an placed so as to offer a minimal obstruction to the flow of flood waters; (4) Service utilities, such as electrical and heating equipment, within these structures must be elevated to or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or properly floodproofed; (5) Structures must be elevated on fill or structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with the FP1 or FP2 floodproofing classifications in the State 1101-9 Building Code. All floodproofed structures must be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement and designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls. (6) As an alternative, an accessory structure may be internally/wet floodproofed to the FP3 or FP4 floodproofing classifications in the State Building Code, provided the accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment and does not exceed 576 square feet in size. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or meet or exceed the following criteria: (a) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two “automatic” openings in the outside walls of the structure, with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; and (b) There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. d. Structural works for flood control that will change the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands or public waters are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245. e. A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway must not cause an increase to the 1% chance or regional flood. The technical analysis must assume equal conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream. f. Floodway developments must not adversely affect the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining floodplain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system. 1101.05 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) Subd. 1 Permitted Uses: Permitted uses are those uses of land or structures allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) that comply with the standards in Sections 5.2. If no pre- existing, underlying zoning districts exist, then any residential or nonresidential structure or use of a structure or land is a permitted use provided it does not constitute a public nuisance. Subd. 2. Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses: a. All structures, including accessory structures, must be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor, as defined, is at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The finished fill elevation for structures must be no lower than one foot below the regulatory flood protection elevation and the fill must extend at the same elevation at least 15 feet beyond the outside limits of the structure. b. Accessory Structures. As an alternative to the fill requirements of section 5.21, structures accessory to the uses identified in Section 5.1 may be permitted to be 1101-10 internally/wet floodproofed to the FP3 or FP4 floodproofing classifications in the State Building Code, provided that: (1) The accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does not exceed 576 square feet in size, and is only used for parking and storage. (2) All portions of floodproofed accessory structures below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation must be: (i) adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement and designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls, (ii) be constructed with materials resistant to flood damage, and (iii) must have all service utilities be water-tight or elevated to above the regulatory flood protection elevation (3) Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer or meet or exceed the following criteria: (a) To allow for the equalization of hydrostatic pressure, there must be a minimum of two “automatic” openings in the outside walls of the structure, with a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding; and (b) There must be openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings must be no higher than one foot above the lowest adjacent grade to the structure. Using human intervention to open a garage door prior to flooding will not satisfy this requirement for automatic openings. c. The cumulative placement of fill or similar material on a parcel must not exceed 1,000 cubic yards, unless the fill is specifically intended to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of this chapter, or if allowed as a conditional use under Section 5.33 below. d. The storage of any materials or equipment must be elevated on fill to the regulatory flood protection elevation. e. All service utilities, including ductwork, must be elevated or water-tight to prevent infiltration of floodwaters. f. The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. g. All fill must be properly compacted and the slopes must be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. h. All new principal structures must have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, or must have a flood warning /emergency evacuation plan acceptable to the City Council. i. Accessory uses such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at an elevation lower than the regulatory flood protection elevation. However, any facilities used by employees or the general public must be designed with a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area is inundated 1101-11 to a depth and velocity such that the depth (in feet) multiplied by the velocity (in feet per second) would exceed a product of four upon occurrence of the regional (1% chance) flood. j. Manufactured homes and recreational vehicles must meet the standards of Section 9 of this chapter. Subd. 3. Conditional Uses:The following uses and activities may be allowed as conditional uses, if allowed in the underlying zoning district(s) or any applicable overlay district, following the procedures in Section 10.4 of this chapter. a. Any structure that is not elevated on fill or floodproofed in accordance with Sections 5.21 and 5.22 of this chapter. b. Storage of any material or equipment below the regulatory flood protection elevation. c. The cumulative placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill when the fill is not being used to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of this chapter. e. The use of methods to elevate structures above the regulatory flood protection elevation, including stilts, pilings, parallel walls, or above-grade, enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages, shall meet the standards in Section 5.46. Subd. 4. Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses: a. The standards listed in Sections 5.24 through 5.30 apply to all conditional uses. b. Basements, as defined by Section 2.913 of this chapter, are subject to the following: (1) Residential basement construction is not allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation. (2) Nonresidential basements may be allowed below the regulatory flood protection elevation provided the basement is structurally dry floodproofed in accordance with Section 5.43 of this chapter. c. All areas of nonresidential structures, including basements, to be placed below the regulatory flood protection elevation must be floodproofed in accordance with the structurally dry floodproofing classifications in the State Building Code. Structurally dry floodproofing must meet the FP1 or FP2 floodproofing classification in the State Building Code, which requires making the structure watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. d. The placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill or other similar material on a parcel (other than for the purpose of elevating a structure to the regulatory flood protection elevation) must comply with an approved erosion/sedimentation control plan. 1101-12 (1) The plan must clearly specify methods to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event at a minimum of the regional (1% chance) flood event. (2) The plan must be prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer or other qualified individual acceptable to the City Council. (3) The plan may incorporate alternative procedures for removal of the material from the floodplain if adequate flood warning time exists. e. Storage of materials and equipment below the regulatory flood protection elevation must comply with an approved emergency plan providing for removal of such materials within the time available after a flood warning. f. Alternative elevation methods other than the use of fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor above the regulatory flood protection elevation. The base or floor of an enclosed area shall be considered above-grade and not a structure’s basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed area is above-grade on at least one side of the structure; 2) it is designed to internally flood and is constructed with flood resistant materials; and 3) it is used solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The above-noted alternative elevation methods are subject to the following additional standards: (1) Design and Certification - The structure’s design and as-built condition must be certified by a registered professional engineer as being in compliance with the general design standards of the State Building Code and, specifically, that all electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities must be at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation or be designed to prevent flood water from entering or accumulating within these components during times of flooding. (2) Specific Standards for Above-grade, Enclosed Areas - Above-grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and the design plans must stipulate: (a) The minimum area of openings in the walls where internal flooding is to be used as a floodproofing technique. There shall be a minimum of two openings on at least two sides of the structure and the bottom of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade. The automatic openings shall have a minimum net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding unless a registered professional engineer or architect certifies that a smaller net area would suffice. The automatic openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry and exit of flood waters without any form of human intervention; and (b) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood resistant materials in accordance with the FP3 or FP4 classifications in the State 1101-13 Building Code and shall be used solely for building access, parking of vehicles or storage. 1101.06 GENERAL FLOODPLAIN DISTRICT (GF) Subd. 1. Permitted Uses: a. The uses listed in Section 4.1 of this chapter, Floodway District Permitted Uses, are permitted uses. b. All other uses are subject to the floodway/flood fringe evaluation criteria specified in Section 6.2 below. Section 4.0 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Floodway District. Section 5.0 applies if the proposed use is determined to be in the Flood Fringe District. Subd. 2. Procedures for Floodway and Flood Fringe Determinations: a. Upon receipt of an application for a permit or other approval within the General Floodplain District, the Zoning Administrator must obtain, review and reasonably utilize any regional flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state, or other source. b. If regional flood elevation and floodway data are not readily available, the applicant must furnish additional information, as needed, to determine the regulatory flood protection elevation and whether the proposed use would fall within the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. Information must be consistent with accepted hydrological and hydraulic engineering standards and the standards in 6.23 below. c. The determination of floodway and flood fringe must include the following components, as applicable: (1) Estimate the peak discharge of the regional (1% chance) flood. (2) Calculate the water surface profile of the regional flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel and overbank areas. (3) Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the regional flood without increasing flood stages more than one-half (0.5) foot. A lesser stage increase than 0.5 foot is required if, as a result of the stage increase, increased flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment on both sides of the stream within the reach must be assumed in computing floodway boundaries. d. The Zoning Administrator will review the submitted information and assess the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway and/or Flood Fringe District boundary. The assessment must include the cumulative effects of previous floodway encroachments. The Zoning Administrator may seek technical assistance from a designated engineer or other expert person or agency, including the Department of Natural Resources. Based on this assessment, the Zoning Administrator may approve or deny the application. 1101-14 e. Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries have been determined, the Zoning Administrator must process the permit application consistent with the applicable provisions of Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this chapter. 1101.07 LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Subd. 1 In General:Recognizing that flood prone areas may exist outside of the designated floodplain districts, the requirements of this chapter apply to all land within the City of Shorewood. Subd. 2. Subdivisions:No land may be subdivided which is unsuitable for reasons of flooding or inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Manufactured home parks and recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are considered subdivisions under this chapter. a. All lots within the floodplain districts must be able to contain a building site outside of the Floodway District at or above the regulatory flood protection elevation. b. All subdivisions must have road access both to the subdivision and to the individual building sites no lower than two feet below the regulatory flood protection elevation, unless a flood warning emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and people during the regional (1% chance) flood has been approved by the City Council. The plan must be prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified individual, and must demonstrate that adequate time and personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. c. For all subdivisions in the floodplain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries, the regulatory flood protection elevation and the required elevation of all access roads must be clearly labeled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. d. In the General Floodplain District, applicants must provide the information required in Section 6.2 of this chapter to determine the regional flood elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries and the regulatory flood protection elevation for the subdivision site. e. If a subdivision proposal or other proposed new development is in a flood prone area, any such proposal must be reviewed to assure that: (1) All such proposals are consistent with the need to minimize flood damage within the flood prone area, (2) All public utilities and facilities, such as sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems are located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage, and (3) Adequate drainage is provided to reduce exposure of flood hazard. Subd. 3. Building Sites. If a proposed building site is in a flood prone area, all new construction and substantial improvements (including the placement of manufactured homes) must be: 1101-15 a. Designed (or modified) and adequately anchored to prevent floatation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy; b. Constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; c. Constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage; and d. Constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that are designed and/or located so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding. 1101.08 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES Subd. 1. Public Utilities:All public utilities and facilities such as gas, electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to be located in the floodplain must be floodproofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation. Subd. 2. Public Transportation Facilities: Railroad tracks, roads, and bridges to be located within the floodplain must comply with Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this chapter. These transportation facilities must be elevated to the regulatory flood protection elevation where failure or interruption of these facilities would result in danger to the public health or safety or where such facilities are essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower elevation where failure or interruption of transportation services would not endanger the public health or safety. Subd. 3. On-site Water Supply and Sewage Treatment Systems: Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.4350, as amended; and 2) New or replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into flood waters, they must not be subject to impairment or contamination during times of flooding, and are subject to the provisions in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080.2270, as amended. 1101.09 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND PLACEMENT OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES. Subd. 1. Manufactured Homes: New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing manufactured home parks are prohibited in any floodplain district. For existing manufactured home parks or lots of record, the following requirements apply: a. Placement or replacement of manufactured home units is prohibited in the Floodway District. b. If allowed in the Flood Fringe District, placement or replacement of manufactured home units is subject to the requirements of Section 5 of this chapter. New and replacement manufactured homes must be elevated in compliance with Section 5 of this chapter and must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of 1101-16 anchoring may include, but are not limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. Subd. 2. Recreational Vehicles: New recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds and expansions to existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds are prohibited in any floodplain district. Placement of recreational vehicles in existing recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds in the floodplain must meet the exemption criteria below or be treated as new structures meeting the requirements of this chapter. a. Recreational vehicles are exempt from the provisions of this chapter if they are placed in any of the following areas and meet the criteria listed in Section 9.22: (1) Individual lots or parcels of record. (2) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or campgrounds. (3) Existing condominium-type associations. b. Criteria for Exempt Recreational Vehicles: (1) The vehicle must have a current license required for highway use. (2) The vehicle must be highway ready, meaning on wheels or the internal jacking system, attached to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and recreational vehicle parks. (3) No permanent structural type additions may be attached to the vehicle. (4) The vehicle and associated use must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning district. (5) Accessory structures are not permitted within the Floodway District. Any accessory structure in the Flood Fringe District must be constructed of flood-resistant materials and be securely anchored, meeting the requirements applicable to manufactured homes in Section 9.22. (6) An accessory structure must constitute a minimal investment c. Recreational vehicles that are exempt in Section 9.22 lose this exemption when development occurs on the site that exceeds a minimal investment for an accessory structure such as a garage or storage building. The recreational vehicle and all accessory structures will then be treated as new structures subject to the elevation and floodproofing requirements of Section 5.0 of this chapter. No development or improvement on the parcel or attachment to the recreational vehicle is allowed that would hinder the removal of the vehicle should flooding occur. 1101.10 ADMINISTRATION Subd. 1. Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator or other official designated by the City Council must administer and enforce this chapter. Subd. 2. Permit Requirements: 1101-17 a. Permit Required. A permit must be obtained from the Zoning Administrator prior to conducting the following activities: (1) The erection, addition, modification, rehabilitation, or alteration of any building, structure, or portion thereof. Normal maintenance and repair also requires a permit if such work, separately or in conjunction with other planned work, constitutes a substantial improvement as defined in this chapter. (2) The use or change of use of a building, structure, or land. (3) The change or extension of a nonconforming use. (4) The repair of a structure that has been damaged by flood, fire, tornado, or any other source. (5) The placement of fill, excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or equipment within the floodplain. (6) Relocation or alteration of a watercourse (including new or replacement culverts and bridges), unless a public waters work permit has been applied for. (7) Any other type of “development” as defined in this chapter. b. Application for Permit. Permit applications must be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided by the Zoning Administrator. The permit application must include the following as applicable: (1) A site plan showing all pertinent dimensions, existing or proposed buildings, structures, and significant natural features having an influence on the permit. (2) Location of fill or storage of materials in relation to the stream channel. (3) Copies of any required municipal, county, state or federal permits or approvals. (4) Other relevant information requested by the Zoning Administrator as necessary to properly evaluate the permit application. c. Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered, or Nonconforming Use. No building, land or structure may be occupied or used in any manner until a certificate of zoning compliance has been issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of the building or land conforms to the requirements of this chapter. d. Certification. The applicant is required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Floodproofing measures must be certified by a registered professional engineer or registered architect. 1101-18 e. Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the floodplain. The Zoning Administrator must also maintain a record of the elevation to which structures and alterations or additions to structures are floodproofed. f. Notifications for Watercourse Alterations. Before authorizing any alteration or relocation of a river or stream, the Zoning Administrator must notify adjacent communities. If the applicant has applied for a permit to work in public waters pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.245, this will suffice as adequate notice. A copy of the notification must also be submitted to the Chicago Regional Office of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). g. Notification to FEMA When Physical Changes Increase or Decrease Base Flood Elevations. As soon as is practicable, but not later than six months after the date such supporting information becomes available, the Zoning Administrator must notify the Chicago Regional Office of FEMA of the changes by submitting a copy of the relevant technical or scientific data. Subd. 3. Variances: a. Variance Applications. An application for a variance to the provisions of this chapter will be processed and reviewed in accordance with applicable state statutes and Section 1201.05 of the Zoning Code. b. Adherence to State Floodplain Management Standards. A variance must not allow a use that is not allowed in that district, permit a lower degree of flood protection than the regulatory flood protection elevation for the particular area, or permit standards lower than those required by state law. c. Additional Variance Criteria. The following additional variance criteria of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must be satisfied: (1) Variances must not be issued by a community within any designated regulatory floodway if any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result. (2) Variances may only be issued by a community upon (i) a showing of good and sufficient cause, (ii) a determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant, and (iii) a determination that the granting of a variance will not result in increased flood heights, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances. (3) Variances may only be issued upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. d. Flood Insurance Notice. The Zoning Administrator must notify the applicant for a variance that: 1) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to 1101-19 amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage; and 2) Such construction below the base or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification must be maintained with a record of all variance actions. e. General Considerations. The community may consider the following factors in granting variances and imposing conditions on variances and conditional uses in floodplains: (1) The potential danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments; (2) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others; (3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems, if any, and the ability of these systems to minimize the potential for disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions; (4) The susceptibility of any proposed use and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner; (5) The importance of the services to be provided by the proposed use to the community; (6) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location; (7) The availability of viable alternative locations for the proposed use that are not subject to flooding; (8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future; (9) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and flood plain management program for the area; (10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles; (11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. f. Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed variances to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. g. Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting variances must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. h. Record-Keeping. The Zoning Administrator must maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and must report such variances in 1101-20 an annual or biennial report to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program, when requested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Subd. 4. Conditional Uses: a. Administrative Review. An application for a conditional use permit under the provisions of this chapter will be processed and reviewed in accordance with Section 1204 of the Zoning Code. b. Factors Used in Decision-Making. In passing upon conditional use applications, the City Council must consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this chapter, and those factors identified in Section 10.35 of this chapter. c. Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. The City Council may attach such conditions to the granting of conditional use permits as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this chapter. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Modification of waste treatment and water supply facilities. (2) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation. (3) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed restrictions. (4) Requirements for construction of channel modifications, compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective measures. (5) Floodproofing measures, in accordance with the State Building Code and this chapter. The applicant must submit a plan or document certified by a registered professional engineer or architect that the floodproofing measures are consistent with the regulatory flood protection elevation and associated flood factors for the particular area. d. Submittal of Hearing Notices to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The Zoning Administrator must submit hearing notices for proposed conditional uses to the DNR sufficiently in advance to provide at least ten days’ notice of the hearing. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. e. Submittal of Final Decisions to the DNR. A copy of all decisions granting conditional uses must be forwarded to the DNR within ten days of such action. The notice may be sent by electronic mail or U.S. Mail to the respective DNR area hydrologist. 1101.04 NONCONFORMITIES Subd. 1 Continuance of Nonconformities: A use, structure, or occupancy of land which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this chapter but which is not in conformity with the provisions of this chapter may be continued subject to the following conditions. Historic structures, as defined in Section 2.941(b) of this chapter, are subject to the provisions of Sections 11.11 – 11.16 of this chapter. 1101-21 a. A nonconforming use, structure, or occupancy must not be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way that increases its flood damage potential or degree of obstruction to flood flows except as provided in 11.12 below. Expansion or enlargement of uses, structures or occupancies within the Floodway District is prohibited. b. Any addition or structural alteration to a nonconforming structure or nonconforming use that would result in increasing its flood damage potential must be protected to the regulatory flood protection elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or floodproofing techniques (i.e., FP1 thru FP4 floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State Building Code, except as further restricted in 11.13 and 11.17 below. c. If the cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the market value of any nonconforming structure, that shall be considered substantial improvement, and the entire structure must meet the standards of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this chapter for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District, respectively. The cost of all structural alterations and additions must include all costs such as construction materials and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. d. If any nonconforming use, or any use of a nonconforming structure, is discontinued for more than one year, any future use of the premises must conform to this chapter. The Assessor must notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of nonconformities that have been discontinued for a period of more than one year. e. If any nonconformity is substantially damaged, as defined in Section 2.940 of this chapter, it may not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. The applicable provisions for establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 4.0 or 5.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively. f. If any nonconforming use or structure experiences a repetitive loss, as defined in Section 2.936 of this chapter, it must not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. g. Any substantial improvement, as defined in Section 2.941 of this chapter, to a nonconforming structure requires that the existing structure and any additions must meet the requirements of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this chapter for new structures, depending upon whether the structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. 1101.12 PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT Subd. 1. Violation Constitutes a Misdemeanor: Violation of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of variances or conditional uses) constitute a misdemeanor and will be punishable as defined by law. 1101-22 Subd. 2. Other Lawful Action: Nothing in this chapter restricts the City of Shorewood from taking such other lawful action as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses will constitute an additional violation of this chapter and will be prosecuted accordingly. Subd. 3. Enforcement: Violations of the provisions of this chapter will be investigated and resolved in accordance with the provisions of Section 120.08 of the Zoning Code. In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the Zoning Administrator and City Council may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the-fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City of Shorewood must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 1101.13 AMENDMENTS Subd. 1. Floodplain Designation – Restrictions on Removal: The floodplain designation on the floodplain maps must not be removed from floodplain areas unless it can be shown that the designation is in error or that the area has been filled to or above the elevation of the regulatory flood protection elevation and is contiguous to lands outside the floodplain. Special exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) if the Commissioner determines that, through other measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended use. Subd. 2. Amendments Require DNR Approval: All amendments to this chapter must be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) prior to adoption. The Commissioner must approve the amendment prior to community approval. Subd. 3. Map Revisions Require Ordinance Amendments. The floodplain district regulations must be amended to incorporate any revisions by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the floodplain maps adopted in Section 2.3 of this chapter. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24 day of October 2016. ATTEST: SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ___________________________________ JEAN PANCHYSHYN, CITY CLERK 1101-23 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 16-_____ A RESOLUTION APPROVING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1101 BY TITLE ANDSUMMARY WHEREAS, on 24 October 2016, the City Council of the City of Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. _____ entitled “AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE TO REPLACE EXISTING CHAPTER 1101 IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH A REVISED CHAPTER 1101 (FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS); ” WHEREAS, the City staff has prepared a summary of Ordinance No. _____ as follows: 1.The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate development in the flood hazard areas of the City of Shorewood. These flood hazard areas are subject to periodic inundation, which may result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base. It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing these losses and disruptions. 2.This chapter is adopted to comply with the rules and regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program codified as 44 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 59 – 78, as amended, so as to maintain the community’s eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. 3.This chapter is also intended to preserve the natural characteristics and functions of watercourses and floodplains in order to moderate flood and stormwater impacts, improve water quality, reduce soil erosion, protect aquatic and riparian habitat, provide recreational opportunities, provide aesthetic benefits and enhance community and economic development. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD: 1. The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. _____ clearly informs the public of intent and effect of the Ordinance. 2. The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. _____ by title and summary, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subdivision 4. 3.A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the city’s website. ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 24th day of October 2016. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor ________________________________ Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title/Subject: Resolution Accepting Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the 2016 Guard Rail Project Meeting Date: 10/24/2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Location Map Background: Streets scheduled for the 2016 Guard Rail Project are illustrated on the attached location maps.The proposed guard rail includes installing new plate beam guard rail with wood posts along Lake Linden Drive and Yellowstone Trail to provide safety to the traveling public and to replace the existing deficient plate beam guard rail along Excelsior Boulevard. Quotes were requested from three specialty contractors, including Warning Lites, Mattison Contracting and Global Specialty Contractors. The City received one quote for the project with the lowest responsive quote received from Warning Lites,with the low quote of$27,000.20. The City has budgeted $40,000 for this work in the Capital Improvement Plan for roadway maintenance. Options: 1. Approve the resolution accepting quotes and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive quote for the 2016 Guard Rail Project. 2. Reject the quote for the 2016 Guard Rail Project. 3. Take no action on this item at this time. Recommendation/Action Requested: City staff recommends approving the Resolution Accepting Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the 2016 Guar d Rail Project to Warning Lites for their low quote of$27,000.20. 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 ACCEPTING QUOTE AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE 2016 GUARD RAIL PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an invitation to provide quotes for local improvements designated as the 2016 Guard Rail Project quotes were received, opened, and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Warning Lites is the lowest quote in compliance with the quote documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Warning Lites in the name of the City of Shorewood, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to return forthwith to all contractors providing quotes the deposits made with their quotes, except for the deposits of the successful quote and the next two lowest quotes, which shall be retained until a contract has been signed. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 24th day of October, 2016. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk dr mapy CL . Lake LL `3 . Ar Ad � i4 {+r ya I 4 x ACV 11% ♦.yam •' .f - on r. A-V • Y 11 I ,� W.V.V= #9B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Incidental Use of Public Right-of-Way—175 Brentwood Avenue Meeting Date: October 24, 2016 Prepared by: Paul Hornby, City Engineer Reviewed by: Brad Nielsen, Director of Planning Attachments: Site location map, street view photo, resident correspondence Policy Consideration: Should the City approve an incidental use of the right of way of Timber Lane for a secondary access for 175 Brentwood Avenue,Tonka Bay? Background: Alex Ugorets has submitted a zoning application for the incidental use of a public right of way of Timber Lane for the purpose of a secondary access to the property at 175 Brentwood Avenue,Tonka Bay. The applicant's property, as constructed, has narrow side yards and access between the front and rear yards are restricted. The applicant is requesting an access point to the right of way of Timber Lane to accommodate accessibility to the rear yard. Review of the applicant's request indicates there is an access present to Timber Lane today, and the access appears to have been in place since 2009 upon review of aerial photographs. Bing Maps street view application also indicates the access was in place in 2014. Photos are attached for Council reference. It appears the access point was in place during construction of the house and the City of Shorewood staff received a resident concern when aggregate surfacing was installed on the access. The applicant's property does not have enough direct combined frontage to allow a secondary access by City code, but the access is allowed by approval of an incidental use of the public right of way. Staff does recommend approval of the incidental use of the public right of way for an access to Timber Lane under the following conditions: 1. The access point does not exceed 4 feet in width 2. The access is not used as a secondary driveway 3. The access is not used for parking of vehicles 4. The applicant does not use the access for the purpose of storing motor vehicles including boats, snow machines,ATVs, cars, trucks and any other motor vehicles through this access. 5. The access does not impede drainage of the street 6. The access is turf or wood chip surfaced 7. The access is maintained by the owner 8. Non-public signs are NOTallowed in the City right of way Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 9.Upon reasonable notice, the use of the access will be restricted or cancelled if the City finds the condition of the access is not in compliance with the terms as stated. Options: 1.Grant the Applicant’s request for incidental use of the right of way for access to Timber Lane 2.Deny the Applicant’s request for incidental use of the right of way for access to Timber Lane 3.Take no Action 4.Provide staff other direction Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the incidental use of the public right of way for access to Timber Lane from 175 Brentwood Avenue with the conditions as stated. A Resolution stating Council action will be prepared upon approval. From: Ronald J, Zenk <ronjzenk @gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 2 :13 PM To: Brad Nielsen Cc: Patti Helgesen; Larry Brown; Joe Pazandak, Subject: Ugorets Driveway Permit Request Dear Brad: Thank you for letting us know about Ugorets Driveway Permit Request. While we always strive to be good neighbors, my wife Lori and I strongly oppose this permit for the following reasons: The Ugorets already have a driveway in their front yard on Brentwood Avenue in Tonka Bay —this would be a second driveway added to our cul -de -sac in Shorewood, There is not an urgent need for them to have a second driveway, and it would create new issues for nine Shorewood residents in terms of traffic flow and restricted parking access on Timber Lane and the cul -de -sac in particular, 2. Once the hardscape / paving for the driveway is completed, it will be impossible for either city to regulate traffic in and out of the driveway even if it is only intended to be "incidental use ". As a result, the proposed back yard driveway for the Ugorets has the potential to significantly increase traffic on Timber Lane and the cul -de- sac. The number of driveways on our small cul -de -sac would increase from four to five, and this would have the potential to increase traffic by.25% in the cul -de -sac alone. That is not an acceptable outcome for us, 3. Parking is already limited in the Timber Lane cul -de -sac. Right now there are four driveways plus a no parking mailbox area between two of the driveways, making it impossible to park anywhere except on the western side of the cul -de -sac, including in front of the proposed Ugorets second driveway. Adding a fifth driveway to the cul -de -sac would eliminate a significant portion of parking currently available in the cul -de -sac. We all like to invite friends to enjoy our lakefront properties, and we all rely on the cul -de -sac for guest parking as virtually none of us have room for guest parking in our driveways. In summary, there does not appear to be a compelling reason for a second driveway for the Ugorets, and the negative impact on nine Shorewood residents living on Timber Lane far exceeds the marginal benefit to be gained by a single resident of Tonka Bay. In the interests of representing Shorewood property owners on Timber Lane, we respectfully request that the City Council DOES NOT approve Ugorets Driveway permit request. Sincerely, Lori and Ronald Zenk 5435 Timber Lane Shorewood, MN October 16, 2016 Mr. Bradley Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Ugorets Driveway Permit Request Dear Mr. Nielsen, We live at 5455 Timber Lane on the cul -de -sac where the driveway would access Timber Lane. We only know of the permit request because we received a copy of your letter to our neighbor. We have not received any details of what is in that request. That lack of information is significant in light of how this whole issue has proceeded. This past summer Mr. Ugorets build a driveway illegally accessing Timber Lane. He posted 'no parking' signs, again illegally. He also left messages on cars that parked there and did not notice his signs. It is obvious that Mr. Ugorets' intent is not just to have 'incidental use of the public right of way ". How can he be requesting a'driveway improvement' when until this summer, there was no access to Timber Lane. Small trees were removed and a shallow ditch was filled in with class 3/5 rock to create an access. We moved to Timber Lane three years ago after an extensive search of properties and parking was one of our most important criteria. The street is wide enough for 2 cars only, no sidewalks, no curbs, no shoulders (trees /vegetation up to roadway). On- street parking is considered a valuable asset used by visiting friends and contractors. The proposed driveway would take away 2 -3 parking spots on the cul- de -sac. Neighborhood convention is to park cars on only the non -lake side of street so that cars can continue to enter and exit the neighborhood. Losing any parking spots, but particularly on the cul -de- sac makes it much more difficult for our neighborhood. We feel that adding a non - essential driveway from a house on another street lowers the value of our home. In the winter, a driveway at this location will create issues for the Shorewood snowplow team. This location is the only spot on the cul -de -sac that can be used (and is used) for snow storage, and the only place providing drainage for snow melts. The rest of the cul -de -sac (the lake -side) is already taken up by driveways and all the properties slant up -hill so there is no drainage on the lake -side. Lastly, the area where the driveway access would be is part of an area where rain water runs down from the Shorewood easement green space into a drainage ditch between the road and the bike trail. Access /flow to the drainage ditches on the non - lakeside the cul -de -sac area is already poor and the cul- de -sac doesn't drain well. Already rain water sometimes accumulates on the road. If the intent (either now or later) of the driveway access is to also install a concrete /asphalt driveway to the Mr. Ugoret's home then this will add at minimum 1500+ sqft of hardscape to the area; severely increase runoff which will no doubt be directed down the driveway into the cul -de -sac. This would flood the street every time it rains and undermine and damage the road and the cul -de -sac. Again having not seen the permit request, we do not know if water issues have even been considered. At a minimum it should be required that all runoff should not enter the cul -de -sac or street and should absolutely empty into the ditch along the back of Mr. Ugorets' property which I think is part of the Tonka Bay easement. Runoff from a Tonka Bay property should go into a Tonka Bay drainage ditch. Since Mr. Ugorets' property is in Tonka Bay, if Shorewood grants access to Timber Lane will it have any say at all on how the driveway is built or used? I hope that my concerns and those of my neighbors have given you some additional information to consider. We request that the permit be denied. Sinc ly, h and Annette Kaiser 5455 Timber Lane 952 - 401 -3647 #10A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Lease - Purchase Agreement with Excelsior Fire District Meeting Date: 10/24/16 Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Jean Panchyshyn, Interim Administrator Policy Consideration: Should the City finance a ladder truck for the Excelsior Fire District (EFD)? Background: The Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board authorized the department to purchase new ladder truck. The EFD proposes to utilize a lease /purchase agreement for financing. The department has previously contracted lease /purchase financing from the City of Shorewood for SCBA equipment and a fire truck. The EFD has requested financing of the new ladder truck at the same rate as the existing lease of 1.75% annual interest. With interest rates continuing near all -time lows, the city has not been able to find any investments at a higher rate for the five year period that the lease would cover. Staff believes it to be an acceptable rate of return for the five year period of proposed financing for the approximately $770,000 that the EFD has estimated to spend on the new truck. The financing would be a single up -front payment for the full amount which allows for a discount on the pricing of the truck. At this point we have not worked out a repayment schedule with the EFD. If the City Council is agreeable in concept to this financing arrangement, we would work out details and bring back a proposed lease- purchase contract for approval at a future meeting. Approval of this financing concept will allow Fire Chief Gerber to proceed with plans to place the order in December or January. Financial or Budget Considerations: Staff suggests paying for the equipment out of the General Fund. The Equipment Replacement Fund does not have sufficient capital at this time to provide the cash. All principal and interest will return to the General Fund. Options: Accept the general terms of the concept and authorize staff to pursue an agreement and repayment schedule for the equipment. Propose a different interest rate to the EFD. 3. Do nothing at this time and have the EFD seek outside financing. Recommendation / Action Requested: Accept the general terms of the agreement and authorize staff to pursue an agreement and repayment schedule for the equipment. 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 Next Steps and Timelines: If approved, staff will work the EFD personnel to finalize details and purchase arrangements. Connection to Vision / Mission: This item is connected to the City's of collaborating with other communities and agencies. CITY OF #11.A.1 SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900 Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Re: Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Prepared by Paul Hornby and Brad Nielsen Galpin Lake Road Walkway Schedule – PROJECT IS POSTPONED – City Application for Federal Funding submitted through Metropolitan Council Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report Survey (30 days) – May Feasibility Report (30 days) – June Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk – July Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report Council approves Feasibility Report Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90 days) 95% Complete submittal to MnDOT 7/01/14 MnDOT Review Complete 7/31/14 CC Authorization to Advertise for bids 6/23/14 Open Bids 8/19/14 CC consideration of Award 8/25/14 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) Land Acquisition process not required due to design modifications o Individual temporary easements or rights of entry may be required o Reduces project schedule o 10/30/14 Neighborhood post-bid meeting N/A City possession of easements/letter of compliance Groundbreaking Ceremony TBD Begin Construction TBD Construction substantially complete – Phase 1 Construction TBD Construction substantially complete – Phase 2 Construction TBD Ribbon Cutting Ceremony TBD Restoration complete TBD Page 2 Trail Schedule Update – Galpin Lake Road and Smithtown Road (East) Smithtown Road East (LRT Trail to Country Club Road) Walkway Schedule 6/03/14 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re trail segment for following year 6/23/14 Council authorizes preparation of survey and Feasibility Report /14/14 – 9/10/14 Survey (30 days) – (In Process) 7 /18/14–10/10/14 Feasibility Report (30 days) – 8 10/21/14 Planning Commission review of feasibility report and trail walk 10/21/14 Planning Commission recommendation to Council re Feasibility Report 10/27/14 Council approves Feasibility Report 10/30/14 Planning Commission holds Neighborhood Meeting (Open House) 12/08/14 Council award of land acquisition services and authorizes preparation of Plans and Specifications 12/11/14 - 5/31/15 Preparation of Plans and Specifications (90-120 days) (99% complete) 2/1/15 - 8/31/15 Land Acquisition Process (start approx. mid-way through plans and specs) Complete parcel descriptions and legal descriptions o Review proposed easements with staff/attorney o Letters to property owners regarding survey staking o Field stake proposed easements for Appraiser/RW Agent o Easement viewing – parcel owner and RW Agent on-site o Appraisal information o Appraisal review o Council considers resolution to authorize staff to make offers and eminent domain schedule o Prepare and deliver offers to parcel owners o 3/23/15 Begin eminent domain action /03/15 Neighborhood informational meeting (Open House) 6 Council approves Plans and Specifications and authorizes ad for Bids 7/13/15 8/21/15 Receive bids for construction 8/24/15 City possession of easements/letter of compliance Council awards Construction Contract 8/24/15 9/09/15 Neighborhood preconstruction meeting Groundbreaking Ceremony 9/14/15 4/21/16 Begin Construction Contractor completed tree removal 2/24/16 8/31/16 Construction substantially complete Ribbon Cutting Ceremony 6/30/16 Minor construction “punchlist” items remaining 10/31/16 10/31/16 Restoration complete Date: October 24, 2016 To: Mayor Zerby Council Members From: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Re: September, 2016 General Fund Monthly Budget Report The 2016 General Fund continues to track our expectations. Revenues are higher than 2015 in total. Permits are running at about the same as 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. Fines & Forfeits is lower than last year. The fine revenues have generally been lower each month, so we will likely be under the budget in that area. Please remember that the city receives its primary revenues from property taxes which the first half are distributed in July. 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. Council — Other Services and Charges are higher because of the payment to the Christmas Lake Association. Administration — Other Services and Charges are higher because we are actually paying for Mr. Joynes services here as a contract rather than in the Personal Services budget where Council had planned for a full -time administrator. Park Maintenance — Personal Services are higher because more time has been coded here rather than in the Public Works Service. This is not a problem for the overall General Fund budget because total salaries are still below budget. Please contact me if you have any questions. Attachment: September Budget Spreadsheet General Ledger Revenue and Expense vs Budget Through September 30, 2016 % Collected One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual General h'und Revenues Taxes $ 5,079,408.00 $ 2,553,329.26 $ 3,809,556.00 50.27% $ 2,526,030.04 Licenses & Permits $ 169,180.00 $ 171,458.80 $ 126,885.00 101.35% $ 177,454.71 Intergovernmental $ 90,75L00 $ 126,841.36 $ 68,063.25 139.77% $ 98,740.19 Charges for Service $ 42,200.00 $ 31,101.59 $ 31,650.00 73.70% $ 47,475.87 Fines & Forfeits $ 60,000.00 $ 26,293.10 $ 45,000.00 43.82% $ 43,711.21 Mise Revenues $ 210,400.00 $ 167,925.82 $ 157,800.00 79.81% $ 145,37494 Other Financing Sources $ 25,000.00 $ - $ 18,750.00 0.00% $ - General Fund $ 5,676,939.00 $ 3,076,949.93 $ 4,257,704.25 54.20% $ 3,038,786.96 General Fund Expenditures Council Personal Services $ 22,600.00 $ 16,631.55 $ 16,950.00 73.59% $ 16,631.55 Supplies $ 2,000.00 $ 841.90 $ 1,500.00 42.10% $ 1,304.09 Other Services and Charges $ 133,500.00 $ 82,87334 $ 100,125.00 62.08% $ 46,588.54 Other Financing Use $ 70,000.00 $ - $ 52,500.00 143.35% $ - Council $ 228,100.00 $ 1.00,346.79 $ 171,075.00 $ 3.21 $ 64,524.18 Administraton Personal Services $ 414,154.00 $ 175,616.99 $ 310,615.50 42.40% $ 178,098.94 Supplies $ 20,900.00 $ 11,939.32 $ 15,675.00 57.13% $ 10,203.51 Other Services and Charges $ 42,550.00 $ 113,991.35 $ 31,912.50 267.90% $ 96,209.91 Administraton $ 477,604.00 S 301,547.66 S 358,203.00 S 3.67 $ 284,512.36 Finance Personal Services $ 142,27100 $ 106,990.01 $ 106,704.75 75.20% $ 103,491.69 Supplies $ 14,600.00 $ 21,737.10 $ 10,950.00 148.88% $ 14,922.90 Other Services and Charges $ 15,900.00 $ 39,984.52 $ 11,925.00 251.47% $ 18,649.21 Finance S 172,773.00 $ 168,711.63 S 129,579.75 97.65% S 137,063.80 $ - Professional Services $ Other Services and Charges $ 226,400.00 $ 106,362.00 $ 169,800.00 4698% $ 172,730.61 Professional Services $ 226,400.00 $ 106,362.00 $ 169,800.00 46.98% $ 172,730.61 Planning Personal Services $ 178,797.00 S 134,795.64 $ 134,097.75 75.39% $ 133,068.74 Supplies $ 300.00 $ 406.74 $ 225.00 13558% $ 423.33 Other Services and Charges $ 12,000.00 $ 8,577.15 $ 9,000.00 71.48% $ 15,993.12 Planning S 191,097.00 $ 143,779.53 $ 143,322.75 75.24% $ 149,485.19 Municipal Buildings Supplies $ 21,300.00 $ 7,664.86 $ 15,975.00 35.99% $ 43,560.13 Other Services and Charges $ 174,800.00 $ 137,718.63 $ 131,100.00 78.79% $ 91,249.00 Other Financing Use $ 104,313.00 $ - $ 78,234.75 0.00% $ - Municipal Buildings S 300,413.00 S 145,383.49 $ 225,309.75 48.39% $ 134,809.13 % Collected One Year Description Budget Period Amt YTD Budget % Expended Prior Actual Police Protection Supplies $ - $ 3,601.23 $ - $ - Other Services and Charges $ 1,106,165.00 $ 830,649.00 $ 829,623.75 75.09% $ 807,559.68 Capital Outlay $ 230,000.00 $ 160,749.00 $ 172,500.00 69.89% $ 168,885.00 Debt Service $ - $ - $ - $ - Police Protection $ 1,336,165.00 $ 994,999.23 $ 1,002,123.75 74.47% $ 976,444.68 Eire Protection Other Services and Charges $ 369,714.00 $ 276,330.32 $ 277,285.50 74.74% $ 270,503.47 Capital Outlay $ 270,620.00 $ 202,965.15 $ 202,965.00 75.00% $ 207,117.06 Bire Protection $ 640,334.00 $ 479,295.47 $ 480,250.50 74.85% $ 477,620.53 Protective Inspections Personal Services $ 126,299.00 $ 98,401.83 $ 94,724.25 77.91% $ 91,150.30 Supplies $ 200.00 $ 245.00 $ 150.00 122.50% $ 72.95 Other Services and Charges $ 8,050.00 $ 5,095.68 $ 6,037.50 63.30% $ 6,451.48 Protective Inspections $ 134,549.00 $ 103,742.51 $ 100,911.75 77.10% $ 97,674.73 City Engineer Other Services and Charges $ 89,725.00 $ 60,002.75 $ 67,293.75 66.87% $ 43,600.00 City Engineer $ 89,725.00 $ 60,002.75 $ 67,293.75 66.87% $ 43,600.00 Public Works Service Personal Services $ 516,365.00 $ 254,926.57 $ 387,27175 4937% $ 276,589.31 Supplies $ 163,000.00 $ 97,564.86 $ 122,250.00 59.86% $ 70,593.07 Other Services and Charges $ 131,100.00 $ 80,741.24 $ 98,325.00 61.59% $ 74,389.71 Other Financing Use $ 860,000.00 $ - $ 645,000.00 FALSE S - Public Works Service $ 1,670,465.00 $ 433,232.67 S 1,252,848.75 25.93% $ 421,572.09 lee & Snow Removal Personal Services $ 61,465.00 $ 19,008.27 $ 46,098.75 30.93% $ 17,234.69 Supplies $ 44,000.00 $ 4,179.18 $ 33,000.00 9.50% $ 15,58991 Other Services and Charges $ - $ - $ - $ - Iee & Snow Removal $ 105,465.00 S 23,187.45 S 79,098.75 21.99% $ 32,824.60 Park Maintenance Personal Services $ 115,022.00 $ 119,204.07 $ 86,266.50 103.64% $ 114,906.80 Supplies $ 23,300.00 $ 13,694.92 $ 17,475.00 58.78% $ 6,650.84 Other Services and Charges $ 40,500.00 $ 30,499.39 $ 30,375.00 75.31% $ 27,924.33 Park Maintenance $ 178,822.00 $ 163,398.38 $ 1349116.50 91.37% $ 149,481.97 Recreation Personal Services $ 41,575.00 $ 29,434.01 $ 31,181.25 70.80% $ 34,860.11 Supplies $ 7,700.00 $ 3,471.90 $ 5,775.00 45.09% $ 5,680.43 Other Services and Charges $ 13,900.00 $ 7,570.38 $ 10,425.00 54.46% $ 3,187.56 Other Financing Use $ 42,000.00 $ - $ 31,500.00 0.00% $ - Recreation $ 105,175.00 S 40,476.29 $ 78,881.25 38.48% $ 43,728.10 General Fund $ 5,857,087.00 $ 3,264,465.85 $ 4,392,815.25 55.74% $ 3,186,071.97 Revenue Total $ 5,676,939.00 $ 3,076,949.93 S 4,257,704.25 $ 3,038,786.96 Expense Total $ 5,857,087.00 $ 3,264,465.85 $ 4,392,815.25 $ 3,186,071.97 NetIncomel (Loss) $ (180,148.00) S (187,515.92) $ (135,111.00) $ (147,285.01) t. ,. ' -/ 9,t Shb w r-e Id b, �' s There is significant truck traffic on Smithtown Road due to the development along with the accompanying noise, dust and increased hazard to kids in the area. I do wonder why these detractors are not spread to the Yellowstone development entrance. Are we "'UNDER PERFORMING PROPERTIES"' the "sacrifice zone"? I wonder also why the western Smithtown Road entrance is allowed to be undeveloped? Would it not be im- portant to have it open and developed now for emergency purposes? It could also ab- sorb some of the construction traffic. 24725 Smithtown Rd Shorewood, MN 55331 952-470-0682 10-24-2016