Loading...
05-22-17 CC Reg Mtg Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 22, 2017 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Zerby Johnson Labadie Siakel Sundberg B. Review Agenda Attachments 2. CONSENT AGENDA—Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda& Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2017 Minutes B. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List C. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds, Public Works Equipment— Director of Public 2 Toro Groundsmaster Mowers. Works Memo D. Accept Proposal for OSHA Safety Compliance Training— Director of Public SafeAssure Consultants. Works Memo 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Vacate Public Right-of-Way—White Street Planning Director's Location: East side of Lake Linden Drive memo 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Draft 2018 LMCD Budget(informational only) Letter from LMCD 6. PARKS 7. PLANNING A. Report by Janet Sylvester on the May 2, 2017 Planning Commission meeting Minutes B. Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space (Former)Planning Director's memo Applicant: Erin and Michael Neilon Resolution Location: 5795 Club Lane CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA—May 22,2017 Page 2 C. Minor Subdivision (Former)Planning Director's memo Applicant: Mike Seifert Resolution Location: 6085 Lake Linden Drive D. Minor Subdivision (Former)Planning Director's memo Applicant: Warren Anderson Resolution Location: 25000 Yellowstone Trail E. Minor Subdivision (Former)Planning Director's memo Applicant: Jay Venero/Mattamy Homes Resolution Location: 5985 Seamans Drive F. Grading Permit for Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. 2nd Addition (Fmr)Planning Director's memo Early Grading Development Agreement City Engineer's memo Resolution 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Quotes and Award Contract—Freeman Park South Parking Lot Paving Engineer Memo Resolution B. Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment—Smithtown Road Trail East Extension Improvements Engineer Memo 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Purchase card City Administrator memo Resolution B. Ordinance Amending City Code Regarding Schedule of Fees City Clerk Memo Ordinance Resolution Master Fee Schedule 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff C. Mayor and City Council 11. ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO CONDUCT PERFORMANCE REVIEW UNDER THE COUNCIL'S AUTHORITY 12. ADJOURN #2A MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MAY 8, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson and Labadie; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Thone; Outgoing Planning Director Nielsen; Newly Hired Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Hornby Absent: Councilmembers Siakel and Sundberg. B. Review Agenda Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes of April 24, 2017 Labadie moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of April 24, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2017 Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Johnson moved, Zerby seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Approve Agreement between the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department and the City of Excelsior for Summer Dock and Park Patrol Services C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-038, “A Resolution Approving a 3.2 Percent ‘Off- Sale’ Malt Liquor License, for Shorewood 2001 L.L.C., dba Cub Foods; Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, for TL Shorewood Inc., dba Team Liquor CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 2 of 13 Wine & Spirits; Approving Intoxicating Liquor License On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor and Special Sunday Sales for American Legion Post #259; Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Wine & Spirits by JD, Inc., dba MGM Wine and Spirits; and, Approving an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License, for Park Square Subway, Inc., dba Shorewood Liquor.” D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 17-039, “A Resolution Approving 2017 Data Practices Policies.” Motion passed 3/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 5. PUBLIC HEARING 6. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 7. PARKS 8. PLANNING A. Grading Permit for Minnetonka Country Club PUD Second Addition Brian Theis, Mattamy Homes, explained Mattamy is the current developer of the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) project. Last year Mattamy had about two-thirds of the site graded and it serviced 73 lots with streets and utilities. This evening Mattamy is seeking approval for a grading permit to allow Mattamy to grade the rest of the site. The goal would then be to be back before Council in about one month for final plat of the second phase of the project. There will be a third phase that will be worked on in 2018. Mr. Theis then explained Mattamy has closed its home building operation in Minnesota. Mattamy will remain a land developer for any land it currently owns including the MCC site. Mattamy intends to see the development of the MCC site through and get it developed over the next couple of years. Mattamy has entered into a purchase agreement and closed on the first phase of lots with CalAtlantic Homes. CalAtlantic is one of the home builders for the MCC development. The other home builder is Gonyea Homes; it is a similar builder to Mattamy in many respects. Steve Ellefsen, in house architect with CalAtlantic Homes, explained CalAtlantic has been in this market for 22 years. It was previously known as Ryland Homes. In October 2015 their national company Ryland Group merged Standard Pacific Corporation out of California to create CalAtlantic Homes. CalAtlantic has been one of the type five builders for most of those 22 years. It has a reputation for building quality homes. He stated CalAtlantic is very excited to have the opportunity to build in the MCC development. It had wanted to enter the higher end, luxury home market for a while. When Mattamy announced they were leaving the state, the MCC project was considered as an opportunity to launch its higher end, luxury product. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 3 of 13 He explained CalAtlantic designed a new line of luxury homes. It has five home plans that would range in size from 2,900 to 4,000 square feet of area. One style would be one-level rambler. The other four styles are two stories and each those styles have four distinct exterior elevations. There would be a lot of diversity with the project. Its anticipated target selling price is from around $740,000 to $850,000. There are opportunities to upgrade. CalAtlantic designed another new line for Villas because its line for age-targeted units would not fit on the MCC lots. They have four floor plans for that line. Each has three different elevations. The size of the units ranges from 1,850 to 2,300 square feet not including a finished basement. The target selling price is $475,000 to $550,000. Mr. Ellefsen noted that he looks forward to working with the City. Mayor Zerby asked Mr. Theis how many lots have been purchased by individual home buyers. There are only about 3 or 4 lots that have sold signs on them. Mr. Theis stated he thought they are lots that Gonyea had purchased from Mattamy that now have buyers for them. By the time Mattamy finished lots and had them ready for permitting and construction was about the time Mattamy decided to pull out of Minnesota. Mattamy never started selling individual lots. All of the lots (54) Mattamy developed in the first phase with the exception of its model home were sold to CalAtlantic. The model home has been converted to a regular home and it is currently for sale. Of the 54 lots 20 are age-targeted and 34 are 90-foot-wide lots. Mr. Ellefsen stated CalAtlantic anticipates applying for permit for a model home in week or two. He thought it would be built across the street from the Mattamy model. He anticipates starting sales later this summer. The plan is to have the model done by the Fall Parade of Homes. Mayor Zerby asked Engineer Hornby if he has a punch list of what is left for Mattamy to address for the first phase. Hornby responded not yet. He stated the next phase will include sidewalks and trails. Before the wear course is put down a punch list will be created. The City is still holding the financial security for phase 1. Zerby stated there is a large retaining pond, for lack of a better word, that appears to have some type of aeriation system in it. Hornby clarified that is a filtration basin. Zerby stated it is empty and has a “cave” forming under one of the culverts. Hornby explained the grading contractor has to come back to complete that. He thought that would be done when the grading is done for the second phase. That contractor is different than the contractor who installed the drain tile system and the bottom filter in the pond. Mr. Theis stated Mattamy’s intent had been to finish that infiltration area in February but spring came early and road weight restrictions went into effect. Mayor Zerby noted he has serious concerns about moving on to Phase 2 when there is so much left to complete for Phase 1. He has not seen any progress on the amenities, with trails being the largest, that are to be part of the planned unit development (PUD). Mr. Theis stated grading for sidewalks was started on May 5. The contractor’s intent is to get back in on May 10 and continue grading for sidewalks and trails in Phase 1. The schedule is very weather dependent. Last summer it was a struggle to get streets and utilities in because it was very wet. That caused them to get behind. It is Mattamy’s intent to get the sidewalk and trails done as fast as it can. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 4 of 13 Mayor Zerby stated there was give and take about having smaller lots and higher densities in the area as well as open space when the project was approved. That part of the contract for Phase 1 has not been fulfilled. He noted he was nervous about the change in ownership. Mr. Theis stated Mattamy continues to hold the Developer’s Agreement. It is committed to fulfilling its obligations as the developer for the commitments it made. Councilmember Labadie stated she wished there would have been more progress to date. Residents ask her what is going on with the development which is just barren land at this point. She noted that Council and the City want to be kept in the loop as much as possible and thanked Mr. Theis and Mr. Ellefsen for coming. She stated it does make her nervous moving on to Phase 2 when the land development of Phase 1 has not been completed. Mayor Zerby stated from his perspective with zero lots sold there does not seem to be any urgency to start Phase 2. He thought it prudent to try and get some of the remaining Phase 1 work done. Mr. Theis explained Mattamy has an obligation to CalAtlantic to deliver the next phase within in a certain timeframe. He thought CalAtlantic hopes to build two houses a month after its model is done. He noted that Mattamy is not going to move on to Phase 2 and ignore what still needs to be done for Phase 1. Mattamy is actively working on those items. The construction of the trails and sidewalks is in progress. Mattamy worked as long as it could last fall and started up as soon as the weather permitted this spring. Mattamy anticipates starting grading for Phase 2 in June. Councilmember Labadie stated for the two houses a month CalAtlantic plans on building she asked if those will be built on Phase 1 land. Mr. Ellefsen stated they will build on whichever lots open up first. Mr. Theis stated 73 Phase 1 lots are ready to build on; 18 of them are Gonyea’s lots. Mark Sonstegard, Vice President of Land Development with CalAtlantic, explained there are single- family lots and Villa lots ready to build on. CalAtlantic anticipates building two of each product a month. It is currently working on completing the plans for the model. Once construction of the model starts it will likely start a couple of spec houses. CalAtlantic has a lot of interest in the MCC neighborhood. There have been a lot on inquiries. A sales person will probably be assigned to the community in June. The plan is to then focus on pre-sales. He confirmed that the goal is to have the model done by the Fall Parade of Homes. They will be selling into the community before that. CalAtlantic’s contract with Mattamy is for CalAtlantic to purchase Phase 2 lots early in 2018. He noted that August 2016 was a complete rainout. He stated it is better to get development going in the spring to try and ensure the lots are ready by fall. Councilmember Labadie asked Mr. Theis if the council approves the grading permit for Phase 2 how long it would take to complete the grading phase; both best case and worst case. Mr. Theis stated if the weather cooperates 3 months and if it does not 4 – 5 months. Their intent would be to get a grading contractor started to open up a portion of the site and have a street and utility contractor follow behind them. Mattamy would like to come before Council in June for approval of its final plat and utility plan for the Phase 2 site so it can start working on streets and utilities yet this year. Labadie asked how long the street and utility work will take. Mr. Theis stated if that work could start the beginning of July the roads, curb and gutter, water service and sewer service would be done by November. Small utilities would follow that. Labadie asked Director Brown when it becomes too cold to construct curb and gutter and continue with street projects. Brown explained the City tries to avoid starting roadway projects in the fall. If there is one rain day there is no time for soil to dry out. That makes for a poor foundation later on. They will pass but it would not necessarily be the best. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 5 of 13 Director Brown noted the City takes over the ownership of roadways after they are constructed to the standard accepted. Director Nielsen stated staff views the accelerated work schedule as positive for the City. He explained that when the City approved the project last year it was anticipated the second phase would not occur until 2018. One of the advantages of starting Phase 2 this year is the turf and landscaping for the common area will get established; it will have that much more growing time. It could take 3 years before it is well established. The City will also receive the park dedication fees and sewer fees for Phase 2 sooner. Mayor Zerby stated he does not view the acceleration as an advantage. He views this as an opportunity to make sure things are being done properly. There is no punch list for the items that still need to be addressed for Phase 1. Director Nielsen explained the City has a development agreement and a very substantial letter of credit from Mattamy. He noted there would be a separate letter of credit for Phase 2 for any type of site restoration that would need to be done. Mayor Zerby stated he was not sure the City has enough letter of credit to cover everything that has to be done. He noted he would like to continue consideration of the Phase 2 Early Grading Agreement to Council’s first meeting in June. Mayor Zerby stated there has been months when there was no information provided about what was going on with the project and months without contractors doing any work. Now it is a rush to get things done. Councilmember Johnson asked how many other land development projects Mattamy has to complete in Minnesota. Mr. Theis stated about seven in total. Johnson asked what the timeframe is to complete them. Mr. Theis stated that varies; some are closing out. Johnson stated with regard to the MCC project he asked what part of the PUD open space and trails is in Phase 2. Mr. Theis stated the outlots for the open space for the project were platted and deeded to the City as part of Phase 1. Johnson asked what physical percentage is in Phase 2. Mr. Theis explained there is a trail that gets constructed between Phase 1 and Phase 2 through some open space and then out to Smithtown Road further west. The trail could be built now but it would go to nowhere because the street is not there. The street is only sub cut in. Before the street can be constructed the site needs to be graded. The trail would be constructed late fall or next spring and connect to a paved street and a City sidewalk. In response to a comment from Mayor Zerby, Mr. Theis stated the construction of the trail long Country Club Road is going to be started this week. Mayor Zerby stated he was not ready to approve the Agreement and reiterated his preference to delay that action for a month. He noted that only three of the five members of Council are present. He stated he would like to review what has been done on the site over two weeks during Council’s next meeting on May 22. Mr. Theis noted continuing this will further delay the project. He clarified there has not been any construction of homes yet. But, Mattamy developed all of the streets and put in the utilities for Phase 1 last year. That was a very hard and wet construction season. There were weeks when they could only work one day and workers struggled through that one day. Had the weather been more conducive to construction work he thought Mattamy would have gotten sidewalks done and more of the trail graded. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 6 of 13 He noted the trail is only partly graded with Phase 1. In order to make a complete trail system the site need to be developed. Mayor Zerby stated based on what he sees on the site there has not been any trail grading. He does not know if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has signed off on what it needs to. He thought the last work that was done was on the monument sign near Smithtown Road. He commented there are other home construction projects in the City that have been going on for the last 2 to 3 months. He then commented that he is anxious to find out what gets done over the next two weeks. Mr. Theis noted Mattamy is actively working on the site now. Councilmember Johnson stated that early on in discussions about this project there was a lot of discussion about the Homeowners Association (HOA). He asked how the HOA would be transferred over to CalAtlantic and what CalAtlantic’s disclosure process is. Mr. Theis stated Mattamy will control the HOA throughout the land development process until it is turned over to the MCC residents. Mr. Sonstegard stated CalAtlantic’s agreement with Mattamy is Mattamy would stay as the HOA declarant and thereby remain as the manager of the HOA until the HOA is turned over to the MCC residents. The disclosure to CalAtlantic buyers would be the same set of documents that Mattamy would have given to its buyers. Gonyea is going to use the same set of HOA documents that Mattamy provided. There will be two HOAs; one for the Villas and one for the rest of the site. Johnson then inquired of Attorney Keane if Mattamy is no longer functioning as a declarant what happens to the requirements under the development agreement. Keane explained there are contractual enforcement provisions in the development agreement that are equitable, legal and financial. He suspects that buyers of CalAtlantic and Gonyea lots would probably be more interested in the completion of the land development portion of the project than the City because the real estate they are buying is not productive until there is a home on it. Zerby moved, continuing the consideration of the request from Mattamy Minneapolis LLC for a Minnetonka Country Club Phase 2 Early Grading Agreement to the May 22, 2017, City Council meeting. Councilmember Johnson stated he was inclined to support continuing this item to give the other two members of Council an opportunity to comment on this. But, he has some concern that if work on some of the items in Phase 2 of PUD is not started soon that may result in a significant delay in the project. He noted he was also nervous about this project. Johnson seconded. Councilmember Labadie stated it would be valuable to hear what the other members of Council have to say. She then stated she thought it was prudent to move forward with the project. Mayor Zerby noted he thought a two week pause would ultimately be of value. Motion passed 2/1 with Labadie dissenting. Councilmember Labadie asked Mr. Theis, Mr. Ellefsen and Mr. Sonstegard to come to the May 22 Council meeting when this will be discussed again. If they cannot come she suggested they send a representative. She thought what they had to offer was good and that there would be value in them being there to answer questions. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 7 of 13 B. Approve Setback Variance Applicant: Cort and Susan Queen nd Location: 27180 West 62 Street nd Director Nielsen noted that Cort and Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 Street, asked that their request for a setback variance be tabled to the July 10 Council meeting. Councilmember Labadie asked why they made that request. She noted that she had met with Mr. Queen and that they had communicated via email. He seemed very eager to move forward with their project. Director Nielsen explained their request had originally been scheduled for this meeting because they had a previous engagement for May 22. The Queens had a preference to have their request heard before the entire Council. He does not know why they are skipping the June Council meetings. The City has received a letter from the property owners waiving their right to have a decision until the end of July. 9. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Accept Quotes and Award Contract – Freeman Park South Parking Lot Paving Engineer Hornby explained last year the City received a petition from residents living in the Shorewood Ponds townhouses requesting the south parking lot in Freeman Park which is adjacent to the development be paved. Their concern was a lot of dust is stirred up when that the gravel parking lot is being used. Quotes to pave the lot were requested from six local contractors. The City received four quotes. The lowest quote was received from Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc., for an amount of $63,854.00. The Engineer’s estimate was $71,150.00. The City has $60,000 budgeted for this project. Hornby noted the meeting packet contains a copy of a resolution that if adopted would accept the quotes and award the contract. Councilmember Labadie asked where the funding above the budgeted amount would come from. Administrator Lerud stated it would come out of the excess General Fund balance. Councilmember Johnson asked which were there first; the townhouses or the baseball field and parking lot. Director Nielsen stated the fields and lot were there first. Johnson stated when buyers purchased their townhouse they were aware there was a gravel parking lot nearby. Councilmember Labadie stated when this came before Council last year a lot of residents came before Council and even more signed the petition. The parking lot is very dusty. It and the fields are highly used by the Minnetonka Baseball Association. She thought it may be worthwhile to continue this to the next Council meeting when a full Council of five would be present. Mayor Zerby explained the homeowners through the developer paid park dedication fees at the beginning of the Shorewood Ponds project. The residents there are not typical users of the Park. They don’t play ball or hockey. He suggested those fees pay for paving the lot. He noted he made the same point last year when this was discussed. Councilmember Johnson asked what the impact would be of continuing this for two weeks. Engineer Hornby stated he did not think it would affect the schedule. He explained that once the contract is awarded a schedule would be set up. The project would take the contractor 2 to 4 weeks to complete CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 8 of 13 depending on the weather. The project would involve doing some minor grading, supplementing the aggregate base, paving and doing some restoration around the perimeter. Councilmember Labadie stated when this project gets done she asked how long the lot would be out of commission. Engineer Hornby stated it would only be out of commission while the grading work was being done. People could still use the lot during the evening after it has been graded. The lot would probably be closed off for a couple of days to pave it. Councilmember Johnson asked if that could be coordinated with Minnetonka Baseball on the scheduling. Director Brown explained there are some contract provisions. He assumed the quotes are good for 30 to 60 days. Once Council has taken action on this then it is up to the contractor to provide a schedule because that is what the City contracted for. Councilmember Labadie asked when the City received the quotes. Engineer Hornby responded on May 3. Engineer Hornby noted that he will get a copy of the baseball schedule from Park and Rec Coordinator Grout. Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, continuing this item to the May 22, 2017, Council meeting. Motion passed 3/0. B. Xcel Energy Agreement – Burial of Overhead Power on Chaska Road Engineer Hornby explained when the Oppidan senior housing project was approved along with the Tax Increment Finance (TIF) District one of the on-site improvements was to bury the existing overhead power line. Staff has been working with Xcel Energy to provide a quote, schedule and agreement for doing that work. Xcel did provide a template of what the simple agreement would look like. What Xcel needs to provide is a statement of the scope of work. Xcel’s estimate to complete the burial is $117,238.52. The TIF District did provide a $150,000 budget to bury the line. He thought it was critical to get Xcel going for the sake of the project. Staff wants Xcel to bury the line after the curb goes in. That would provide the best schedule to get the street completed and for the developer to hook up to power. The agreement will be reviewed by staff and Attorney Keane. Xcel had indicated he would have the agreement before this meeting but that did not happen. In response to a comment from Mayor Zerby, Engineer Hornby clarified if a power line is going to be buried as part of a project if the line is outside of the project area the developer does not pay for that. He explained burying the power lines would provide more room for landscaping. Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO 17-040, “A Resolution Approving Xcel Energy Agreement for Burial of Overhead Power Utility (Oppidan TIF Improvements), City Project 16-05.” Motion passed 3/0. 10. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. Michael Smerdon – Report from Open Book Meeting CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 9 of 13 Administrator Lerud noted the meeting pack contains a short memorandum from Michael Smerdon, the Appraiser for the City, regarding the Open Book meeting for informational purposes. Other Director Brown noted the East Water Tower has been power washed. He then noted that the skate park equipment has been removed from the Park. Mayor Zerby stated one of the ramps had been on the grass. Brown stated the area will be restored. Brown stated he had sent out a notice about watermain repairs that will be done on May 9. The notice was distributed through a number of outlets. Mayor Zerby asked if this was a bolt problem. Brown stated the one on Valleywood was. Brown explained there are hot or acidic soils in some parts of Shorewood. Some of the hardware is destroyed by the soil. Residents ground their appliances to the watermain. That contributes to the corrosion problem of critical hardware. When an attempt was made to shut down a valve to help determine where the leak was originating from the top of the valve burst. That is a common problem. Over the last few years cathodic protection has been installed where those opportunities exist to help protect against corrosion. Brown explained that during the April 24 Council meeting Council approved the purchase of driver feedback signs to put up on Chaska Road. Two days later he was contacted by the Hennepin County Traffic Engineer and learned the County was going to order one sign for one of the directions. The County had not done a speed study so he provided the County with the information the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) had gathered and data about quotes for the signs. The County later asked if Shorewood would be interested in participating in the County’s project. Doing that would save the City about $2,000; the City would purchase one of the two signs and the County would purchase the other one. The signs would be a little higher quality than what the City had intended to purchase. His agreement in concept with the County is that Shorewood would be willing to participate provided the County would be willing to place its sign where the residents suggested. The County intends to put out road tubes and do its own study. The County’s goal is to have the signs up and operating by Memorial Day. Unless the Council says otherwise he intends on continuing to work with the County to move this forward. Councilmember Labadie stated she supports doing that. She asked who owns the signs in the event they need to be repaired. Director Brown stated those details need to be worked out. Mayor Zerby stated someone from the County spoke at a Rotary Club meeting on May 2. That individual touted that as one of the County’s achievements in the area. He noted that individual made nice comments about Director Brown. Councilmember Johnson asked how many other signs the County is going to put up in the area. Director Brown stated he has received another request for County Road 19 for the area through Excelsior, Shorewood and Tonka Bay. Mayor Zerby clarified the area that goes past the SLMPD. Director Brown explained a portion of Smithtown Road is scheduled to be seal coated) because of the seam) as part of the 2017 Crack Fill and Seal Coat Project recently approved by Council. Over the last two weeks the City has received feedback from a number of residents asking the City not to do Smithtown Road this year. Drivers were negatively impacted by construction delays and dust in 2016. The roadway will not deteriorate because of the seam. He thought the request was reasonable. He stated he and Engineer Hornby will look at shifting roadways around in the seal coat schedule. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 10 of 13 Engineer Hornby explained staff is going to review what roads are scheduled for a seal coat in 2018 to see if some 2018 roadway(s) could be switched with Smithtown Road for 2017 and still remain within the 2017 budget for 2017. He will also ask the contractor if they would be okay with doing that. Staff has been working on the pavement marking plan. The pavement markings on many of the streets that are not going to be seal coated have been refreshed. Staff is exercising caution not to refresh pavement markings before pothole patching is done. The seal coat bid includes the markings for those roadways scheduled to be seal coated. Mayor Zerby stated he had spoken with Engineer Hornby and that based on what he has observed some of the critical pavement markings wear off rather quickly. For example, on the Country Club Road / Yellowstone Trail / Lake Linden Drive corridor the stop bars by the stop signs are more than one-half gone. Those stop bars were painted late fall 2016. He recommended repainting the pedestrian crossing and stop bar markings earlier in the year. Engineer Hornby stated the repainting will be phased between two projects. Engineer Hornby stated this spring the Engineering and Public Works have received a lot of drainage complaints. Both groups are seeing water where they have not seen it before. Water is staying around longer which is an indication that ground water is higher than it has been in the past and that the ground is fairly saturated. He has received a lot of complaints about fallen trees. That is on private properties. Some of the calls the City can address; others it cannot. Some are property to property issues. Mayor Zerby stated he received an email from a resident earlier regarding the Oppidan project, noting he had forwarded it to Engineer Hornby and the Chief of Police. The resident complained that it was very dusty in that area and he found it challenging to get his mail safely. He asked Hornby to give Council an update on that project and about what is going on with tightening up the corners at that intersection. Engineer Hornby explained the current schedule for the contract includes moving two Xcel Energy utility poles. That is supposed to happen this week. The contractor has taken some time off while waiting for that to be done. The contractor wants to install the storm sewer; there are at least two poles that fall in the middle of the pipe. The contractor will come back once the poles are moved. He then explained there was a lot of public discussion about the potential closure of Chaska Road except to local traffic. There were a lot of people opposed to doing that. In fact he is not aware of anyone who wants it closed. Council and staff have discussed testing a closure on a temporary basis to determine where the traffic would go. Essentially the road is closed now except for local traffic because of construction. If Council would like to find out what would happen to traffic when the road is reopened he could ask the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) to leave that current closure up temporarily. Mayor Zerby stated it was his recollection the residents were concerned about the volume of traffic. Engineer Hornby explained when the discussions about possibly closing it or adding a cul-de-sac on Chaska Road started residents decided that is not what they wanted. Residents were concerned about the cut-thru traffic. Because Galpin Lake Road does not have east and west access a lot of drivers come down Chaska Road on to Mayflower Road and then to Galpin Lake Road. At one point there were five access points closed along the corridor; Galpin Lake Road was one. That resulted in more drivers taking Chaska Road. The City could do a destination study to find out where drivers are going. Councilmember Labadie stated she thought a big factor in the cut-thru traffic is the start and end times of Middle School West. Highway 41 is dangerous so drivers do take cut-thru routes to get to Chaska to avoid taking Highway 41. If traffic is going to be studied it should be done at those times of the day. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 11 of 13 Councilmember Johnson asked Engineer Hornby to give an update on the standing water issue on both side of the Lake Minnetonka LRT Regional Trail. Engineer Hornby explained he had spoken with a representative from the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRAA) and explained there are drainage issues that could be addressed along the corridor especially between Cathcart Drive and Eureka Road. That stretch could be regraded and ditching reestablished to make it drain better. The City’s system does depend on that corridor in close proximity for drainage. Last fall he went to Freeman Park to look at another drainage issue; there was standing water all over in the rail corridor and in the Park. The foot path from the corridor to the Park along Strawberry Lane was almost not usable. To make improvements may require removing trees and establishing ditches. Councilmember Johnson asked if the arborist could make an assessment. Engineer Hornby stated he is trying to find out how much maintenance the HCRRA has done. Maybe the HCRRA should take the lead on that. Director Brown explained the HCRRA has a number of times brought Tree Trust in to trim. Tree Trust would bring a chipper down the trail and blow the chips into the ditches filling the ditches in. Staff has contacted the HCRRA a number of times and told HCRRA it was not supposed to fill the ditches in because that impacts the City’s drainage ways. HCRRA has not been receptive to that feedback. HCRRA is very sensitive to the removal of trees. It has put cease and desist orders on a number of residents who have attempted to remove trees that from the City’s perspective should not have been removed. HCRRA has a standing order that vegetation will not be removed unless it is impeding the use of the gravel surface. He thought the drainage ways need to remain clear even if that necessitates the removal of trees. Director Nielsen noted that he forgot to have an update on the May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting placed on the agenda. Planning Commissioner Sylvester reported on matters considered and actions taken during the May 2, 2017, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Mayor Zerby noted that this is the last Council meeting Director Nielsen will attend as a City employee. He is retiring after 34 years with the City. He stated a lot of changes have occurred in the City during that time. Director Nielsen stated he had a great ride. He expressed his appreciation for having had the opportunity to work with good people. He thought the people that volunteer to serve on the Planning Commission, Park Commission and City Council are the ones who do the hard work. Mayor Zerby stated he thought Director Nielsen had the opportunity to work with a lot of good councils noting that a lot of the people who served on Councils had previously served on the Planning Commission. Nielsen had served as a good mentor to those individuals. He expressed his appreciation for that and for all of Nielsen’s years of service to the City. Zerby presented Director Nielsen with a crystal clock in appreciation of his 34 years of service with the City. Zerby noted there is a going away party for Director Nielsen planned for May 22. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 12 of 13 Administrator Lerud explained that at the dais this evening Councilmembers found a draft copy of a letter he has written to Tonka Bay Mayor Gerry De La Vega in response to resident inquiries the City received after the last Tonka Bay Council meeting regarding the proposal to close the access on Birch Bluff Road / Pleasant Avenue. During that meeting a citizen group made a presentation to that Council. Based on some of the comments made during the meeting he thought it prudent for the city to send a response. The topic is on the Tonka Bay Council meeting agenda on May 9. The Tonka Bay Mayor will provide an update. He thought it important for Shorewood to be on the record with a letter from him. The letter had been reviewed by staff and attorney Keane. Councilmember Labadie noted she car pools with several families who live in Tonka Bay along Pleasant Avenue and they were not aware of what is going on. She asked if the Tonka Bay residents who live along Birch Bluff Road and Pleasant Avenue had been notified that this is on the May 9 agenda. Administrator Lerud stated the Tonka Bay Council meeting agenda for May 9 is on Tonka Bay’s website. He noted that he has referred the Shorewood residents who had called him to the Tonka Bay website. Mayor Zerby asked what type of notification process there is for something like this. Administrator Lerud clarified the Tonka Bay Council has not made a decision on this yet. It has only heard a presentation from a resident group. Councilmember Johnson stated on the Tonka Bay website he found that there has been some discussion about this topic since 2014. He is surprised more people do not know about it. Johnson asked Attorney Keane what the legality is of Tonka Bay closing a road that is a thoroughfare for another city. Keane stated he has not researched all of the legal consequences. He explained the connection of two state aid roads on either end would presumably require an amendment to a comprehensive plan and that would trigger a notice to the adjoining community. The amendment would have to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. He anticipates there would be a public process staff and Council would have to follow if that Council decides to make a decision. Mayor Zerby noted he appreciates that Administrator Lerud wrote the letter. He stated he has many concerns about what the Tonka Bay Council is discussing. He has great concern about what a road closure would mean to emergency responders. He thanked staff for staying on top of this. Councilmember Johnson stated he thought there would be an impact on a property owner’s home/land value if the closure is approved. Attorney Keane stated he thought that is foreseeable. B. Mayor and City Council Mayor Zerby stated he had heard from a resident that there is still some trouble on Timber Lane about a secondary driveway issue. Some Class 5 gravel has been put down to harden that surface. Residents would like an answer. 12. ADJOURN Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of May 8, 2017, at 8:28 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES May 7, 2017 Page 13 of 13 ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk ® #2B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: May 22, 2017 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 63616-63666 &ACH 320,217.78 Total Claims $320,217.78 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending May 14, 2017. Financial or Budget Considerations: These expenditures are reasonable and necessary to provide services to our residents and funds are budgeted and available for these purposes. Options: The City Council is may accept the staff recommendation to pay these claims or may reject any expenditure it deems not in the best interest of the city. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the claims list as presented. Next Steps and Timelines: Checks will be distributed following approval. Payroll G/L Distribution Report User: Mnguyen C!Batch: 00002.05.2017-PR-05152017 City Of CITY OF SHOREWOOD Shorewood Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101-00-1010-0000 0.00 51,536.48 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 101-11-4103-0000 1,716.64 0.00 PART-TIME 101-11-4122-0000 131.31 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4101-0000 10,681.08 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-13-4103-0000 285.99 0.00 PART-TIME 101-13-4121-0000 801.10 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4122-0000 839.08 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-13-4131-0000 1,340.16 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-13-4151-0000 101.70 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-15-4101-0000 1,824.50 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-15-4121-0000 136.84 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4122-0000 137.06 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-15-4131-0000 156.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-15-4151-0000 11.00 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-18-4101-0000 5,851.26 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-18-4121-0000 122.18 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4122-0000 441.79 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-18-4131-0000 888.44 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-18-4151-0000 31.88 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-24-4101-0000 4,295.13 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-24-4121-0000 317.54 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4122-0000 272.09 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-24-4131-0000 515.00 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-24-4151-0000 29.61 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-32-4101-0000 9,847.99 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-32-4102-0000 22.72 0.00 OVERTIME 101-32-4121-0000 740.28 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4122-0000 718.09 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-32-4131-0000 1,899.66 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-32-4151-0000 586.38 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-33-4101-0000 26.21 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-33-4121-0000 1.97 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-33-4122-0000 1.74 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-33-4151-0000 0.37 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR-G/L Distribution Report(05/15/2017- 1:45 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101-52-4101-0000 3,992.44 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-52-4121-0000 299.44 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4122-0000 300.87 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-52-4131-0000 876.39 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-52-4151-0000 186.98 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101-53-4101-0000 915.78 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 101-53-4121-0000 68.69 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4122-0000 68.85 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 101-53-4131-0000 22.28 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 101-53-4151-0000 31.97 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 51,536.48 51,536.48 FUND 201 Southshore Center 201-00-1010-0000 0.00 1,096.19 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201-00-4101-0000 669.76 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 201-00-4102-0000 43.68 0.00 OVERTIME 201-00-4103-0000 237.50 0.00 PART-TIME 201-00-4121-0000 50.25 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4122-0000 67.31 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 201-00-4151-0000 27.69 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 1,096.19 1,096.19 FUND 601 Water Utility 601-00-1010-0000 0.00 6,438.48 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601-00-4101-0000 4,779.37 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 601-00-4102-0000 90.87 0.00 OVERTIME 601-00-4105-0000 151.45 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601-00-4121-0000 376.60 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4122-0000 332.28 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 601-00-4131-0000 588.79 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 601-00-4151-0000 119.12 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 6,438.48 6,438.48 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611-00-1010-0000 0.00 4,004.07 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611-00-4101-0000 2,765.26 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 611-00-4105-0000 151.45 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611-00-4121-0000 218.79 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4122-0000 210.37 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 611-00-4131-0000 588.79 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 611-00-4151-0000 69.41 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION PR-G/L Distribution Report(05/15/2017- 1:45 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND Total: 4,004.07 4,004.07 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 621-00-1010-0000 0.00 575.33 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621-00-4101-0000 438.38 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 621-00-4121-0000 32.86 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4122-0000 29.87 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 621-00-4131-0000 71.93 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 621-00-4151-0000 2.29 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 575.33 575.33 FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 631-00-1010-0000 0.00 724.58 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631-00-4101-0000 578.35 0.00 FULL-TIME REGULAR 631-00-4121-0000 43.39 0.00 PERA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4122-0000 41.47 0.00 FICA CONTRIB-CITY SHARE 631-00-4131-0000 48.02 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE-CITY 631-00-4151-0000 13.35 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 724.58 724.58 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700-00-1010-0000 64,375.13 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700-00-2170-0000 0.00 31,578.43 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700-00-2171-0000 0.00 6,761.19 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700-00-2172-0000 0.00 4,648.13 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2173-0000 0.00 1,970.08 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2174-0000 0.00 7,184.36 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700-00-2175-0000 0.00 5,991.89 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700-00-2176-0000 0.00 2,429.52 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700-00-2177-0000 0.00 1,211.75 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700-00-2181-0000 0.00 1,064.71 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700-00-2183-0000 0.00 640.77 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700-00-2184-0000 0.00 588.30 DENTAL DELTA 700-00-2185-0000 0.00 306.00 DENTAL-UNION FUND Total: 64,375.13 64,375.13 Report Total: 128,750.26 128,750.26 PR-G/L Distribution Report(05/15/2017- 1:45 PM) Page 3 o � � a ct Q 0 N d o O O O w � o O �,a v f/1 O O O O O O O O O N �/l Vl N CO O u O U U O U U U O U U U \O \O h \O \O \O U U A N N N N N N N N N a O O O O O O O M 01 oo O O O N N O O O O O O O N M M O O O kt� kr� \D \O O O \O \O M CO CO O O N N Q z O ZZ Ca Ca Ca 0.1 0.1 C7 t o w o ° F. C7 O C7 00 a O Z q O ° c- v v v o ct 11 U -cl U U U N `++ ^, � •a' d � F" a � � F-' z .� F° w � F° to ct p N o A U U U U a U rx rx rx U U U a x t o 0 on o ct o o c a ° U cn U ~°o U o o ° v oo O. v U U a ou u ct U a O N N bA a N N N N N w w w w w d Lei o oo O O O O cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O � o � o 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � o 0 0 0 0 m o o � o to o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o O 0000 � � � � � � � � � � � 000 moo o u NNNNNNNNN °, °, xxx °, °, Z oo x o 0 0 o x N N N N N N N N N x o o x o o x °; A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O.i +' 00 00 O, CO O O, \O N 00 �n \o M h O M O, M h M N O O O O O, O, O, cl '/� 00 r— M N O, M h M O, \o \o O, \o ' N 't r— O O O C 00 00 00 h h 00 Vi O �--i M c, Vl \O \O : O � � cl \O �O h cl N ,--i h N N Vl CD N o to 'r O � N p r > ry h r— ° Q N 00 U ^" N p0 CO to sue. O z t 0.1 712 oo 0. on ° U U U U o W a o o o °° rto A w U P4 � P4 P., U U O W 0.1 0.1 O 0.1 U U ° N N v v U U U U U :a w 0 0 � a O cl O .7 oo 01 O h_ O Cl. O O O O O CO 00 4 i. i-. 00 \O O N 01 M O N i. N O O \o h M \O � �_ h_ h O O O •O \O h 01 ,--i h 01 N 'O CO CO CO CO CO 'O W W 'O � U 7 \O F7 F7 N N N M M M c, c, F." N N N N N �. �. N N O, O, cl 01 cl 01 01 01 cl N N N O W a cC cC N N N H H N U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w w w h ri ri F-' w F-' ri ri ri ri ri w d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 4 4 U u O O u O u O O U O O u O O u O O U O O O O O d� U � � U � U � � U n n U � � U � � U n n n n n U A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N N O.i O O O C, C, v v C, o v v O 00 00 O O o m a O O O �o �o v M v 00 O �o �o O O o M M 00 00 v O v v _ _ M CO M 41 \O CO CO CO m r 01 41 41 Vl N ~ ~ N h 00 m Vl N 00 al al x x O0 S: �C U zh z to to W U u U > � x N 0 0 0 0 0 o oo U .. .a .°', .°', .. C7 .. Q o0 00 00 00 CD o U W O O O O O o a � 0.1 :� :� � � � w to A U v a v Q h v Q h z v Q a U w v w v W P. P. P. P. P. v w a w 0 0 a U O N M Q h U s. d vi vi vi vi vi O i. O O O .0 O 00 00 O O i.. 00 N O M M O O M M O O O O O 'O U O O 00 G' O ct c O 01 C, O O G'CD CD 00 00 a w w w w h w d Lei O N O O O N O N O O O O N O O O N O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O O N vi O O O O O O O O O N vi vi vi vi O O O O O U O O M N u O O M N O O O O O O O O M N U U q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N N ° O.i Mi � M oc --i oc Vl N h CO O M M O M O O � M M CO CO CO 01 01 ° CO CO --i N 01 01 CO 01 Vl \o N rr - o6 01 \O M M M N U a U O ~ a u U O U U W C 0 N O V CO vOi �' aOJ O. U to O C7 Co h X23 -Uo -Uo -Uo h o h -Uo -Uo -Uo -Uo h m F°. °o o h u u u u to o w w w O o w w w w u � � � U a w w w w m U W 1 U Q Pi P! P! P! U U U P! P! P! P! w 0 0 M p a U 44 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o ° o No 0 0 o0 0 0 o a on o U oc U U E� Q U scC. sue. U sue. p p Q Q Q vOi vOi vOi U U N N bA bA � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E-� w ri ri E� E� w ri ri W F'' ri ri A A W W W W W w x x 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 x x x 0.1 0.1 x x 0.1 0.1 0.1 u u u a a u u a a a h 00 0 O N M N O N O O O O O N O M O O M O O M O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O U O O O O O U O U O O U O O U O O U O O O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U V1 U U ,--i U p p U \p \p U N N U O" O" h_ h_ h_ h_ h_ O" N O" O O p. h h O" M M O" CO CO CO h h O O ,k' O O ,k' O O CD O O r.. U O U O O O O O U M U O O U O O U O O U O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O O O O O O u O O O N N O O O to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to O.i CD v v v N N N o o N N o 0 o v 00 00 o o �° o v, �° v, v v v �n o v, o v, v, 0 0 o M o0 00 M 00 0 00 0 � °� h' m o vi m o m m N �° 00 N N N l �n N �n N l oo 00 v N v 00 00 r- o 0 W O O ri E � W °o C) °O ° O U W o o w °o °o U U E Ca °O C5 o o o o o O .a o o an an O O O v a o 0 0.1 0 0 Z 00 x W o o .� .� O O to A U x U U x a s a s U x U x F" F" U U a s U N N U x4 w 0 0 a x U U .L" _ 00 CL CL _ U O N \O N CO \O N O O � � � 00 � to O O O O O O .Vi O M O N N N N N O O O M C, O O O N N N 01 M h U U U Uj O bA 0 d U U U U U U U O U U �n \O h o0 01 O N M O M O M O M O M O M O 't O ; O 't O O O O O O O O O O O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O to O O O O O O O O O O M O N O M O O N vi N vi O O O O O O o0 O" O" O O" O" O" M d U ° U o U U ° U ° U 'o U s U ° U ° q N N N N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N O.i M M oc o0 O O O O oc o0 \O \O M N N h O O 01 01 M M v� >C h W U z o0 to W a' "" v, x U U W U H y o o .� O � .� A U W N U U a U U x U z U z c7 U z N U o c7 a w 0 0 a x U ti oc M M � oc M M m � M °o � M h f� to O O O O O N O O O �i O h O N M 'C 'O 'O O 'O M 'C Co U \O ° a a x � � 0 0 0 h N w w h ri ri w w h h o Z o o 2 d o 0 0 U O O o o O O o o o o o o o ° O O o o O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O o o o 0 0 o o o o o o to o o o 0 0 r J c5 0 r v U O O O u O U U U M N O O u N O u O u O u U h \o \o \o U h h U \o U \o U U to O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N to O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i +' 01 \o C, h h O O M M O \o M o1 O o1 01 O O O O 01 C, h N N O o1 01 00 O O O C N O O h O C1 _; O —4 C1 C� O O N O M O O N 00 O o1 O N N 00 00 N M \o \O \o \O h N C1 M M 00 00 CD QI N M Vl z W Q � � N o w 0 0 0 F• P. � U rw U U U o o U o w o o .Cr � � E-� � o E� Q U E-� � ^C ^C ^C F' v v F'' ✓-� m U � Q' � E-i � � F'' x to a x o w x x w o O x A C7 0.1 U O a U a N U E P4 P4 P U as a s U P. N P. U a a � w 0 0 a U O N � O W N A. c6 M O O \O M ,w. M O O \O N 00 41 N N M U 00 \o M z 00 � to moo 44 c o� C, 0 oo r— o N o CD -o � � -o r, C, C, a 14 to a w w w w w w w w to Lei h tt O O O O O tt O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O U O U O U O U O U O O O U O O O U to t0 oo O O O N O O O O O O N vi vi vi O O O O N O O O to O O O O O O O O O O O O O Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N d cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i +' O 01 01 O O O O O O O O tt \o h \O 01 O 01 01 tt tt O O N N 01 tt tt tt 01 cl M M U W o �i cl 01 Vl N cl U z W N N o H U v cZ to a1 a1 to Q C c 0 0 U ct It W O o G~ o 0 0 o o o X23 0 o U a a c o U U U o .,y o0 0o F" h h F. h O h h h ac U C C C v to U P4 U U m U m P-i U m m U m U P-i m U "3 P4 P4 P4 U m ;� w 0 0 � a U O O 0 u N N J, J, oo , ,� r a1 cl O O O M O N 01 � � � N O � CO N h \O M M M o O O fl) a ¢, U 'O 'O i; p i; i; cl •O �p 'C M 7 L i L i G' So G' S~ S~ S~ CO G' N N N S~ S~ a 4 N N tt N i-. N N N N O O O N N I� 0.i 0.i � O � h � 01 � P-i � ,--i � O O O a w w w w w w w d Lei cl O N M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O U O U O O U O O U O O O U O U O U O O O vi vi vi vi O O vi O O O O O O N O O O N N N N N N O O ,k' N ,k' M ,k' O O O U O O O O u O u O O u O O U U U U U U U U M N u O u O U M \O \O \O \O \O \O Q O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i +" 01 01 01 cl \O M M N M Vl \O N M N h O O h 0 't 01 01 't cl oc oc \O \O N N O N M M O O O oc N M O N M o6 oo Vl V1 01 O N N h O O o6 O --i --i M M cl cl oc h \O fl) N N oc M \O O N N N a W Q � U W °� lu U Z a a ° a a O oc Q U U to U o W a o o Z o o W o 0 0 x x o U U U U U U w w x w x O x h x x x Q x A LW 0.1 P-a P-a U m m U m U m U :� Pi P! P! U E-� 0.1 U m U U E-� P! P! P! w 0 0 oc N a O U U oc u FO M M x M oc O y N N o 4 cl cl � o cl cl o N o o � o o r— r- r- o o0 o a a o N o o a o j o oc N U cn m m m M M M M oc oc w N h O_ U bA a O O O vOi N vOi O O O vOi vOi vOi N ct W h W o0 oc 0o W W W h to w w w oc oc oc w w w w �d U U U U U U U U U U O h o0 01 O N O O lo O O O O r— c, O O O N o0 O O \O 01 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O U O U O U O O O U O U O U O O O U O O O O O O O y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N \O O O N 6'O O O O O O O O O O O M O N O M � N N N � CO '� CO '� N N N O O ,k' O ,k' O ,k' O M U O O O U O U O U O O O U O O O M O O O U u O u O U U U U O M u O h M N O O M O h d� � � U U to cD cD cD Ca o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O.i +' 01 O O 01 oc oc M M \O O O O O M o0 oc N N o0 oc oc \O O O \O M N O O N O O N N C M M M N N CO x O N CO �n vi N N 01 01 01 7 c) O � � O s. cC M Z \O Z ~ oc oc oc W � O 'C O ON W Q c�C O C/] CO CO ct oc oc 77� vS ct Z Z W O Z ° x x x vS Ca o o w U U U U U Z h ° x 'o F. = a x v h W h h a3 a3 a h U h W a h a3 u u A U F x U U U m m m U N U a U rx rx rx U c7 m w c7 O w 0 0 � a o ,x U � O � _ ~ + U cl N o0 N M h N \O M \o N N O o0 M O O O o0 \o cl M M M i '7 4 N N N i. O y: P. O h O O 01 01 01 O o0 O O O 01 01 x vi vi vi vi U N N 01 01 01 01 O O N \O N h h h O N O O N N N N a1 a1 a1 � � � a � � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � a � o M O N O O O N O N N O O O O O O O O O O O O 01 O 00 O vi O O CO N N O O CO N N CO O O 00 01 00 01 00 01 00 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N +.., N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.i h 00 M O h N h O h O O O O 00 O M M h h C vl C, 01 \O h O N 01 O 01 O \O Vl M M 01 01 M 01 r/) 00 CD M CO CO O \O h N � \O � � N O C,01 � M x on o o a Z o v z d W W 0.4 W O O s. a ,k p h M M M M N 't O 01 01 01 01 M O N Z O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N CO � Vl \o h 00 O N M ' O N N U --i N N N N N M M M M M M O O N N N N N N N N N N N N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v v v v v ® zC MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood nib Meeting Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Authorization for Expenditure of Funds, Public Works Equipment—2 Toro Groundsmaster Mowers Meeting Date: May 22, 2017 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Policy Consideration: None Background/ Previous Action: The 2017 Capital Improvement Equipment Replacement schedule has funds dedicated to replacement of two Groundsmaster mowers (Units 75 and 93) which are 2006 and 2007 model Groundsmaster riding mowers. Attachment 1 is an excerpt from the 2017 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The City of Shorewood is also a member of the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture (CPV) program that allows cities to take advantage of contracts let through the State of Minnesota. This permits cities to take advantage the competitive public bidding process that has already been performed by the State. In addition, the State receives a lower bid price, due to economies of scale. Attachment 2 is the proposal provided by MTI, under the State contract for the two Toro Groundsmaster units, with credit given for the two trade in units. The net amount of the purchase equates to $44,868.94. This falls under the total budgeted amount in the Equipment Replacement Fund of$55,100. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the motion that authorizes the expenditure of funds, not to exceed $44,868.94 in addition to authorizing the trade in of Units 75 and 93. 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, Minnesota Capital Improvement Program 2017 thru 2021 PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE Source Project# Priority 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 402-Park Improvements Freeman Plaza P0100 5 5,000 5,000 Freeman North Playground Equipment P0102 4 100,000 100,000 Freeman South Parking Lot P0103 5 60,000 60,000 Freeman Skating Lights,Warming House&Grading P0104 5 40,000 40,000 Cathcart Park-Resurface Tennis/Basketball Courts P0200 1 9,000 9,000 18,000 Cathcart Park Hockey Boards P0201 3 150,000 150,000 Cathcart Park Tot Lot P0202 5 100,000 100,000 Badger Park-Phase I P0300 3 400,000 400,000 Badger Park Tennis Courts P0301 2 200,000 9,500 209,500 Badger Park-Phase 2 P0302 n/a 747,000 747,000 Manor Park-Shelter Outside Floor&Stoops P0402 1 5,400 5,400 Silverwood Park-Resurface 1/2 court P0500 2 2,500 2,500 5,000 Skate Park Rehab for Pickleball P0600 3 50,000 50,000 402-Park Improvements Total 550,000 311,500 752,000 255,400 21,000 1,889,900 403-Equipment Replacement Fund UTV-replace unit 34 034 5 14,100 14,100 Tractor-Ford 3910 035 5 55,300 55,300 Flatbed-4 x 2 Replace unit 49 049 5 39,200 39,200 Trailer 18'replace unit 59 059 5 15,700 15,700 Sand Pro 3000-replace Unit 64 064 2 9,000 9,000 Trailer 12'replace unit 69 069 5 5,000 5,000 MEMO Groundsmaster Mower-Toro 328D-replace unit 75 075 2 27,100 27,100 Pickup 44-Replace Unit 78 078 3 27,800 27,800 Mower-Replace Unit 86 086 4 32,000 32,000 20104x4 Ford F350 090 5 33,600 33,600 MEMO Groundsmaster Mower replace unit 93 093 5 28,000 28,000 Skid Steer-replace unit 97 097 5 37,600 37,600 Cab for mower-replace A02 A02 3 7,600 7,600 Ag Tractor&Flail Mower A06 4 41,200 41,200 Attach-Plow for Groundmaster A08 4 6,200 6,200 Engine/Transmission Analysis Station A09 n/a 4,500 4,500 Replace Sander A10 3 9,500 9,500 South Shore Community Center PF-11-01 n/a 43,000 41,000 2,000 86,000 Public Works Roof PF-12-01 n/a 81,000 81,000 Color Copier Replacement T-13-03 2 10,000 10,000 800 Mhz Radio Replacement T-19-01 2 9,500 9,800 10,100 29,400 Computer Upgrades T-99-99 1 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 50,000 403-Equipment Replacement Fund 204,600 136,300 119,000 88,200 101,700 649,800 Total Friday,November 18,2016 ATTACHMENT 1 tntl MTI Distributing :u Equipment Proposal May 11,2017 Larry Brown City of Shorewood Expiration Date: 6/10/2017 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 MINNESOTA STATE CONTRACT PRICING - CONTRACT#T-775(5) City, f d&[Nurnber Description Price Price Extension, on 2 30695 GM7210 (Tier4 Final Compliant) $22,520.82 $45,041.64 2 30481 72 in Side Discharge Deck $2,931.72 $5,863.44 2 30382 12V Power Port/Electrical Accessory Kit $124.34 $248.68 2 30347 72" Side Discharge Recycler Kit $241.64 $483.28 2 30261 MVP Filter Kit $105.87 $211.74 Optional Rear QAS: (may require more weights depending on which rear accessory is mounted) 1 30810 Rear QAS $1,750.90 $1,750.90 1 125-2670 Front Weight Bracket Kit $356.88 $356.88 1 114-4096 Weight $80.90 $80.90 4 125-2655-03 Weight $82.87 $331.48 TRADES: 1 XX-UE Toro GM328-D model #30626, s/n 270000650 (4,000.00) (4,000.00) 1 XX-UE Toro GM328-D model #30626, s/n 310000328 (5,500.00) (5,500.00) Equipment Total $54,368.94 Toro Protection Plus $0.00 Trade Ins ($9,500.00) Estimated Sales/Use Tax $0.00 Total $44,868.94 Quote is valid for 30 days New Toro commercial equipment comes with a two-year manufacturer warranty Equipment delivery at no additional charge All commercial products purchased by a credit card will be subject to a 2.5%service fee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this quote. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate in contacting us. Larry Gorman,SCPS Karen Wangensteen Outside Sales Representative Inside Sales Representative 612-877-0830 763-592-5643 MTI Distributing, Inc. •4830 Azelia Avenue N.#100• Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 ATTACHMENT 2 ® 2D MEETING TYPE Ity of Shorewood nl Meeting l Item Regular Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Accept Proposal for Safety Consultation Services, SafeAssure Meeting Date: May 22, 2017 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments Proposal by SafeAssure Consultants Policy Consideration: Should the City of Shorewood enter into a contract with SafeAssure Consultants to provide safety training and mandated safety programs? Background/ Previous Action:The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates safety training for all employees. Each year all employees must be certified in the following areas: ♦ Employee Right to Know ♦ Blood Borne Pathogens ♦ Emergency Action Plan Beyond the training indicated above, Public Works Personnel are also mandated to be certified annually in the following areas: ♦ A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Program (AWAIR) ♦ Emergency Action Plan ♦ Control of Hazardous Energy ♦ Hazard Communications ♦ Recording and Reporting of Injuries and Illnesses ♦ Confined Space Entry/Rescue ♦ Respiratory Protection ♦ Occupational Noise Exposure ♦ Powered Industrial Trucks ♦ General Duty Clause ♦ Personal Protective Equipment ♦ Overhead Cranes ♦ Ergonomics ♦ Operation of Mobile Earth Moving 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 SafeAssure Inc. has provided these services previously, as a joint project with 11 other Lake area communities. The ability to train with other municipalities provides the opportunity to train at a cost of approximately one fourth the cost of other programs. SafeAssure also provides an automated Safety Data Sheet program. OSHA mandates that every material that an employee comes in contact with must have a Safety Data Sheet (SDS) that outlines health risks, protective equipment to be utilized, and chemical reaction data. This mandate not only applies to chemicals, but to everyday items such as bolts, wood, and asphalt. The job of keeping SDS sheets current for every product that is received is an ominous task, at best. As testimony to the program, the City has previously had a surprise inspection completed by OSHA. That inspection occurred at the time when the City was contracted with SafeAssure Consultants. Staff is pleased to report that the inspection went very well. The OSHA inspectors examined many parts of the program and were very satisfied as to how the program was outlined, and how the program was being implemented. Attachment 1 is the proposal from SafeAssure in the amount of$$3,077.50. This cost represents a $119.50 increase to last year's cost, and has been budgeted for in the Public Works Operations Budget. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of a motion accepting the proposal from Safe Assure Consultants, for an amount not to exceed $3,077.50. Financial or Budget Considerations:The services, as specified, have been programmed into the annual 2017 operating budget. Options: 1. Accept the proposal by motion. 2. Provide Staff with alternative direction. Recommendation /Action Requested: 1. Staff is recommending Option 1 that accepts the proposal for safety consultation services be approved. Connection to Vision/ Mission: Providing safe services for employees helps provide quality services to our residents. The United States Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Minnesota Department of Labor, Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration require employers to have documented proof of employee training and written procedures for certain specific standards. The attached addendum and training schedule clarifies written and training requirements. The required standards that apply to The City of Shorewood are listed below: A.W.A.I.R. MN Statute 182.653 "An employer covered by this section must establish a written Work place Accident&Injury program that ,promotes safe&healthful working conditions": EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN 29 CFR 1910.35 THRU .38 "The emergency action ,plan shall be in writing and shall cover the designated actions employers & employees must take to insure employee safety from fire& other emergencies": CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS ENERGY 29 CFR 1910.147 & MN Statute 5207.0600 "Procedures shall be developed, documented&utilized for the control ofpotentiallyhazardous energy when employees are engaged in the activities covered by this section': HAZARD COMMUNICATIONS 29 CFR 1910.1200 & MN Statute 5206.0100 thru 5206.1200 "Evaluating the potential hazards of chemicals, and communicating information concerning hazards and appropriate protective measures to employees mayinclude,butis notlimited to,provision for-development &maintaining a written hazard communication program for the workplace..." RECORDING AND REPORTING OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES AND ILLNESSES 29 CFR 1904 "Each employer shall maintain in each establishment a log and summary of all occupational injuries and illnesses for that establishment........... . CONFINED SPACE 29 CFR 1910.146 If the employer decides that its employees will enter permit spaces, the employer shall develop and implement a written permit space program........ RESPIRATORY PROTECTION 29 CFR 1910.134 Written standard operating procedures governing the selection and use of respirators shall be established. OCCUPATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE 29 CFR 1910.95 The employer shall institute a training program for all employees who are exposed to noise at or above an 8-hour time weighted average of 85 decibels, and shall ensure employee participation in such a program. BLOODBORNE PATHOGENS 29 CFR 1910.1030 Each employer having an employee(s) with occupational exposure as defined by paragraph (b) of this section shall establish a written Exposure Control Plan designed to eliminate or minimize employee exposure. Of 7 ATTACHMENT 1 POWERED INDUSTRIAL TRUCKS 29 CFR 1910.178 "Only trained and authorized operators shall be permitted to overate a,powered industrial truck Methods shall be devised to train operators in the safe operation of Powered Industrial Trucks' GENERAL DUTY CLAUSE PL91-596 "Hazardous conditions or practices not covered in an O.S.H.A. Standard may be covered under section 5(a)(1)of the act, which states Each employer shall furnish to each of{their}employees employment and a place of employment which is free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to {their}employees" PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT 1926.95 a) 'Application."Protective equipment, including personal protective equipment for eyes, face, head, and extremities,protective clothing, respiratory devices, and protective shields and barriers,shall be provided, used, and maintained in a sanitary and reliable condition wherever it is necessary by reason of hazards of processes or en vironment, chemical hazards,radiological hazards, or mechanical irritants encountered in a manner capable of causing injury or impairment in the function ofany part of the body through absorption, inhalation or physical contact OVERHEAD CRANES 1910.179(j)(3) Periodic inspection. Complete inspections of the crane shall be performed atintervals asgenerallydefined in paragraph (j)(1)(11)(b)of this section, depending upon its activity.................... ERGONOMICS 29 CFR PART 1910.900 THRU 1910.944 'Training required for each employee and their supervisors must address signs and symptoms of MSD s, MSD hazards and controls used to address MSD hazards" MOBILE EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT MN RULES 5207.1000 Mobile earth-moving equipment operators and a#other employees working on the ground exposed to mobile earth-moving equipment shall be trained in the safe work procedures pertaining to mobile earth-moving equipment and in the recognition of unsafe or hazardous conditions. Of 7 In the interest of Quality Safety Management, it may be recommended that written procedures and documented employee training also be provided for the following Subparts. (Subparts represent multiple standards) 1910 Subparts Subpart D - Walking - Working Surfaces Subpart E - Means of Egress Subpart F - Powered Platforms, Man-lifts, and Vehicle-Mounted Work Platforms Subpart G - Occupational Health and Environmental Control Subpart H - Hazardous Materials Subpart I - Personal Protective Equipment Subpart I - General Environmental Controls Subpart K - Medical and First Aid Subpart L - Fire Protection Subpart M - Compressed Gas and Compressed Air Equipment Subpart N - Materials Handling and Storage Subpart 0 - Machinery and Machine Guarding Subpart P - Hand and Portable Powered Tools and Other Hand-Held Equipment. Subpart Q - Welding, Cutting, and Brazing. Subpart S - Electrical Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances 1926 Subparts Subpart C - General Safety and Health Provisions Subpart D - Occupational Health and Environmental Controls Subpart E - Personal Protective and Life Saving Equipment Subpart F - Fire Protection and Prevention Subpart G - Signs, Signals, and Barricades Subpart H - Materials Handling, Storage, Use, and Disposal Subpart I - Tools - Hand and Power Subpart I - Welding and Cutting Subpart K - Electrical Subpart L - Scaffolds Subpart M - Fall Protection Subpart N - Cranes, Derricks, Hoists, Elevators, and Conveyors Subpart 0 - Motor Vehicles, Mechanized Equipment, and Marine Operations Subpart P - Excavations Subpart V - Power Transmission and Distribution Subpart W - Rollover Protective Structures; Overhead Protection Subpart X - Stairways and Ladders Subpart Z - Toxic and Hazardous Substances Applicable MN OSHA 5205 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5207 Rules Applicable MN OSHA 5206 Rules (Employee Right to Know) Of 7 All training on the programs written by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will meet or exceed State and/or Federal OSHA requirements. These programs/policies and procedures listed on the addendum do not include the cost of hardware such as labels, signs, etc. and will be the responsibility of The City of Shorewood to obtain as required to comply with OSHA standards. Our contract year will begin on the signing of this proposal/contract. Classroom training will be accomplished at a time convenient to most employees/management and so selected as to disrupt the workday as little as possible. All documents and classroom training produced by SafeAssure Consultants for The City of Shorewood are for the sole and express use by The City of Shorewood and its employees and not to be shared,copied, recorded,filmed or used by any division,department,subsidiary,or parent organization or any entity whatsoever,without prior written approval of SafeAssure Consultants. It is always the practice of SafeAssure Consultants to make modifications and/or additions to your program when necessary to comply with changing OSHA standards/statutes. These changes or additions,when made during a contract year, will be made at no additional cost to The City of Shorewood. All written programs/services that are produced by SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. are &r&ii fteed to meet the requirements set forth by MNOSHA/OSHA. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. will reimburse The City of Shorewood should MNOSHA/OSHA assess a fine for a deficient or inadequate written program that was produced by SafeAssure Consultants,Inc. SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. does not take responsibility for financial loss due to MNOSHA/OSHA fines that are unrelated to written programs mentioned above. Of 7 ADDENDUM SAFETY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS The City of Shorewood Written Programs &Training A.W.A.I.R. (A Workplace Accident and Injury Reduction Act) • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • accident investigation • simulated OSHA inspection Employee Right to Know/Hazard Communication • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel (general and specific training) • various labeling requirements • assist with installing and initiating DAMARCO Solutions, LLC, MSDS and data base program Lock Out/Tag Out (Control of Hazardous Energy) • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Emergency Action Plan • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Respiratory Protection • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Bloodborne Pathogens • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Cranes-Chains-Slings • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel (inspections) Hearing Conservation (Occupational Noise Exposure) • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • decibel testing and documentation Personal Protective Equipment • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel Confined Space • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personal Of 7 Powered Industrial Trucks/Forklifts • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • testing and licensing Ergonomics • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel • job hazards-recognition • control steps • reporting • management leadership requirements • employee participation requirements Mobile Earthmoving Equipment • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personal General Safety Requirements • review/modify or write site specific program • documented training of all personnel The""SafeAssure Advantage" • On-Line training available for AWAIR, EAP, ERTK, ERGO, Bloodborne • Safety Committee Advisor • Employee Safety Progress Analysis • SafeAssure ""Client Discount Card"from Fastenal Stores or Catalogs (15% off any item) • .lob Hazard Analysis (.IHA for more hazardous tasks/jobs) • Training manual maintenance • Safety manual maintenance • Documented decibel testing • Documented air quality readings-(CO2 testing in shops with 5 or more vehicle capacity) • Documented foot-candle readings (if needed) • OSHA recordkeeping • General Duty Clause • Assistance during an actual OSHA inspection • General safety recommendations • ""ALERT"data base • Unlimited consulting services Of 7 Contract/ Agreement THIS AGREEMENT is made this first day of May, 2017 between The City of Shorewood, Shorewood, Minnesota, herein referred to as The City of Shorewood and SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. 200 S.W. Fourth Street, Willmar, Minnesota, herein referred to as SafeAssure. SafeAssure agrees to abide by all applicable federal and state laws including, but not limited to, OSHA regulations and local/state/national building codes. Additionally, SafeAssure will practice all reasonable and appropriate safety and loss control practices. SafeAssure agrees to provide, at the time of execution of this contract/agreement,The City of Shorewood (upon request) with a current Certificate of Insurance with proper coverage lines and a minimum of $2,000,000.00 in insurance limits of general liability and statutory for workers' compensation insurance. SafeAssure is insured by"The Hartford" insurance companies. SafeAssure further agrees that The City of Shorewood will not be held liable for any claims, injuries, or damages of whatever nature due to negligence, alleged negligence, acts or omissions of SafeAssure to third parties. SafeAssure expressly forever releases and discharges The City of Shorewood, its agents, members, officers, employees, heirs and assigns from any such claims, injuries, or damages. SafeAssure will also agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless The City of Shorewood, its agents, members and heirs from any and all claims, injuries, or damages of whatever nature pursuant to the provisions of this agreement. SafeAssure and its employees is an independent contractor of The City of Shorewood, and nothing in this agreement shall be considered to create the relationship of an employer/employee. In consideration of this signed agreement/contract, for the period of Twelve Months from the signing month, SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. agrees to provide The City of Shorewood, the aforementioned features and services. These features and services include but are not limited to OSHA compliance recommendations and consultations, providing scheduled classroom-training sessions, writing and maintaining mandatory OSHA programs. These features and services will be prepared to meet the specific needs of The City of Shorewood. ANNUAL CONTRACT $ 3,077.50 MSDS ON-LINE SERVICES $ included ANNUAL $3,077.50 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, we agree to the day and year first above written and, if representing an organization or similar entity, further certify the undersigned are a duly authorized agent of said entity and authorized to sign on behalf of identified entity. TWELVE MONTH CONTRAC7II=* X The City of Shorewood X The City of Shorewood X 040417 SafeAssure Consultants, Inc. Date Of 7 #4A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Seifert, Mike – White Street Vacation Meeting Date: 22 May 2017 Prepared by: Marie Darling Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Location Map Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a street vacation in conjunction with a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert? Background: Mike Seifert requests a street vacation of a paper street for a portion of White Street. The vacation was previously approved in 2008 and 2014, but never recorded. The requested vacation is for 155 feet of White Street extending eastward from Lake Linden Drive. It begins approximately 300 feet south of Yellowstone trail/Lake Linden Drive intersection (refer to location map). The right-of-way never contained a constructed street, but does have a sanitary sewer main in it that serves 6085 Lake Linden drive and 5990 Lake Linden Court, both of which are owned by the applicant. As the right-of-way contains a sewer main, the city must retain a 20-foot wide utility easement centered on the main. The easement and deeds would be recorded with the vacation resolution. Financial or Budget Considerations: The required fee covers the cost of processing the request. Options: Approve, deny or modify the attached resolution. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant has 30 days to record the subdivision division with Hennepin County and would record the vacation and easement at the same time. 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 1 125 250 500 Feet Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION VACATING PART OF WHITE STREET WHEREAS , Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of part of the public right-of-way for White Street in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was .th published in the Excelsior/Shorewood edition of the SUNSAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 4 ththth and 11 days of May, 2017, and in the LAKER NEWSPAPER on the 6 and 11 days of May, 2017; and WHEREAS , said Notice of Public Hearing was posted in three (3) locations in the City of Shorewood; and WHEREAS , the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the nd question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 22 day of May, 2007, in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the portion of White Street, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the vacated street be legally combined with the following property: “That part of Lot 6, Linden Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of a line running from a point in the northerly line of Lot 6 a distance 22 feet east from the northwesterly corner thereof to a point in the southerly line of Lot 6 a distance of 22 feet east from the southwesterly corner thereof.” BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that prior to recording the resolution vacating the street the applicant shall submit a 20-foot drainage and utility easement centered on the existing sewer main. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. nd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22 day of May 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Legal Description of Public Right-of-Way to be Vacated: That part of White Street, as dedicated in Linden Park, that lies westerly of the west line of Linden Hills and easterly of a straight line between the southwest corner of Outlot “A”, Linden Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and a point on the north line of Lot 6, Linden Park, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 as measured along the north line thereof. Exhibit A ���d1lNNS,�.0 V y • LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 00 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD,SUITE 200•MOUND,MINNESOTA 55364•TELEPHONE 9521745-0769•FAX 952/745-9085 hS�Rk4r1014°1yti� DATE: May 15, 2017 TO: LMCD Member City Administrators &Mayors FROM: Jay Green, Chair Chris Jewett, Treasurer Gary Hughes, Board Member w'& Vickie Schleuning, Executive Director CC: LMCD Board Members SUBJECT: Draft 2018 LMCD Budget A copy of the draft 2018 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD) Budget is enclosed. You are invited to attend an informational and comment session scheduled for Thursday, June 1, 2017, at I 1 a.m. at the LMCD office. By state statute, the allocation of levy to the 14 member cities is based on their percentage of the total net tax capacity,with no city paying greater than 20% of the overall levy. The LMCD Board performed a detailed analysis of the budget,resulting in projected expenses and revenues for 2018. In order to balance the budget in 2018 without the use of reserve funds, expenses have been reduced by 6.7%. The overall city levy is anticipated to increase by 5%,reflecting the levy amount similar to 2015. Revenues over the past few years have decreased primarily due to loss of grants and fines. This reduction, combined with unexpected expenses,has resulted in the use of reserve funds to cover the shortfall in 2015 and 2016. Because many agency budgets are considered on a calendar year basis, some budget information was not available during this budget preparation. Therefore, the draft budget is based on historical analysis and projections. Since time exists between the required certification on July Ist and 2018, programs could be re-examined if opportunities exist. An objective during budget preparation was to project a budget that does not use reserves. While many factors were considered such as increasing revenue and decreasing costs, the final determination proposes a significant reduction of costs through the elimination of the AIS watercraft inspection program. From a revenue perspective, the levy would need to be significantly increased to cover the shortfall. A chart is included that shows the effect various percentage increases of the levy would have on revenue. An additional chart shows the historical LMCD budget and city levy amounts from 2008 to Draft Budget 2018. This chart indicates a trend where over the years the LMCD budget has slightly www.Imcd.org• Imcd @Imcd.org To preserve and enhance the "Lake Minnetonka experience" Member Cities Draft 2018 Budget May 15, 2017 Page 2 decreased and the city levy has minimally increased. The following is a highlight of the draft 2018 LMCD Budget. Revenues Overall decrease of 4.8% to $523,144 compared to $549.524 in 2017 • Decrease of fines and forfeits of$12,400, from $47,400 in 2017 to $35,000 in 2018 • Decrease in grants of$13,781, from $20,281 in 2017 to $6,500 in 2018 • 5% increase in city levy in 2018 compared to 2017, bringing amount near 2015 level • Added value of$32,500 reflected in projected Save the Lake Fund contributions,but decreased from $40,000 in 2017 to reflect historical amounts Expenses Overall decrease of 6.7% in expenses to$523,144 in 2018 compared to $560,749 in 2017 • Reduction of$32,000 due to elimination of watercraft inspections • Elimination of$15,000 for Equipment Replacement Fund • Reduction of permanent full-time staffing, augmented by permanent part-time, seasonal, and contractual services Please refer to the 2018 All Funds Budget Summary, indicating the history of the revenues and expenses from 2014 to the draft 2018 budget. In addition, the City Levy Share chart shows the distribution of city levy based on the Draft 2018 Budget. The LMCD would appreciate your input. We hope you can attend the informational session scheduled for Thursday, June 1, 2017, at 11 a.m. at the LMCD office. Please contact Executive Director Vickie Schleuning or your member city representative if you would like a representative to attend an upcoming city council meeting to discuss the draft 2018 LMCD Budget or to review LMCD activities and projects. Review and approval of the budget by the LMCD Board is scheduled for the June 14, 2017 meeting. ATTACHMENTS L City Levy Increase Impact Chart II. Budget and Levy Comparison 2008 Through Draft 2018 III. 2018 All Funds Budget Summary IV. City Levy Share Member Cities Draft 2018 Budget May 15, 2017 Page 3 I. Increased Levy Impact The proposed 5%increase brings the city levy to a level similar to 2015. The following chart indicates the impact of increasing the levy percentages ranging from 5-9%. Levy Increase by Percentages Percent Increase -Admin AIS Total Total Increase 5 $268,110 $74,550 $342,660 Proposed 6 $270,664 $75,260 $345,924 $3,263 7 $273,217 $75,970 $349,187 $6,527 8 $275,770 $76,680 $352,450 $9,790 9 $279,374 $77,390 $356,764 $14,104 II. Budget and Levy Comparison 2008 Through Draft 2018 Since 2008, the trend line indicates the LMCD budget has slightly decreased and the city levy has minimally increased. Approved Budget and Levy Comparison 2008 Through Proposed 2018 $700,000 $600,000 ......... ...... ...................... ..... ...... ...... .............. $500,000 $400,000 ... .... . ... ...... .... . ... ... $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 00 rn 0 -1 N m n W r` 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N Levy t Approved Budget •••••• Linear(Levy) •••••• Linear(Approved Budget) Member Cities Draft 2018 Budget May 15, 2017 Page 4 III. 2018 All Funds Budget Summary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT STATEMENT OF REVENUE,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES-SUMMARY ALLFUNDS _ ACTUAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2015-2016,AND BUDGET FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,2016 AND 2017 AND PROPOSED BUDGET 2018 (DRAFT 05/15/2017) Proposed Actual Actual Actual Budget Budget Budget Dollar Percent 2014 2015 2016 2016 2017 2018 Change Change REVENUES Intergovernmental $341,312 $ 343,188 $ 307,562 $ 307,366 $ 326,843 $ 342,66_0 $ 15,817 5% Contributions and donations 35,928 46,136 21,426 40,000 40,000 32,500 x(7,500) -19%(1) Licenses andpermits 114,586 107,510 112,979 112,000 112,000 104,984 (71016) -6% Fines and forfeits 62,156 33,974 35,598 47,400 47,400 35,000 (12,400) -26%(2) Interest revenue 2,054 2,922 1,618 3,000 3,000 1,500 (1,500) -50% Miscellaneous revenue 56,019 59,457 15,496 20,784 20,281 6,500 (13,781) -68%(3) TOTAL REVENUES 612,055 593,187 494,679 530,550 549,524 523,144 (26,380) -4.8% EXPENDITURES _ Personnel Services 286,924 281,849 296,900 244,089 210,352 265,500 55,148 26%(4) Office and administration 97,875 122,978 90,987 103,429 99,440 72,805 (26,635) -27% Contractual services 91,879 109,847 88,055 86,332 87,011 73,84_6 (13,16_5) -15%(5) Legal Services 83,234 91,707 98,074 99,000 100,000 101,380 1,380 1% Capital Outlay 5,029 1,994 4,129 4,600 4,60_0 5,000 400 9% Contingency 7245 9,300 10,841 65,160 59,346 4,613 (54,733) -92%(6) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 572,186 617,675 588,986 602,610 560,749 523,144 (37,605) -6.7% EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENDITURES) 39,869 (24,488) (94,307) (72,060) (11,225) (0) 11,225 -100% OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) Transfer in(Equipment Replacement) - - - 0% Transfer out(Equipment Replacement) (25,000) (35,000) (15,000) - -100% TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) (25,000) (35,000) (15,000) 15,000 -100% EXCESS(DEFICIENCY)OF REVENUES AND _ OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES $ 14,869 $ (59,488) $ (94,307) $ (72,060) $ (26,225) $ (0) Explanation ofBudget Changes in revenue and expenditures (1)Reduction based on historical value of contributions received (2)Reduction based on historical decrease in fines/citations received versus prosecution costs (3)Anticipated continued reduction of grants primarily for AIS activities (4)Added part-time administrative staffing and EWM coordinator in lieu of vacant full-time position,accounted for in contingency previous year (5)Includes professional services for public education materials,technology,and systems for operational efficiencies and alignment with strategic plan Reduced funding for AIS prevention/watercraft inspection project (6) Activities accounted for in applicable fund account O O N o 0 0 0 0 0-0 o 0 0 � o 0 0 0 o d co I- N O [- O - Cfl OO LO LC) I- O o (� O N L(7 oO L(7 L(7 M oO Cfl N N Cfl N Lo L �F J ° CO 0 O OO � LO LC) OO O Cfl V � N L� LLo Lf) N M O LC) N r- Lo O 00 LO O M co O O fA fA fA fA Zq f!-? 2 fA fA 6q 6? Zq f!-? V Co ti o O O O O co I- co OO N r- co O 00 0 � N N N I— 0 0 r- a) a0O m LLr -_ m co O O LO O LO O N O O V O N N N N >� N O N N LO co N co � > fA � � fA � fA fA fA fA � fA fA fA 6q t J Y 0 N o r ~ N ti ~ O M ~ M 'T ti O O M W M W o p C N m w W w M tc r W w r W r N N -0 co U T O <D O <D O — w — L M N & � O d >+ N EA EA W EA N N LO Cl) EA r N IT EA M R > fA f!3 fA fA EA EA EA fA fA ow W J m (_n U ° aocooCOLOo LOvaoCOVrn ° m O C N - V V - I� N 00 N_ V - CO L LO L LC N Cfl V N Cfl N LC O V Z > 64 64 fA fA 613� 64 64 fA 64 A r- 0 0 Z Y O W � � o W a o / p N ao CO ao c7 N Cfl ao O c7 LO O V ° -Oct O N O co LO LO O O d J p O r- co Cfl N N O O O M � V 0 � m ` LL O ca •� N °O r, Lf) N L N O N N V N N N N °- L C LO N V N CO -o m W N W � ? ? 6q 61) 62).6,). ? � 61) Q Q W) $ 0 Z H O W Wj 0 I Co y 0 0 0 \° 0 0 0 \° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . � Z U O V O o 0 o 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o +-' Q O N - LO . V - O OO N V O O co D 0 Q O fC Z LC) N Cfl V N (c) -. N Lo � O N H i Z V 0 Z m Q O U o m co wlwo 0 co LO r r O LO Lo � M � O N N M N L O O � U V 00 LO co Nr CL F- O r+ V O Cfl N � aO N aO N CO r (6 N N V O W CV Z a ° NvrnoNr00LO00 q7 mNN Nr > ~ � c �o Z <D Co LC) LO OO � i OO O M Lo- N — Lo- LO 0 N O Z N Z O U L(7 M O M M M CO N M CO Y N N m U � 0 � � o m W ia 00000000000000000000000 x C Co co O o o M N M — O O O I- m m Q QE fC O co LC) CA m V N Cfl V N M c6- 0 0 c '� E 0 CD C) co CO CO C) (o O ( 00 O 00 � o N O N w N N V aO O N aO F N CD N OO M O 00 a0O LLo O N OO F- 0 0 N co N 0 �2 V co C m CV N LO N co n N Q N N Cfl m co co C 0 U A M •O LO O 7 Z N OO V N I— I— O LO LO OO OO N C CfC r r OO 00 CO O aO Lo Co O Cfl I— V OO I— Lo CC CO m co O V co O V co Cfl CO _ � � � � O0 O p C N 0 a) LO Cfl O a r r, C O m m m N IZ z x Z Z O � V H p Yg' p Z � m 0 > � ° owl O: CL a � J a C CL U Z 2 = J Z I j m I j 0 0 w 0 O Q p a U �� awwZ � Z � OW Z 0 � 0 E .� ZNm CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MAY 2, 2017 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Bean, Davis, Riedel and Sylvester; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Hornby Also Present: Chuck Rickart, a traffic engineer with WSB & Associates Absent: None Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for May 2, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  April 4, 2017 Bean moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 4, 2017, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR COFFEE SHOP WITH DRIVE-THRU SERVICE AND OUTDOOR SEATING (continued from April 4, 2017) Applicant: Dave Watson Location: 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7 Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He also noted the Hearing was continued from April 4, 2017. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7; also, known as the Starbucks proposal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 2 of 22 Director Nielsen explained the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing was closed when this item was discussed on April 4. New information has been made available since then. If the Commission wants to reopen the Public Testimony he suggested the comments be limited to comments about the new information. Chair Maddy stated he plans on reopening the Public Testimony. Director Nielsen explained that during the Planning Commission’s March 7 and April 4 the Planning Commission meetings the Commission held a Public Hearing on a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7. During the first Hearing the Commission heard public testimony from people. The majority of the comments were about the existing traffic situation and the affect the proposed coffee shop would have on traffic. Issues were raised about the site plan by staff. The applicant has submitted revised plans that address the majority of the issues raised by staff. For example, staff had suggested adding additional landscaping. The revised plans reflect that. The applicant worked through drainage issues with the City Engineer and adjusted the site plan accordingly. What remains is the traffic issue which was the most significant issue raised. The Commission had asked the applicant to do a traffic study. The applicant hired Spack Consulting to conduct the study. The City’s Traffic Engineer, Chuck Rickart with WSB & Associates, reviewed and commented on that study. Spack consultants submitted a technical memorandum which responded to Mr. Rickart’s comments. Nielsen asked the Spack consultants to review their responses. Vern Swing, the Traffic Engineering Manager with Spack Consulting, reviewed their responses to each of Mr. Rickart’s comments. Following is a summary of the questions and responses. The proposed site traffic assumes 89% pass-by trips. What assumptions were used about 1. the direction of the traffic flow for the analysis? Mr. Swing stated Spack took a conservative approach. It assumed traffic passing the area on Trunk Highway 7 would divert to Starbucks and then return back on its path on Highway 7. The proposed Starbucks will be successful if it can draw from those people on the frontage road on their way to the Minnetonka High School in the morning. Or, come back to Starbucks after having dropped their children off at School. There was a question as to whether or not a 10-yeat forecast should be considered. 2. Mr. Swing stated Spack look at the traffic volumes on Highway 7 and the frontage road and the land in the area that is yet to be developed or to be redeveloped. On Highway 7 they assessed the traffic volumes over the last 12 years. There has been no growth. In fact is has been coming down slightly according to the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT’s) counts. It is possible the traffic volume could go up but likely not enough to impact how the proposed site would function. Commissioner Riedel asked Mr. Swing if Spack studied the growth patterns in traffic for the High School. He stated anecdotally it seems there has been an increase in the traffic to the School perhaps due to open enrollment or to more students driving themselves to school. That increase in traffic specifically could be problematic. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 3 of 22 Mr. Swing explained they did look at that. They also looked at enrollment numbers and class sizes. That ebbs and flows to some extent. The ability to open enroll also ebbs and flows to some extent. He noted the numbers were higher in 2007/2008. Over a span of time the numbers were fairly stagnant. The School has limitations on the number of students there can be in each classroom and caps enrollment off to some extent. As the economy improves and there is more affluence students may have more cars. He does not think a gross change would be very much. The land use is quite set. Commissioner Riedel asked if historical data was looked at. He asked how long there have been problems at the intersection. Mr. Swing stated the Highway 7 and Vine Hill road intersection is problematic and it is due to the two traffic peaks associated with the School. MnDOT does have a project scheduled to be let this fall that would allow for a right turn lane coming up to Highway 7. That will help with traffic there. It would be helpful if the signal timing could be changed for that short peak when traffic is destined to the School or from the School. Unfortunately, it is MnDOT’s route and it prefers mobility. Commissioner Bean asked Mr. Swing if Spack asked the School about its parking situation. Mr. Swing stated they just looked at student numbers. Bean noted the School has regularly been expanding parking for years. There was an expansion this past year. More students are driving to school. Dave Watson, with Watson Development, stated according to the 2016 annual report for the Minnetonka Schools they are at capacity now at 10,460 students. Once the Schools are at capacity open enrollment closes down. If enrollment goes below capacity then open enrollment opens back up. Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. Level of Service (LOS), delays and queue’s should be reported for all intersections. 3. Mr. Swing stated Spack has followed up and provided that information in its response memo. It has been included in the original information in the appendix but it may have been more difficult to sort through. Commissioner Riedel stated he found the following letter in the response troubling. “When roadways are over capacity traffic engineering models break down and do not achieve an accurate representation of what is happening in the field.” To him that suggests with all of the specialty in engineering calculations the recommendation may not reflect what reality would be. Mr. Swing stated the models are quite good up to the point when capacity has been exceeded by 10 percent. At that point the models have difficulty in accurately portraying what is going on. At Spack the consultants film everything that they look at. When they look at the existing condition they see the queue that builds up and the parking that occurs on Delton Avenue. They looked specifically at the peak times and do their analysis based on the peak times. If there is a situation that looks as if it is not being portrayed as the way it was observed the consultants will, if necessary, calibrate the model so it reflects what was observed. If they know it is breaking down but only for a short period of time often times there is nothing that can be done about that; at least something that is cost effective. Chair Maddy stated when a road gets to that point he asked if that is synonymous with giving it an “F” LOS. Mr. Swing stated a LOS “F” means the amount of capacity was exceeded that was theoretically available on the road. For intersections it is based on amount of delay the driver has to experience. One the delay has reached 60 – 80 seconds it is in the LOS “F” and if a driver had another way to go they would do that rather than be stuck in traffic. LOS “F” is severe congestion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 4 of 22 Mr. Swing went on to Mr. Rickart’s next comment. There was a question about the validity of 104 outbound left turns in the morning creating 4. only a four vehicle queue. Mr. Swing stated that goes back to comment 1 and Spack’s conservative approach of using the worst possible case where everyone would be turning left rather than coming out and taking a right and going on to School, for example. For the analysis the vehicles were all sent up to the frontage road, Delton Avenue rather than Vine Hill Road. In reality, if a driver could not get out on Delton Avenue they would go over to Vine Hill Road and go up that way where there is an all- way stop. He noted that 104 vehicles in one hour is not a lot of traffic. That would amount to slightly more than 8 vehicles per minute. Mr. Richart asked if a right turn lane or a left turn lane on to Broms Boulevard (a frontage 5. road) would be beneficial. Mr. Swing stated that often times for large retail sites that would be quite beneficial. In this situation because the queue extends back and around the corner turn lanes may not be of benefit. He noted Spack shares its information with the national organization the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). There is also a website where it shares all of the information it gathers. He explained that Spack is finding that the queues that typically occur at coffee shops th during peak times are on average 11 vehicles in length. The 85 percentile that the proposed coffee shop would be designed for is 13 vehicles in length. If the assumption was that vehicles were going to stack out into the right turn lane to get onto the site the vehicles that want to pull on to the site and into a parking space would be prevented from doing that because they would be entering from the right turn lane. After pondering that for quite some time it seemed to them that a right turn lane would not be an appropriate use in this case. He thought the left turn volume if it was coming to the site would likely turn at the all-way stop and come in through one of the other driveways. He does not think the drivers would take the turn off of Delton Avenue to come onto the site. Commissioner Bean stated he understood Mr. Swing to be saying that if a driver was traveling east on Delton Avenue, and in lieu of the right turn lane, and if the driver saw that it was congested the driver would go up to the all-way stop and enter the site off of Vine Hill Road. Mr. Swing clarified if a driver was driving eastbound on Delton Avenue he thought they would pull on to the site from Delton Avenue if possible. If a right turn lane was cut in and if it was plugged up with vehicles heading to the drive-thru lane drivers would not be able to get into the parking lot. Commissioner Riedel stated he understands the Spack analysis to be conveying that the expected queue length would be within the capacity of the drive-thru and that waiting time onsite would not be the issue. He then stated his concern, which may be shared by some of the residents, is how traffic on the site would be impacted not people trying to get to Starbucks. Mr. Swing explained on the site itself if the queue exceeds the 85% capacity it may be possible that another car could stack onsite and potentially block another vehicle from getting in if someone was exiting at the same time. If someone was not exiting at the same time it would be possible to get around the vehicle. In their estimation there is sufficient room to choose to get into the queue to get to the drive- CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 5 of 22 up window or to drive up and park and go inside. There is enough room and enough time, at very slow driving speeds, to make that decision and do it in a way that would not be detrimental to pedestrians that are walking out and to other vehicles that are traversing the site. Going out from there once a driver gets on to Delton Avenue the vehicles that are being added (that were included in the report) are vehicles that are currently on Highway 7. That is a very conservative way to consider it. If a person was driving east in the morning and if they wanted to get coffee it would be unlikely they would stop at the proposed Starbucks because of how long it would take to do that. There are a number of other places along Highway 7 to stop and get coffee. The Starbucks would most likely be drawing from the traffic already making that trip. Spack added approximately 62 of the 104 trips taking them out of the through traffic on Highway 7. They made them right turns coming down on to Delton Avenue and then onto the site. They added another 20 vehicles that were headed westbound on Highway 7 and had them come left and do that. They sent all of them back out on that path. Using that assumption in the review of what was going on they projected the overall change in operations and the overall change in queuing that took place would be minimal at best. It was difficult to tell the difference between one and the other. Commissioner Riedel stated there is already congestion during peak hours. He asked if the impact of adding the dynamic of drivers pulling in and out of the proposed site would be negligible. Mr. Swing explained that would make a negligible change because there is the all-way stop there. Drivers are already stopping in that particular spot. The drivers taking a right turn coming onto the site would be traveling at 5 – 10 miles per hour (mph) at most. Riedel stated every vehicle that pulls in and out of the site introduces an additional gap albeit small. It would very slightly exacerbate an already bad situation. Mr. Swing reiterated the impact would be negligible. Commissioner Bean stated if he was trying to leave the proposed site on to Delton Avenue it would necessitate there being a gap for him to get in so he can drive to the stop sign and stop again. Mr. Swing confirmed that. Bean stated Spack must have assumed that he would not have to wait for a few minutes for another driver to be nice. Mr. Swing stated when traffic is congested drivers have a lot more patience for allowing that to occur. Bean indicated he was not sure students would do that. Mr. Swing went on to the Mr. Rickart’s next comment. Mr. Richart asked Spack to comment on the possible addition of a northbound lane at the 6. Highway 7 signal. Mr. Swing explained that MnDOT has a project that will be adding that. That will be beneficial all day long. Commissioner Bean asked if Mr. Swing has details of what that would be like. He stated that essentially there is a right turn lane there now. He then asked if MnDOT is going to materially change the right turn lane and make it longer and take some of the curve into consideration. Engineer Hornby explained that MnDOT is only going to widen the existing pavement so they can get an official lane in there to make that right turn. It will not be longer but it will be a wider dedicated east bound lane. He said he does not understand how that would change northbound Vine Hill Road at all. Mr. Swing stated it would add capacity. From the existing condition vehicles probably do queue up two abreast. He thought there would be an acceleration area with the new lane so vehicles could start to make that turn when the opportunity is there and get moving a little quicker a little faster. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 6 of 22 Engineer Hornby noted he has the plan back in his office. Mr. Swing stated it would be a small zone and maybe it would address one more vehicle. Mr. Richart commented that the potential for traffic queues of the drive-thru may require 7. the addition of an eastbound right turn lane on to the site. Mr. Richart thought a condition of the C.U.P. should be that a turn lane be added if the condition occurs. Mr. Swing stated this is comment similar to the discussion there has just been about the queuing on site and the benefits or not of having a right turn lane out on the street. Chair Maddy stated he thought Spack’s conclusion was it as unlikely a lot of people would add to a line of 13 vehicles if it exists. Mr. Swing confirmed that and stated if they did and if they blocked the right turn lane they would block people from going on to the site as a parking customer. Chair Maddy asked if the length of the queue would be visible as they were coming on to the site. Mr. Swing stated that would depend on how robust the landscaping is. Commissioner Bean stated the sample data for comment 7 came from Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis, Roseville, St Louis Park, Minnesota as well as Kansas City, Kansas. Mr. Swing explained that Starbucks asked Spack consultants to go to Kansas City to look at 12 sites they had down there. There was queue statistic for Minnesota and then for Minnesota and Kansas combined. Mr. Swing noted he was not around when the Kansas City sites were evaluated. Commissioner Riedel stated he buys the argument that during the periods when the intersection is severely congested cars puling in and out from the site may not change the situation very much. He asked what about during the shoulder periods when it is transitioning from being severely congested to less severely congested. Then cars pulling in and out can slow traffic down. Mr. Swing stated that can happen and reiterated it would be slightly over one car per minute. That is a very small number when compared to a very large number of high school students arriving. Because drivers are already planning on stopping at the all-way stop there is the advantage of safety when pulling around the corner and going on to the site. Commissioner Bean stated Mr. Swing refers to the all-way stop at Delton Avenue and Vine Hill Road as being some type of mitigator when in fact during the peak timeframe the traffic is queued all of the way back through the intersection and back on the eastbound Highway 7 shoulder. Mr. Swing clarified that Commissioner Riedel was asking about when the peak times were lessening when the queue was no longer on Highway 7 but on Delton Avenue. The queue is not quite as long on Delton Avenue. Adding a vehicle into that or taking a vehicle out of that would have a fairly negligible impact on the overall flow of traffic because it is all stopped already. Commissioner Bean stated he understands Mr. Swing to be saying it is already a mess and adding 10 more vehicles does not make it any more of a mess. Mr. Swing confirmed it is a mess during the half hour period when everyone is arriving. It is slow and congested. Bean asked if Spack’s measurement was of 30 minutes. Mr. Swing confirmed that. Bean stated his measurement is from 7:30 A.M. to 8:15 A.M. Mr. Swing stated based on their recordings and Mr. Watson’s recordings it is just under one half hour. Chair Maddy asked if the traffic study numbers were averages for a five day school week. Mr. Swing stated they were basically averages for the peak period for that period of time. He noted the cameras were put out on Monday and taken down on Friday. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 7 of 22 Commissioner Bean stated that is not his experience and he goes through there twice a week early morning. At that time he is heading south on Vine Hill Road to try and get to County Road 62. It is a lot th more than 30 minutes based on what he observes. He then stated he can go to the 80 percentile of peak and there is still a mess. Mr. Swing stated the numbers did drop off fairly quickly after school starts. Chair Maddy asked if the data could be interpreted as the peak time is when traffic is backing up all the way back to Highway 7. Mr. Swing stated the peak time includes that time. Peak starts slightly before traffic backs up to Highway 7, then it backs out of Highway 7 and within that peak hour it dissipates from that and the traffic is on Vine Hill Road. Maddy stated he interprets that to mean one half hour of really bad congestion and after that it is just pretty bad. Commissioner Bean concurred. Mr. Richart stated he did review the Spack traffic study report and developed the list of comments/questions that were just reviewed. He noted that he agrees that the area is congested; it is an issue today. He commented that he does not know how much a left turn lane would benefit the site. He thought the right turn lean could possibly be a benefit to the site. He noted whether or not the right turn lane could fit in there is a separate issue. He stated there are some options that could be looked into that may make the circulation work better should there be an issue with drivers baking up on the site. In response to a comment from Chair Maddy, Engineer Hornby stated he does not think there would be enough room to get around vehicles if they were stacking up on Delton Avenue. One of the reasons for the recommendation for a right turn lane as a condition for this C.U.P. was it would also be there for a future use of the site. Commissioner Riedel stated if there is any stacking up of traffic and if traffic is moving faster than a stand still there is a possibility that could be a hazard for drivers coming around the turn. Engineer Hornby stated the point was the City does not want vehicles stacking out. If the right turn lane was a condition of approval it might be able to mitigate that during peak times. Commissioner Riedel asked Mr. Richart if he agrees with the assessment that stacking should not be a problem according to the business model. He staffed if stacking is not an issue he asked if Mr. Richart agrees with the assessment (which he finds somewhat surprising) that traffic in and out of the drive-thru would not exacerbate the existing traffic problems significantly. Mr. Richart stated drivers would be able to get into the site. Getting out may be different. He explained the way the plans are laid out vehicles would not block the drive-thru; parking spaces may get blocked. Chair Maddy re-opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Paul Stelmachers, 5210 Shady Lane, noted he has lived in Shorewood for about 10 years. He stated Commissioner Riedel asked if the coffee shop would make the traffic situation worse. The traffic study indicates it would be adding trips to the area. If new trips are going to be added to the area it is going to be worse; how much worse is the not known. He then stated he called Minnetonka High School to ask about school enrollment. When Mr. Watson said the enrollment was 10,460 he thought he meant for the School District. The current enrollment at the High School is about 3,120 and its capacity is 3,400. The School is actively seeking enrollment because it receives federal dollars. School representatives basically told him they want to reach 3,400 students. The High School has 1,060 parking spaces currently. The School has bought 20 properties in order to add spaces. The School is continuously adding to that. Commissioner Bean stated approximately 30 percent of the student population currently parks at the School. And, 30 percent of the potential 280 more students equates to 84 additional drivers. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 8 of 22 Mr. Stelmachers stated the properties the School is buying are along Delton Avenue. He noted of the 1,060 parking spots he counted on Google Maps some of them may be used by staff and not students. Mr. Swing noted the High School has a coffee shop in it. Mr. Stelmachers stated the LOS grade “F” for the intersection is the poorest the grade can be. There is no lower grade yet the traffic gets worse. He then stated Mr. Swing stated their estimates may be conservative so the traffic will get worse. Chair Maddy clarified the conservative estimates were on the pessimistic side. He asked if the City has the ability to adjust the timing of the signal light on Highway 7. Engineer Hornby clarified that is a MnDOT function. He stated MnDOT will look at situational opportunities to make adjustments that will help its facility. Mr. Stelmachers noted that he was opposed to what is being proposed. He also noted he spoke with someone who told him the cameras were only there for one day. He stated he thought the Executive Summary showed the data was for a 24 hour period and not a 7 day period. He asked if the complete traffic report from Spack was on the City’s website. Someone from the audience stated the cameras went up on a Monday and they were taken down on a Friday. Wednesday was not counted in the data because it was only a half day of school. David Sime, 5363 Ashcroft Road, Minnetonka, commented he came to the Public Hearing with a list of questions because when he looked at the draft of the initial report he questioned if the report addressed peoples concerns. He was a little unsatisfied. He noted that he is a physicist and he understands the value of formulating the use of standard tables. He is also a neighbor and a human being so he understands the limitations to heavily relying on formalisms to represent what is actually happening. He expressed concern some of the report seems to disappear into that and he thought it left those living in the neighborhood high and dry. During the LOS discussions there was also discussion about delay times and delays of less than 55 seconds being considered okay. He thought what was particularly important about the intersection is that any times greater than 12 seconds are irrelevant ultimately because every operation for people coming south of Highway 7 is quantized into 8 to 12 and sometimes 15 second chunks which occur every 4 minutes. If he faces a 36 second delay that is three sets of 12 second traffic light operations. The traffic light period is approximately 4 minutes. That means a 12 minute delay. Conversations about delays being less than 55 seconds lose their meaning, albeit they are formally correct, for people on the ground unless the quantization introduced by the traffic light is considered. Commissioner Riedel stated if a person is delayed by 55 seconds they will only wait at the light once and not three times. Chair Maddy stated they would have 2 minutes to clear the intersection before the next green light. Mr. Sime stated if he does not get in the first 8 seconds he has to wait another 4 minutes. If he is not in the second 8 seconds he has to wait another 4 minutes. Commissioner Bean stated if a driver is going northbound or southbound on Vine Hill Road and the light turns green it is green for Vine Hill Road for about 15 seconds. Then there is another 4 minute cycle before it turns green again. He explained that at 5:30 P.M. this evening he was going northbound on Vine Hill Road. When he took a left on Delton Avenue the traffic was already queued through the curve past public storage to where the Starbucks would be and it took him three lights (about 12 minutes) to get across Highway 7. Mr. Sime stated there is already a traffic mess at the intersection and it should not be made worse. He expressed concern about the assumptions used in the report. He thought it difficult to believe that traffic is CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 9 of 22 static when there are large developments in the City of Minnetrista taking place. That traffic was not traveling on Highway 7 10 years ago. He then stated in the short term he is less concerned about enrollment in the High School than he is about the change and use of the facility. It has gone from being a high school to being an entertainment complex. There is a dome, a theater, 8 baseball parks, and there is an ice area coming. Those things may all be good for the school community but they compromise the conventional model of an 8 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. school day for the basis of traffic evaluation. He went on to state there is continued discussion about MnDOT ignoring the community through negligence or inaction. He asked what the community can do to get MnDOT’s attention about the intersection. If the City takes the lead he thought the community would follow. Mr. Sime thanked people for their time. nd Stacy Kline, 185 West 62 Street, Chanhassen, stated she did not know this item was going to be on the agenda this evening so she has only heard what has been presented earlier in the meeting. She noted she has been underwhelmed with the graphic because it does not help her visualize a lot of the discussion there has been. The graphic is cut off on the right side where the problematic intersection is. Commissioner Bean apologized for that and noted this is the third time this application has been discussed. Ms. Kline stated because she is a parent she can resonate with the High School having more than a start of school and end of school traffic pattern. She noted she has a daughter that is in Junior High School now and she does not drive. She drives her daughter to activities at the High School. She explained that she avoids the intersection when she drives to the School. She purposely goes past the High School to County Road 101 and comes in the back to the School. She experiences teenage drivers coming to and from the facility. She cautioned against assuming a best case mature mindset at that intersection. Rose DeSanto, 5111 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated no one has addressed people living in the area being discussed. There will be increased noise and litter from all of the coffee cups. She noted she picks up litter in the neighborhood now. She thought the people who live in the area have been totally neglected with regard to the inconvenience to their lives. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:09 P.M. Commissioner Riedel stated to him this issue is about more then granting a C.U.P. for drive-up window for a Starbucks coffee shop. The issue is much larger than that. There needs to be a much larger discussion about what can be done about the intersection. Commissioner Bean concurred with Commissioner Riedel. He stated other jurisdictions need to be involved in the discussion; the City of Deephaven to the north, Hennepin County, and MnDOT. He explained during the initial Public Hearing on this application there was discussion about completely realigning the Vine Hill Road intersection to create queuing space. But, that would require the purchase of properties, both commercial and residential, to be able to have a straight cross intersection. The lack of land is the reason there is the convoluted, curved, back queuing situation. He asked if MnDOT should be engaged first in the discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 10 of 22 Director Nielsen explained MnDOT is aware of the issues with the intersection. MnDOT has a minor improvement scheduled with the right turn lane; that will result in there being three distinct lanes at the intersection on that side. He and Engineer Hornby discussed that at one time there had been a right off on Highway 7; that was eventually closed off. It would be nice to have that back albeit it is very unlikely. MnDOT spent a lot of time and effort closing off little accesses like that. He thought the issue with the intersection is as much of a local issue as anything. It is not MnDOT’s fault that the High School is where it is. Commissioner Bean stated MnDOT would have to take the lead on making material changes to the intersection. Director Nielsen concurred. Commissioner Riedel asked if there could be a discussion with the School to change the flow of traffic to the School by directing all of the traffic to County Road 101. Director Nielsen stated he thought that would be a good starting point. He explained the School has made changes over the years. He thought the number of buses going through the intersection has been reduced. He thought they come around the back way now. He suggested asking the School District why it lets so many students drive to School. In response to a question from Commissioner Riedel, Nielsen stated staff can talk to both MnDOT and the School District. Chair Maddy asked that the conversation return to the proposal at hand. Commissioner Sylvester asked how what is being proposed is good for the City. There is already a traffic problem in at that intersection. She agreed with Mr. Stelmacher that any increase in traffic will only exacerbate the problem regardless of what a traffic study determines. She questioned the appropriateness of making the problem worse. She then asked how it aligns with the City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. She stated per the Plan Shorewood is intended to be a bedroom community, a neighborhood and a happy place to live. A fair number of residents have expressed valid concerns about increased traffic, trash, and noise. No one has mentioned the speaker at drive-thru that residents who live nearby are going to hear. She would not want to hear that all the time. She then stated with those two questions in her mind she is not convinced that what is being proposed makes sense. Commissioner Riedel noted he agreed with everything Commissioner Sylvester just said and what the residents have said. But, the property is zoned commercial and the owner of the property is entitled to make use of it. The only reason for this Public Hearing is the C.U.P. application for the drive-thru window. Yet if the impact on traffic would be negligibly small then he thought the owner would have the right to make use of that commercial property. Commissioner Sylvester stated the Comp Plan has the subject properties zoned commercial. But, the added burden of a drive-thru window is not in the Comp Plan and that is why there is a Public Hearing on this. She clarified that she would have no problem with there being a use there that does not add the same degree of burden. She thought a drive-thru would add a different burden then another business would. Commissioner Davis noted the developer has stated that without the drive-thru window the coffee shop itself would not be financially feasible. Commissioner Sylvester stated the last time this was discussed the developer indicated a fast food casual sit down establishment could work. Commissioner Davis noted she would be against anything that would torment the neighborhood further. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 11 of 22 Commissioner Riedel stated if the drive-thru versus no drive-thru makes the difference that suggests there would additional traffic. Bean moved, Sylvester seconded, recommending denial of a conditional use permit for a coffee shop with drive-thru service and outdoor seating for the properties located at 19245 and 19285 State Highway 7. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Court and Susan Queen nd Location: 27180 West 62 Street Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 8:19 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. He explained the Planning Commission is now going to consider a front yard setback nd variance for Court and Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 Street. nd Director Nielsen explained Court and Susan Queen own the property at 27180 West 62 Street. The property is located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential, zoning district. They propose to construct a new entry portico on the front of their existing home. Their home is quite nonconforming with respect to the required front setback for the R-1A zoning district zoning. The proposed entry portico necessitates a variance to the R-1A, front setback requirement The applicants’ property contains nearly three acres. Much of the rear portion of the property appears to be wetland. The proposed portico would encroach another six feet into the required 50-foot front setback, thereby requiring a variance of 25 feet. Plans for the proposed entry were included in the meeting packet. The staff report addresses nonconformities in general and variances. The Zoning Code restricts nonconforming structures. He highlighted Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.a. which sets forth provisions regulating nonconformities. “It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The zoning ordinance establishes separate uses which are permitted in that district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Furthermore, it is the intent of this section that all nonconforming uses shall be eventually brought into conformity.” Provisions relative to nonconforming single-family residential structures were relaxed in the 1980s to allow improvement of nonconforming homes. Section 1201.03 Subd. 1.i. states, in part, “.. that lawful nonconforming, single-family residential units may be expanded, provided that the expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located.” The applicants’ home is situated 31 feet from the front property line – 19 feet closer to the street than allowed. Previous additions to the home have been allowed at the rear of the home based on this provision. The proposed addition to the front would increase the nonconformity by an additional six feet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 12 of 22 A Code amendment was approved a few years back that provided for the upgrading of older homes. It applies to conforming structures that were built up to the front setbacks in various districts where applicants wish to have a covered entry versus just a stoop. That code amendment allowed a portico to extend 4 feet into the required setback. There is a maximum width provision relative to the length of the home. Although the applicants’ home is not a conforming structure, staff suggests that the same principle could apply. With regard to variances, he explained that consideration of variances must include a determination that the ordinance creates “practical difficulties” (formerly “undue hardship”) that prevent the property owner from making reasonable use of their property. Practical difficulties includes three factors, all three of which must be met: a) reasonableness; b) circumstances are unique to the property and not caused by the landowner; and c) the variance will not alter the essential character of the area. Following is how the applicants’ request complies with all of those. a. The Zoning Code is reasonable in requiring minimum setback requirements and in regulating/limiting nonconformities. The applicants’ desire to have a safe, covered entry to their home can also be considered reasonable. b. The applicant did not create the practical difficulties in this case. Drainage and soil conditions that have deteriorated their current front entry were not created by them. c. Homes on either side of the subject property appear to comply with R-1A setback requirements. The existing vegetation on the applicants’ property and property to the east have a screening effect on the subject property, somewhat mitigating the proximity of the structure to the street. The Code states that “the variance requested shall not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied ….to other lands, structures or buildings in the same district”. The provision that allows porticos to encroach into front yards provides some guidance. The applicants’ plan is consistent with the length limitation. The existing house is 73 feet long and the portico is 20 feet long – 27 percent of the total length. The proposed portico would encroach another six feet into the required front setback. Staff recommends that portico encroachment be reduced to the four feet allowed by the Code. Commissioner Riedel asked if the portico meets the requirement that it would be open. Director Nielsen stated it does meet those elements of that Code amendment. He noted they are allowed to have a guardrail if necessary. Riedel then asked if the applicant had proposed a portico that encroached only four feet into the setback he asked if the applicant would even need a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) Nielsen clarified the applicants do not need a C.U.P. They need a variance because they are increasing the nonconformity. nd Court Queen, 27180 West 62 Street, one of the applicants, thanked staff and the Planning Commission for their time on considering their requested variance. Mr. Court explained they have owned their property for more than 26 years. During that time they made two significant additions to their home. In both cases they made a concerted effort to stay within the setback requirements. They completely gutted their home and restored all of the original wood. They restored the land as well. All of the invasive vegetation was taken out and the area was replanted with hard woods. They consider both their home, which was built around 1910, and their land to be historical. They love their home. The property had been a 38 acre raspberry farm. The dry road was the house’s original driveway. Their last step in refining their home is to put an appropriate front entry on their “gem”. They want to do it in a way that is historically CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 13 of 22 accurate. They understand from Director Nielsen that they have a setback issue. Therefore, they have tried to make their front entry as modest as possible while making it usable. nd Susan Queen, 27180 West 62 Street, the other applicant, explained that since they have owned their home their front door has been inoperable to a large extent both summer and winter. That is due to the cement steps rising and falling. Their front door is jammed shut. The screen door gapes on both the top and the bottom. There is no overhang for protection. The screen door has been replaced four times and the front door once. The screen door lasts for about one season before it starts to malfunction. They do not open their front door for air in the summertime. They use their side door exclusively. When packages are delivered to their front door they often do not find them for quite some time. She noted the front entry faces south. She stated in addition to wanting something that will look nice they want something that will work well. They want to be able to open the door to greet people without them having to step off of the landing. She thought having only a four foot depth would require that. She explained with an overhang for protection, the steps and a six foot landing she thought they would be able to operate their front door, they could leave the front door open for a breeze, and they could have a welcoming and usable front entrance. She stated their intent has always been to rehab their home and not to replace things and that is what they have done. They are requesting to have the front entry match the beauty of their home. Mike Sharratt, the applicants’ architect with an office in the City of Excelsior, noted he is a 26 year resident of Shorewood and he has lived at 5590 Woodside Lane the entire time. He stated he thought the Queens did good job of explaining their quandary. He then stated if a variance requires proof of practical difficulties the Queens have them. A variance is necessary because the road was put on the old private driveway which usually on a farmstead comes close to the house. He noted he does not know when the 50 foot setback was established. Was it when the road was constructed? If that is true then it was clear the house was nonconforming at that time. Therein lies a practical difficulty of having protection at their front door. The location of where the road was constructed is also part of the practical difficulty. Mr. Sharratt stated the reason the Queens are proposing what they are is primarily for functional purposes. They wanted a covered front entry where they could open the door and have a breeze flow in through the screen door and an entry where they did not have make people step off the porch and onto the steps. They also wanted to have a chair there so they could greet people as they approached their home and to be able to sit in the sun but out of the rain on the south side of the house. Although they do not have a front entry closet, they did not make that a priority. All of their guests currently enter their house through the back door and into their kitchen. Mr. Sharratt noted their goal was to do something very humble. Something that is very much in character with the house. He stated they do not know if the farm house ever had a front porch. But, if it did it is likely it would have been 8 – 10 feet because that is what most farm houses had. The Queens are only asking for a 6-foot depth. They only learned from Director Nielsen the previous week that a 4-foot depth is permitted per the Zoning Code. He then stated he does not think that a 4-foot depth is enough. The columns out there are 10 inches and if that is subtracted from the 4 feet that leaves 38 inches. That is not enough room to have a chair and walk around it let alone have people stand on the porch in front of the door and open the door to let them in. Mr. Sharratt stated he and the Queens believe there are practical difficulty reasons for whey the depth should be 6 feet and not 4 feet. Commissioner Riedel stated he thought the applicants and their architect did a good job of framing the discussion of the usage of the front entrance as a practical difficulty. He asked if all other alternatives CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 14 of 22 have been considered including moving the main entrance to a different location. He asked if that would be possible. Mr. Sharratt explained the house is very small; it is a four room house when you walk into it. The entry is in the middle. The living room space is to the right. The dinning space is to the left with the kitchen behind it where the back door is. There is a fireplace room on the back side in the other corner. Entering through a side entry would not be historical. It would not be the way the house was intended to be. He does not think there is any flexibility with such a very small house to have a side entry; and, it would cost a tremendous amount to make the necessary changes to accommodate that. He noted they did discuss that option. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:41 P.M. Jeff Wassenaar, 6100 Cathcart Drive, noted he and his wife Joyce have lived in their house for 14 years and they lived around the corner two blocks from there for nine years before that. He then noted they support what the Queens are proposing. He explained that they had put an extension on their front porch facing east because of the morning sun warping their door. Having a porch with a 6 foot depth would help the Queens with their problem. The Queens’ property is located near the end of a dead end. There is very limited traffic there. They support the Queens attempt to preserve their historic house. Joyce Wassenaar, 6100 Cathcart Drive, stated they are the people who enter through the kitchen. She has never been through the front door. She noted they have no concerns about the addition the Queens are proposing. The Queens home is a rare gem in their neighborhood. Historic properties are treasured; they are very rare. She though it would be somewhat rare to grant a variance similar to what the Queens are requesting. She noted that what resonates with her is the destruction of the Queens front entry door. She stated has observed the Queens struggle with their front door. She then stated the pictures of the tiny stoop do not do it justice. The tiny stoop is falling away from the house. And, the sun beats on it. It is cracked and the paint is affected on a regular basis. They made improvements to their own home to try and mitigate the same thing the Queens are proposing to do. She noted they have a generous porch. She stated having a porch that has a depth of 4 feet would make opening a screen door challenging because it would cause people wanting to come in to possibly step into the weather elements. She would not want a porch with a depth of 4 feet; she would want it be a minimum of 6 feet. She noted the Queens have done an incredible job of rehabilitating their home. nd Stacy Kline, 185 West 62 Street, Chanhassen, noted she lives directly across the street from the Queens. She stated she has personally witnessed the fact that the Queens’ front door is not very usable or welcoming or functioning. It was that way five years ago. She then stated the way the Queens have worked with the City over the years demonstrates their good faith in trying to be as conforming as they could be with their property while staying true to the historical aspects of their house. Their improvements were also positive for the neighborhood. She noted she thought what the Queens proposed nd warrants approval. She stated West 62 street is not highly traveled. There are only 3 – 4 properties beyond the Queens. She then stated she does not think a 6-foot-deep portico would be encroaching toward her property or create concerns about visibility when driving on the roadway. She noted she thought what is being proposed is well thought out and she supports it. Commissioner Riedel clarified they would not encroach 2 feet inside of the required setback. It would encroach 25 feet inside. It would be far from conforming. Ms. Kline stated she understood that the house should be 50 back from the road. But that was not the case since the setback was established. She thought the Queens were put in somewhat of a double jeopardy CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 15 of 22 situation that they did not ask for. She clarified she was going off of the four foot allowance for houses that conform. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:48 P.M. Commissioner Davis stated that because the Queens’ property is historic she thought it deserves greater leeway. She then stated she has been involved in remodeling a number of houses and some of them were gutted. Generally speaking a front door is 36 inches wide. The screen opens out and that would leave one foot on a four foot stoop. The applicants need the 6 feet. She noted that she grew up in an old home with a front door similar to the Queens that was shut all of the time. Everyone who came to her home came through the kitchen. It is not the applicants fault. Commissioner Sylvester noted she lives next door to the Queens’ property. She is very familiar with the house, the property and the road. Everything the Queens have said is accurate. She stated she thought it is a unique road, it is a unique neighborhood, and it is an amazing house. She thought what is being proposed would add value to the Queens house. It would not encroach upon the road unduly. She also thought it is important to take the historical relevance into consideration. Commissioner Riedel stated he agrees with everything that has been said. He thought everything about the proposal is eminently reasonable. Yet, the Planning Commission should be quite cautious when it comes to granting variances. Approving this variance request would set a precedent. It would increase the nonconformance of a nonconforming property. He thought the entire argument has to rest on the practical difficulties. Any aesthetic including the argument that the house is very historical and what is being proposed would add to it is not sufficient to consider granting a variance. The Architect and the applicants all spoke well about the fact that there is a practical difficulty with the existing stoop. He noted he would recommend a portico with a depth of only four feet. He explained there is a provision in the Code for conforming residences to have an open portico that extends 4 feet. Although his heart says yes to the fact that it makes sense it would set a precedent that the City would be granting an increase in nonconformity. Chair Maddy asked if the precedent would be set for all houses or just historic farmsteads. Commissioner Bean stated the City has no architectural standards ordinance to help justify that. Maddy noted he finds it difficult to put a 4-foot portico on a farmhouse because that would not have been done 100 years ago. Commissioner Riedel stated he agrees with Commissioner Davis’s comment that a 36 inch door with a 4- foot-deep portico does not provide enough space to step around the door. Commissioner Bean stated there is also the 10 inches for the posts. Director Nielsen noted the portico is 20 feet wide. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission did spend a lot of time on that Ordinance that provides for that. Those types of things were taken into consideration. Four feet meets code. He noted if someone is standing in front of the door and the door is opened that person would be swept off of the portico. Commissioner Bean stated that because of the configuration of the windows and the door it is logically the only place to put the two posts. The posts could not be moved to make more swing room because the posts would be right in front of the windows. Commissioner Riedel asked if the posts would limit the ability for the door to swing all the way open. Bean stated that would reduce it to 38 inches and there is a 36 inch door. Commissioner Riedel stated variance is absolutely dictated for the functional use of the Queens’ property. The nonconformity of their property is quite severe. He then stated the long-term of objectives of the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 16 of 22 and the Planning Commission are to reduce nonconformity. The Queens’ house is already way to close to the road and the variance would bring it closer yet. Commissioner Bean stated even if that was put aside it comes back to the City’s standard is a 4-foot portico if all that is being done is a front entrance. He asked Director Nielsen about the history of 4 feet versus 6 feet. Director Nielsen stated it was written so people could have a covered entry when they were standing at the door they could be out of the rain. Bean asked if 4 feet was deemed to be adequate. Nielsen stated 3 – 4 years ago it was. Commissioner Davis asked if this was done for a house on the other side on a skinny lot. Director Nielsen noted that was on Lakeway Terrace. That is what triggered the ordinance amendment. Davis noted that was an extremely small lot; it was very narrow. Director Nielsen noted the amendment was worded as a portico, not a porch. It was to provide for a covered entry. Commissioner Sylvester asked how long the house had been there before the setback requirements were put into effect. Director Nielsen stated the codes went into effect in 1956 and the house was built in 1910. There were no standards in 1910. Sylvester noted the applicants did not choose to be nonconforming. Nielsen stated it is a nonconforming structure buy its nature. He noted the Queens get to make more use of their property than those with a conforming structure in the same district. That is one of the failures of the criteria for a variance; it cannot convey a privilege to one person and not another in the same district. Director Nielsen reiterated the depth of the porch meets code. People can stand off to the side when before entering the house. Chair Maddy stated aside from the short text in the accessory structure Code are there any more historic preservation protections that the City offers homeowners. Director Nielsen explained there are provisions for historic accessory structures and there is a list of criteria for what is historic. In response to a comment from Commissioner Bean, Commissioner Riedel stated the Code states if nonconformity was reduced it cannot be reclaimed at some later date. If there had been a porch at some time and it was taken down that does make the argument that a new porch should be allowed. Commissioner Bean asked if the City has granted a variance to expand a portico. Director Nielsen stated no and noted the Code is not that old. Bean stated the plat shows that the bituminous surface in front of the Queens house is 15.5 feet wide. That means the street is substandard. He asked if the City would ever want to widen the street. Director Nielsen noted the City has no plans to do that at this time, but as streets are reconstructed that would be done to at least 20 feet wide. Bean explained that when the roadway is reconstructed the setback noncompliance will be exacerbated by at least another 2 feet. Chair Maddy stated he was trying to find a way to recommend approval of the variance but he does not want to undermine the Zoning Code. Commissioner Riedel stated to allow the Queens 6 feet while others were limited to 4 feet seems unfair to the others. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 17 of 22 Riedel moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the setback variance for Court and nd Joyce Queen, 27180 West 62 street, subject to reducing the depth of the portico to four feet instead of six. Commissioner Davis asked if Council could decide to allow the portico to have a 6 foot depth. Director Nielsen confirmed that. Motion passed 4/0/1 with Sylvester abstaining. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:02 P.M. Commissioner Davis asked when Council will consider this item. Director Nielsen stated the applicant would like that to happen on May 8. 3. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT for ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQUARE FEET Applicant: Erin and Michael Neilon Location: 5795 Club Lane Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 9:02 P.M. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Erin and Michael Neilon, 5795 Club Lane. Director Nielsen explained Erin and Michael Neilon have purchased the property located at 5795 Club Lane. They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home. The new home will have an attached garage. They would also like to keep an existing garage located on the north side of the property. The combined area of the two garages will exceed 1200 square feet by 58 square feet. That necessitates C.U.P. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and contains 42,837 square feet of area. The new garage would contain 748 square feet. The existing garage contains 510 square feet. That brings the total amount of accessory space to 1258 square feet. The existing garage is 11 feet from the side (north) lot line and approximately 85 feet from the right-of-way ROW) of Club Lane. The existing house is nonconforming with the front yard setback. The new house would comply with the 35 foot setback requirement for that zoning district. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of C.U.P. He reviewed how the applicants’ proposal complies with the Code. a. The total area of accessory buildings (1258 square feet) does not exceed the proposed floor area (3190 square feet) above grade of the proposed home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-1C zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with R-1C setback requirements. The total area of impervious surface on the property will only be 13.4 percent; much less that what is allowable. Since the new garage will face north and the existing garage faces west, the nearest property owner will only see a triple garage façade from their property. Consequently, no additional landscaping is considered necessary. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 18 of 22 d. The applicants propose to re-side and re-roof the existing garage to match the new home and garage. Nielsen noted that based upon the analysis of the case staff recommends granting the C.U.P. as proposed. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Maddy opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 9:09 P.M. Bean moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Erin and Michael Neilon, 5795 Club Lane. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy closed the Public Hearing at 9:11 P.M. 4. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT-OF WAY Applicant: Mike Seifert Location: 6085 Lake Linden Drive Director Nielsen explained Mike Seifert owns the property located at 6085 Lake Linden Drive. The City The applicant chose not to approved it for a subdivision two other times; in 2008 and again in 2014. record the division at that time and is now reapplying. The staff reports for 2008 and 2014 remain unchanged with the exception that the park dedication was increased to $6,500 from $5,000. Nielsen reviewed the conditions of approval from 2008 and 2014. 1.The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. 2. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3.Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. 4.Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Staff again recommends approval subject to those four conditions plus a condition that the shared driveway must be no less than 16 feet wide if the northerly home includes a sprinkler system and 20 feet wide if it will not. The applicant must provide a driveway easement and maintenance agreement for the portion of the driveway to be shared. Commissioner Bean moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert, 6058 Lake Linden Drive, subject to Staff recommendations, to the shared driveway being no less than 16 feet wide if the northerly home includes a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 19 of 22 sprinkler system and 20 feet wide if it will not and the applicant submitting an easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway. Motion passed 5/0. 5. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Warren Anderson Location: 25000 Yellowstone Trail Director Nielsen explained Warren Anderson and Mary Penly own the property located at 25000 Yellowstone Trail. They propose to subdivide their lot into two building sites. Their property is zoned R- 1A, Single-Family Residential, and contains 125,262 square feet of area. It is occupied by the applicants’ home and two outbuildings. The property has frontage on Yellowstone Trail and it is also bordered on its east side by Sam’s Way – a platted, but undeveloped, public right-of-way (ROW) that serves another home to the east. The property is quite wooded and rises approximately 24 feet from east to west. The westerly, vacant parcel will contain 40,000 square feet of area and the easterly lot will have 85,262 square feet. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the R-1A District. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the minor division subject to the following conditions. 1. The applicants’ surveyor must provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. From those legal descriptions, the applicants’ attorney must draft deeds conveying the easements to the City. 2. The applicants must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the existing home on the site. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time a building permit is applied for. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the conditions above. Davis moved, Riedel seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Warren Anderson and Mary Penly, 25000 Yellowstone Trail, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 6. MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: Jay Venero Location: 5985 Seamans Drive Director Nielsen explained Jay Venero owns the property at 5985 Seamans Drive. He proposes to split off the rear 117 feet of his property and sell it to Mattamy Homes for inclusion into its Minnetonka Country Club plat of the second phase. That idea was discussed during the consideration of the preliminary plat. The subject property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 75,370 square feet of area. It is occupied by Mr. Venero’s gardens which are the subject of a previous conditional use permit (C.U.P.) which allowed limited commercial sales from the property. Upon completion of the transaction, the developer will remove the existing garage/greenhouse located on that rear portion of the site and combine CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 20 of 22 that property with the MCC project. The westerly portion of the property is occupied by Mr. Venero’s home and a detached accessory building. The new parcel will contain approximately 45,540 square feet of area. It will be included into the second phase of the MCC project. The remaining westerly parcel meets or exceeds the minimum lot size requirements for the R-1A zoning district. He reviewed the conditions of approval. 1. The public right-of-way (ROW) for Seamans Drive is substandard in terms of width. The applicant must provide a deed for the additional 16.5 feet of ROW. 2. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around the perimeter of the westerly lot. Easements for the easterly parcel will be acquired as part of the final plat for the MCC second phase. 3. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4. Since the minor subdivision does not create any new lots, there are no additional fees for park dedication or local sanitary sewer access. These have been accounted for in the MCC project. 5. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision subject to the conditions above. Director Nielsen explained staff met with representatives from Mattamy Homes shortly after the news broke about Mattamy pulling out of Minnesota. The arrangement Mattamy made in selling the property is that Mattamy would complete the development portion of the site and then sell the lots to the builders. Gonyea Homes already bought some of the lots in the first phase. CalAtlantic is going to buy the rest of the first phase lots. Mattamy’s decision to pull out has expedited the development of the site for the second phase. The City will see the second phase plat this year. Mr. Venero noted Mr. Theis has a list of what has been discussed. He stated his major concern with everything is he does not want to lose the spruce trees along the street. Some of them are more than 100 years old. They are the second owner of the house that is there. The utility easements will encroach on some of the landscaping. He understands he cannot do anything about that because they are selling part of their lot. Director Nielsen stated there is no reason to believe that utilities will go through there. There are some drainage issues in the area. He is not sure if the side easements would address any of them. But, he will not guarantee they will be used. If the roadway were updated the trees would be taken into account. Commissioner Riedel stated the City also appreciates beautiful old trees. Brian Theis, with Mattamy Homes, stated Mattamy has entered into a purchase agreement with Mr. Venero to purchase the back 120 feet of his property. He thought Mr. Venero has done an excellent job landscaping his property. A lot of that landscaping goes up to the property line. He noted that he would like to work with staff and decide how to write in some protections into the easement documents. Should construction occur within the easements a concerted effort will be made to preserve trees and existing landscaping. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 21 of 22 In response to a question from Commissioner Bean, Director Nielsen stated the applicant’s attorney prepares the easement documents and if they want to insert language staff can show that to the City Engineer and the City Attorney. Chair Maddy asked if after the construction permits are pulled the trees would be protected by the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. Director Nielsen responded to the extent possible but there are times when trees have to be taken down. Nielsen explained that because the road is so far to the east the chances are if the road was going to be updated it would go to the west. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a minor subdivision for Jay Venero, 5985 Seamans Drive, subject to Staff recommendations. Motion passed 5/0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there a conditional use permit and setback variance for a property along Birch Bluff Road slated for the June 6, 2017, Planning Commission meeting. The new Planning Director will handle that. 10. REPORTS • Liaison to Council • SLUC Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Sensible Lane Use Coalition (SLUC) session about Super Bowl LII was very interesting. Commissioner Sylvester concurred. Davis stated the speaker spoke about the anticipated number of people that would come to the area for the Super Bowl and about short-term rentals. There was ensuing discussion about what people heard at the session. • Other Commissioner Davis noted she is scheduled to be the Liaison to Council for June but she cannot be there in the beginning of June. She asked if someone would trade with her. Commissioner Bean stated he can be the Liaison to Council for June. Davis stated she would be the Liaison for August in place of Bean. Chair Maddy noted he will be gone from June1 – 9. Commissioner Davis asked Director Nielsen to address the email he sent out. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING May 2, 2017 Page 22 of 22 Director Nielsen explained he sent out an email announcing the upcoming government training sessions. He recommends people attend them. The two he suggested attending are The Basics of Planning and Zoning and then Beyond the Basics. The City pays the cost for Commissioners to attend. 11. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Riedel seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 2, 2017, at 9:42 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder #7B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Neilon, Erin and Michael – Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet Meeting Date: 22 May 2017 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 that would allow the Neilons to keep an existing detached garage on their property at 5795 Club Lane? Background: Erin and Michael Neilon are building a new home at 5795 Club Road, which includes an attached garage. They propose to keep an existing detached garage on the property, the area of which, when added to the area of the new garage, exceeds 1200 square feet of area, requiring a conditional use permit. Detailed background can be found in the Planning Director’s memorandum, dated 28 April 2017. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item at their 2 May meeting and voted unanimously to approve the CUP as presented. Financial or Budget Considerations: None. The cost of the application is covered by application fees. Options: Approve the request as presented, approve with conditions or deny the request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff agrees with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and recommends adoption of the attached draft resolution. Next Steps and Timelines: Adoption of the resolution allows the Neilons to keep their existing shed. No further steps are required. The building permit for the new home will address the CUP. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 April 2017 RE: Neilon, Erin and Michael - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (17.12) BACKGROUND Erin and Michael Neilon have purchased the property at 5795 Club Lane (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to demolish the existing home on the property and build a new home, as shown on Exhibit B. Although the new home will have an attached garage, they would also like to keep an existing garage located on the north side of the property. The combined area of the two garages will exceed 1200 square feet in total floor area, necessitating a conditional use permit. The property is zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential and contains 42,837 square feet in area. The new garage contains 748 square feet. The existing garage contains 510 square feet which brings the total amount of accessory space on the site to 1258 square feet. The existing garage is 11 feet from the side (north) lot line and approximately 85 feet from the right -of -way of Club Lane. Plans for the new home and attached garage are included in Exhibits C through G, attached. The proposed home contains 3190 square feet of floor area in two levels above grade. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd. 2:d.(4) of the Zoning Code prescribes criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: a. The total area of accessory buildings (1258 square feet) does not exceed the proposed floor area (3190 square feet) above grade of the proposed home. b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the R- 1C zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet). Memorandum Re: Neilon CUP 28 April 2017 c. The proposed garage complies with R -1C setback requirements. The total area of impervious surface on the property will be only 13.4 percent. Since the new garage will face north and the existing garage faces west, the nearest property owner will only see a triple garage fayade from their property. Consequently, no additional landscaping is considered necessary. d. The applicants propose to re -side and re -roof the existing garage to match the new home and garage. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recornmended that the applicants' request for a conditional use permit be granted, subject only to the standard warning that such structures are for residential use only, and that any type of home occupation conducted within an accessory building must obtain a separate permit. cc: Greg Lerud Tim Keane Joe Pazandak Erin and Michael Neilon -2- U � O 1 p o S J i i� c o� CD LL o �_ o Q. ° O ° o o V) IL s co p 0 0 la = C7 Lill 0 a qnl:D o a� 0 L � v � a leas l a mfuc S p o --------- - - - - -- Haan E] J S Exhibit A 'A(c, crrrIP t nr n mrnXT iv vc�iivl� Neilon CUP 4 46.20 N01 °17'02 "W/ co m I - G VOO N� snoNiwnlie 9 n10 3,JUl.ons Qb,•4 -bi Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY •erysey� 'I'll "'I'll I I I way 116111 a 111011111111111'111111 -- s6ulr.'-p/sugd asayl asn io'ylpaw 'aanpaidw laingplslp'Aeldssp al III aw6e pue u�auay 146pAdm anIsnpxa s; au['sawoH nesneAl az�u6m1 pue a6pal—j- - A's6uln'e,p /sued.1111 p Adm a 6upd— Ag •erysey� saw1H --A1 .1 asualil paliwd a yap- peplllid 1e pue 1y6p Ado1 an1snpxa s; w[ —H off n.-Al yap- pJ.d 1e s5—.p/sued —ILL /}unoo uldaUUaH aqua adr36mpunpeyl6HluyaPOU suold Ipuy !££SS NW'pooMaaoy$ woo sawoynosnoMgpuosuoy 1101 9nI� S6LS YBtz'b66'zs6 M0110H I!on� wopno 8t£SS Nw'o tspy0 UOl!aN £97tagnsanted�DOal!yMS"L oyso43 sawoN nosnoM nesne o 30 u o? 'zmoGO " 55 z o�Iiw � °aa� o ma ao-3o§ h mo w'N <o soo Sy awo � m w ciao o w 4 G C L °w °G'� o u o iI "W8 o 0- w r� u .¢w° ru (n Z `� 8� >� 5io5 FIi oG w 3„ zF.� a wyao t0 Z O o -�= 58.7 z uuJ�a o NoS f6 .�j�~O� H �� F ~O w s F zoa oz E £a - €6�W ¢ -3 :1 �ozwi og£ 651 €a > J LU a0 og�6 z u Saw x W Z H W oz wzad < �f S C, z Z g Q ° 6m ,uw u o< z ¢o zz F, Q Q d J <�woa z�� u $�uf3z W n 0O I- 0 W Z� D Z.i' OJ f o G ° °�� = W z z O O o O g ,HH tmWm3?m 0118 Vl mOo1-OJtL} , <oom of a ° z° L !- f �- bow`;moQa?w�? Sob zaaz�euwm 5 wo. �o Gum. W �/ > Z O Z r- > W w U U O m gwa�wm °$ f �tL -• mru;G zox,xa�^ i om <,o lza. a0 § : O U4' O J J O WOO Q U W W LL. LL to D' LL U wtirz3a��o.. uG o KO¢6QO=O Q wainzmmm�� U x w- r°w� ZGGGj s U w �£G>O YOY rKQ = Ulm ¢Kd a5 £ '"r d ow xF ow Oowz'noo¢kuh° J a'nodx..6uz� u�lh oo t-1 szrao ws�zgwaQ °a�i �sa� �w£ 000�oz�� J ¢ �wCuGowNO3�� O ri N ra N M V to �c n 00 a, ri ri ri aaaaaaaaaaaa W o3in ° ==z wu a m aau�i3 w °u z�'°n w u�o� °w'�pOW�� °�� ociz GW- �3 mo H 'M °M Uf m oov z �-Hw Bozo 0o 5G� W 3Quzow= �o Z 0wa w� EwOrwz � Y w oz �Q u o u> u o °I znHH G. oz�z ��q zm"z a gw->'c'S mz ww dp�o Sgzio�o W- �w w5'd£w3° 3 °p ouxi�a� o3wow z�N��iLLo ¢�11 af�� 33" m zas0 ..m3f� > o mumi v,m osuum3 i3o �m3� » > =uaoutm z O f w > aF u ° u o G 0 o w wam w� o re5 W w a p� w w 03 o a d' J m3 ¢vo - o °zF of -S wN a oa= z u�sm ��$�OO =o"�oaGGGG-�3%xJS CO o m 000 ° ¢o �ruxQ_: a 000000u5wZf�LLz ���L�zc °zyiGGGGrr3 2Z..t;3 zo °� oz w a. z q wo u�M< Czm �oz=Wi �' ?<M 3w3zo� foaEU °f1£�8wmf fuzes]°- -CZ..i pt- � ¢'�mmm5zz�1�uu.0 °u °uwG6Gq°3 °aaa_'zfa�oz >z�G66GOG� O(7U �UU ala ll££OO£ fz 00� K✓� •'_£ u °p�0000 °mk am�aa�d��oo °auCo° ° a` 2mu0uuuuuuuuut -ioc�ossffasfz�z000ao_aa�� 11 z 00! o a ��G a o ¢ 8, o8a o? 'zmoGO " 55 z o�Iiw � °aa� o ma ao-3o§ h mo w'N <o soo Sy awo ° �� w' w ciao o w 4 G C L °w °G'� o u o iI "W8 o 0- w r� u �i-o zo w�8 �m " o r-0 O°o w o 0 F o z 3 a z mo sNOO!om z °w� E'er w f3 w w 3„ zF.� a wyao uoi 3zo. -. oCC amm w BYO o NoS f6 .�j�~O� H �� F ~O ao. w >-1 rh!Ro W.: 7z m. -�7 ¢ -3 :1 �ozwi og£ 651 €a OnOHS 8 z Zm °��G�a3i3Ssz w 3 ¢Lao— O 9t�H of °Gwd _m i °? 5 oQmx ' Fam GgolzS a G,m�3 S C, of a � 5 m�° oz z�.. w �33mo¢oz ��o� °zoGOo 8m5- oo��w� zz G <W z <8 �oz . z° oCa° ° w °LLB az °azagFwe a. ulu"rsow ¢=w� �,zw °3 oN'"wmoo0� oho N o z.eGwu�a?uu, o am ° ° °Q'a G°q�u oo '^ •� z� €0 -o ¢ _w boo °01131 wuiun�'n Nmo�oxzL7QO °zorxF m�a 3.�o w m _ �w CC h UB of a ° z° L 3owwuwoFW w o� °z °s 011100 0� _`. wo. �o Gum. z wc o W 8`8 -9 -Oo i om <,o lza. a0 § : O U4' >�uSB 34 J °QOowm °. �n2 o KO¢6QO=O Q wainzmmm�� U x w- r°w� ZGGGj s U w �£G>O YOY rKQ = Ulm ¢Kd a5 £ '"r d ow xF ow Oowz'noo¢kuh° II� (AK w °Z z3 oRz J ¢ �wCuGowNO3�� €oo¢=a�3 =rN °rwG3V7� G z Syr mG G�mwmwz °z 0' oo° N i ^"i z�'°n w u�o� °w'�pOW�� °�� ociz GW- �3 mo H 'M °M Uf m oov z �-Hw Bozo 0o 5G� W 3Quzow= �o Z 0wa w� EwOrwz °=a wG °u�oz o�w �£zp°z,o� ouoo u3 ° ou,�•• °ao5Fl.w�w5� W'�zwwxo sfz zoo �z.aapi o on zaxoioo�oG] o� ll.Iaai- or=rl�um¢Fru ¢omu ¢maom om 1„1 Exhibit C PROPOSED HOUSE - PERSPECTIVES m o Exhibit C PROPOSED HOUSE - PERSPECTIVES r-77 sawoH nesnehl Aq awoy a fiuls a )o uopruasuoo ap uo) ueq»aglo s6ulmeup /sueld asap asn uo 'Allpow'aanpwdw 'aingplslp'Aeldslp of dou aw6e pue ulauay 146p A03 anisnpxa s; oul' —H nesneAA 9zlu6ww pue a6pajuougae - A's6upaeup /sueld asagl )o Adoa a 6upd— Ag 'egseyo sawoH nesneM of asuaall pallwp a -pun paplAwd we pue lg6p Adoa anlsul— s,'oul —a H nesnehl /spun palaalwd we s6u uup /sueld asagL /4unoo uldauuaH aanapadvflo �lnpeyjoulw1apay woo•sewoynosno n�puosuoy % suold Inu!j IEESS NW 'pooMaJoyS - _ ouL)l gnlo 96LS V91CV66'M6 g. M opoH !!onrj wo }snD U011M cqt L eps GAP(] o00 G1! 4M 5"L orsoy0 sawoH nosnoM vn X X O o - II II d W vn N X 0 0 II II V of Exhibit D PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS — FRONT/REAR m x Q 0 vn N X 0 0 II II V of Exhibit D PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS — FRONT/REAR •ersey� sawoH nesne�A Aq awoy al6uls a )o uoparu7sum ay7 u uey7 uay7o sfiul—up /sueld asay7 asn u.'Appow 'wnp.d.'a7nqu7zlp'Aeldslp o71- aai6e pue ulauay 145p Ad. anlsnpxa s; au['sawoH nesnv A nu6ma pue a6paleiouyae noA 'sfiul�e�p /sueld asay7 7o Adoa a buptlane AB 'egsey� sawoH nesneM of asuaall pa71wa a uap- paplAoud ae pue 746p Adoa anlsnpxa s; au7 sawoH ne—AX iapun a p 7>a7ad ae s6uln,e�p /sueld asay1 A4unoo uldeuuaH w1usnowmmm 9,10#803 Offll/n0 Pill AUVAI/apou suold jould 16693 NW 'poornaJoyS woo•sawoynosnom @ puosuoy aup'j qnlo 96L9 h9LzW6'6S6 8!£SS NW 'n�soy� MopoH pone wolsno > U0119N E9Gj a}!nS anuO InO a1!yM Sb6l O> SNO SGWOH nnsnD vn X X N.i v v 00 11 II d co ..tire v� X X N .y u v 00 II II V W Exhibit E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - SIDES � m w CD W M a N 3 a o v� X X N .y u v 00 II II V W Exhibit E PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - SIDES •er,sey7 sawoH nesneM Aq awoy al6uis a �o uoparu� sum aW uo� ueya uay�o 0.,— p/sueld a uq asn Ipow '— p.dw'ajnggj'jP'Ae�ds�p o1 jou aw6e pug uiaaay ay6uAdm -pnpxa s,,-j'sawoH ne—Ak azlu6mw pue afipa�rzou „ne noA 's6u�n�e�p /sued asayj )o Adm a 6upd— Ae 'eHSey� sawoH nesneM.1 .sued pa11wll a uapun papjnoud we pue %y6pAdaz - 1snpxa s; auj sawoH nesneA\ uapun pai »jaid we s6u�n-p /sued asayL yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN (}uno� uidauuGH aanapadx36wp�anpay >Bu�u /apay suold Inu!H LEESS NW 'PooMaIoyS woo sawoynosno n o)puosuoy � MolloH ilnno wo}sno auol qnjo 96L3 481Z'666'ZS6 M39 NW'oIsoU LU U011aN £9bl allnS anu0 800 a}iyM SbV I nesne ��59AE �it o�soU sawoH nosnoM yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN � m LU ��59AE �it 1t V ak 0 36�Sy {off ;i �l4i yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN ��59AE �it 1t V ak fy� 36�Sy {off ;i �l4i a a i�S %g o r L LL u $!19! JAE %� H S Y v E n I P I I 9 3a o. o Y 4 yr r— - - - - -� ax g I I I I L - -- - - - - J a I � A - z n ry F----------------- I r---- - - - - -1 I I 1 I I I I I r I I I A.E£ 1, V K a a 0 0 rc 15 z z a Exhibit F d x a PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN •er,sey� sawoH nesneAl Aq away a�6u�s a )o uoryaru�suo� ay) uo) uey»ay�o s6u�n�ejp /sued —s asn uo'/g pow'aanpwdw'a7nqu)s,p'Aeldslp oa qou aw6e pue ulaiay ay6p Adoa aysnpxa s, au['sawoH n—m M az�u6... pue a6pa�niouHae noA 's6uin�e�p /sued asaip [o Adm a 6updane Ag •eysey� sawoH nesneAN o[ asuaaq pajjwij a u,pun papl�oud wu pue jgbp Adoa ani5np- s,•au[ sawoH -s-Al uapun paiJ.d — s6e.eip/ sued asa41 54 f13�II Id ? fI ol'IIA ffk t °4llg liftf f3�( # �itil � ° € - � O O O } m C) Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN /quno� uldauuaH a a aualiadx36u••rp/mp ow 6ulfwapay $UD DUI O OOMa10 U U10�'S2WOynbSnDM�PUOSUDy � �^' m0110H I!on?D wo}sno s auDl qnp 96L9 4 Z•p66'ZS6 " " U01IaN c cg6te!nsanua�00e{14MS"[ 0�sND SO W OH n Id ? fI ol'IIA ffk t °4llg liftf f3�( # �itil � ° € - � O O O } m C) Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN } m C) Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN Exhibit G PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. _________ A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE TO ERIN AND MICHAEL NEILON WHEREAS , Erin and Michael Neilon (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 5795 Club Lane, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof: WHEREAS , the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit to keep an existing detached garage on the property, the area of which, when added to the area of a new attached garage being constructed with their new home, will bring the total area of accessory space on the property up to 1258 square feet; and WHEREAS , the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and WHEREAS , the Applicants’ request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 28 April 2017, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 2 May 2017, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS , the Applicants’ request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 22 May 2017, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in a R1-C, Single- Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 42,837 square feet of area. 2. The total proposed accessory space (1258 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure (3190 square feet). 3. The total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the R-1C zoning district in which it is located (2000 square feet). 4. The design and materials of the accessory structures are consistent with the architectural character of the new home proposed to be built on the property. 5. The accessory structures comply with all setback requirements for the R-1C zoning district. 6. The total amount of impervious surface on the property is 13.4 percent of the lot area. CONCLUSION A. The application of Erin and Michael Neilon for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth herein above be and hereby is granted. B. This approval is subject to the following: 1. The detached garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential nature. 2. The Applicants are hereby advised that the City Code provides specific regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the garage spaces for other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with such regulations. C. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Applicant with 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 SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of May 2017. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk -2- Legal Description: “South 146.86 feet of Lot 44, Auditor’s Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota.” Exhibit A -3- #7C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Seifert, Mike – Minor Subdivision Meeting Date: 22 May 2017 Prepared by: Marie Darling Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 28 April 2017 Policy Consideration: Should the City approve a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert? Background: Mike Seifert proposes to subdivide the property at 6085 Lake Linden Drive into two lots. The division was previously approved in 2008 and 2014, but never recorded and has since expired. For detailed background, see attached memorandum. The applicant also owns the undeveloped, wetland outlot on the immediate north side of the right-of- way. As a condition of approval of the original Linden Hills subdivision, the applicant was required to deed that lot to the City for drainage, utility and conservation purposes. Staff recently noticed that ownership was never transferred to the City. Consequently, staff included a condition in the attached resolution requiring the applicant submit the deed and title work for the outlot prior to recording the minor subdivision. Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee paid by the applicant covers the cost of processing. The division will generate $1200 in local sanitary sewer access charges and $6,500 in park dedication fees. Options: Approve, deny or modify the attached resolution. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approval per the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant has 30 days to record the division with Hennepin County. 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 HOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.dshorewood.mn.us • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 16 October 2014, Updated 28 April 2017 RE: Seifert, Mike — Minor Subdivision, FILE NO. 405(08.12) In September of 2008 the City approved a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert (see attached memorandum, dated 10 September 2008). The applicant chose not to record the division at that time and is now reapplying. This one is quite simple — nothing has changed since the earlier approval.. Approval is recommended with. the same stipulations as listed in the previous report, plus a condition that the shared driveway must be no less than 16 feet wide if the,northerly home includes a sprinkler system and 20 feet wide if it will not. Finally, the applicant must provide a driveway easement and maintenance agreement for the portion of the driveway to be shared. 2017 Update: For reasons unknown to us, the above- referenced minor subdivision was again not recorded after it was approved a second time. Mike, Mike......Mike! What has changed from the second approval is the park dedication fee. It has increased to $6500. Subject to the recommendations in the 10 September 2008 report, plus the new park, fee, approval is once again recommended. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Tim Keane Mike Seifert Memorandum Re: Seifert -Minor Subdivision 10 September 2008 recorded with the resolution approving the subdivision. Also, the driveway is shown as being only 10 feet in width. A condition of approval should include a minimum of 12 feet with the common portion of the shared driveway no less than 16 feet. Due to the location of the northerly building pad, the driveway may have to increase to 20 feet with a Fire Code turnaround unless the applicant proposes to install a sprinkler system in the � home. With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. f 2. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to release of the, resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. j 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Cc: Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown Tim Keane Mike Seifert E i i i i 5- ° Cl! z< ° it ° U -A 4 Ip W al �6 S >y a v� T 3y Z N Fri- Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Seifert - minor subdivision O L- 00 0 0 N AC I X 0 I L X Qx x \v x X x a N a rl X jx� Exhibit B x EXISTING CONDITIONS �� i i i o N O N m n > .a C c � F 0 W �� N O C6 O M 11 N 11 JQ� 0 v� OQ) j� yz 7 71 &A� �Q� C:�. 7 N o� O� 14'A N „d " / \ 0 p • ,w� N � G �'d U H O ti N q w o c o b s q o w o 8� 0 a _ „ 3 p w aN� Q7 q U O d q -v 0 0 <G o M add o o a N a`iN p P, N O O N4 C7 TWTkk V w a �� �w•� a g �3�w.� k� t�b to -v 0 0 w mot• V n z 0 M W Exhibit C PROPOSED DIVISION Q q <G o M add U a�sa O N4 C7 TWTkk V w mot• V n z 0 M W Exhibit C PROPOSED DIVISION Q q CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17- A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR MILTON H. SEIFERT III WHEREAS, Milton H. Seifert III (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described and illustrated in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits C and D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to provide a common shared driveway to serve the two lots; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 28 April 2017, a copy of which is on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 2 May 2017, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 22 May 2017, 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 WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described in Exhibit A is hereby approved for division into two parcels, legally described and illustrated in Exhibit B. 2. The subdivision approval is subject to the following: a. The proposed driveway serving the two lots shall be no less than 12 feet in width, with the common portion of the driveway being no less than 16 feet in width. -1- b. Unless the home built on the northerly parcel is sprinkled, pursuant to Fire Code requirements, the proposed driveway shall be no less than 20 feet in width and have a turnaround approved by the Excelsior Fire District. c. The common portion of the driveway serving the two lots shall be paved in conjunction with the construction of the new home on the northerly lot. d. The Applicant shall record a shared driveway easement agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit E, against both lots. Prior to recording the easements, the application shall revise the draft drainage and utility agreements to remove paragraph 3, (Maintenance). f. Prior to recording the minor subdivision, the applicant shall submit a draft deed and related title work that transfers ownership of Outlot A, Linden Hills to the city. The deed shall be recorded at the same time as the minor subdivision and proof of recording shall be submitted to the city prior to issuance of building permits for either new lots. 3. The Applicant shall record this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C and D, and the driveway easement agreement contained in Exhibit E with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (3 0) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. 4. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22th day of May, 2017. ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk -2- Scott Zerby, Mayor LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ENTIRE PARCEL; That part of White Street, as dedicated in Linden Park, that lies westerly of the west line of Linden Hills and easterly of a straight line between the southwest comer of Outlot "A°, Linden Dills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and a point on the north line of Lot 6, Linden Park, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 as measured along the north line thereof, AND That part of Lot 6, Linden Hills which lies easterly of a straight line between a point on the north line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 and a point on the south line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the southwest corner of said Lot 6. Exhibit A O O N O y Z3 ti' 0 �4 U 1 oci O O ti a Uo W� V � q rV � V v M W° Uz x� �N Q o lrji v`�i �i w W O w o p 0 0 N ti a U 0 A o w q o p t3 «° C 3 O Oq N as O .p 0 0 � p M U A ti �WAw N m II c OD CO C-4 �N.. 3 .ZSLZ9 1 ;o- ° o w ma-�v � M �� v�°� � o... ° o•�oC O PI0 W � Ci� y O U !W/] � O �0� �q ��•`�N b vi vFi a p ON w b L .° W •A, T 7. w � •C a '� O� '� � a v o q O W -E, o 0 0 0 0 v q o F id •O y .° U U k U-S o. •5 O GOO m y aS O•r� °p% a o °7 May O b ca • ,� O m p a tO� � p a ❑ q rn v� '& y wo`�'Ua O.2 w° �op w�i� p•5 �oo o� Ca •o .� `b F" eq °q y Lao 0 0 «'d'+7 v •� o •� .,y w 3'i 66 N Wap °° F•5 W�C.�aaa°.�O.oti�° aF'.T�i �.' o .a v�� v�= o .7¢a�•a�v o v.° u 1�, - pg =357 W O O � •ct .a w o y ° w ° �TJ v "UN • � N : q N N zip °a bps Cr o p a a°i y iW -1Fxx a`�iF G': E � _ A b N G4 'w N G N q n N a y 014 il y oxa � °dw O a+ q aJ •'� •C N a o � Ca •� °qy aN`�o �•' � °' a ° a aqi � nt .7 ° ° p •�p YVi '4Q V°y- 788a °'T �. U (� °•ooUyy° '� m c p o q� iw -1Fxx v ¢ o-1 w° U.5 a`�i�w a ,"o.• N � a :� W a ♦� � N ,o o o 0 0 3 be p o 3 U o •G Q � y o n°i ° 'G m 3 W e� y � •� a;o C � N '° � q•5 �� ,3�7w ° � o � •5 0 4 F a °� m .a v w H O °.a C 21 c xal ti �p to O o �•F cJ N � N 0 T ° ai � co'� Tp. � .n a •o v c p W a o• 'y .a b 6 �414 p a o � � � o o � �•oa q a w ° V 3N p o .5 aftli � o � N •o �° � S° •� z b �+ o p, Y� p U U y 0 • is °' '��' ° : • o `° y, 3 ts b G U a y q o n •C o >y y R7 ,�C �° ° W � O U O} p y ,� a �w° �c Goo y° G a I U U Ch b 0 M 0 M -I W O YEN 'b w% W W o F q b0 •� O O ,� � O Gob �d or, 1. O •� 08-9 do a i ° o a •• q � U w ° � LL_N� m N h, vNi�•b Uo 4¢ a °tb'a oza° .� .O T.:J y � V• O qqU � 'a ,p m •-� .-1 v w .o N ,n w g aW M w o C w H 1 00 0 w T v � �° ei i .� o y •d v ° y P o N •� p� W q q W -q �G GOO F o'q v A °qr uN'd' y'o •,y b GO a- .q O ya�o 3 Uz oN 6w q DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Drainage And Utility Easement Agreement dated, , shall set forth the certain terms and conditions of the Easement granted herein, by and between Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife, grantors (collectively, "Grantor "), and the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, grantee ( "Shorewood "). WITNESSETH: A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property identified as the on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota ( "Land "). B. Grantor intends to convey to Shorewood the right to the use of an Easement for drainage and utility purposes in perpetuity. C. The grant of this Easement will serve the policies of the State of Minnesota and Shorewood for drainage and utility purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and pursuant to the provisions of applicable law, Grantor hereby grants to Shorewood and Shorewood hereby accepts, a perpetual and non - exclusive Easement for drainage and utility purposes to the extent set forth herein. 1. Grant. To accomplish the parties' intent, Grantor hereby grants a non- exclusive and perpetual Easement to Shorewood for drainage and utility purposes in the area of the burdened parcel, which is the Land legally described on Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein, which constitutes the entirety of the Land to which this Easement applies. 2. Benefit. The Easement shall benefit Shorewood and its residents. 3. Maintenance. Shorewood shall be responsible for the maintenance of the . Land and/or Easement area and the drainage and utility system and be responsible for all costs associated therewith. 4. Prohibitions. Grantor shall not perform acts on the Land that would significantly impair or interfere with the Easement or drainage and utility system. The parties acknowledge that the Land is presently used for residential purposes. Grantor and the public may, subject to this Easement, continue making such use of the Protected Land. Grantor shall not subdivide all or part of the Lands for residential, commercial or industrial development. Grantor shall not construct or install additional buildings or Exhibit C improvements of any kind including fences, driveways, parking lots and roads, on the Land, except as may be allowed by Shorewood. 5. Costs and Liabilities. Shorewood shall assume and be responsible for all obligations and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind accruing from its use of the Easement and its installation and maintenance of a drainage and utility system on or under the Land. 6. Waiver. The delay or omission by Grantor or Shorewood to discover a breach by the other or to exercise a right of enforcement as to such breach shall not impair or waive any rights of enforcement hereunder. 7. General. This Easement shall be assignable and flow with the respective Land identified herein. This Easement shall be binding upon and shall benefit the parties' heirs, successors and assigns. This Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. If any portion of this Easement shall be determined to be unenforceable or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. This Easement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when fully executed, shall constitute a binding agreement. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Easement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and fully executed by the parties. This Easement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter described herein. The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are agreed to as of the date set forth above. Grantor: Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife Milton H. Seifert Barrie Seifert City of Shorewood, Minnesota In Its: 2 EXHIBIT "B" The north, south, east and west 10 feet of the following described parcel: That part of Lot 6, Linden Hills which lies easterly of a straight line, hereinafter referred to as Line "A ", between a point on the north line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 and a point on the south line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the southwest corner of said Lot 6. and which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 6 a distance of . 169.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence westerly at right angles to said east line of Lot 6 a distance of 130.44 feet to an intersection with said Line "A" and there terminating. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Drainage And Utility Easement Agreement dated, , shall set forth the certain terms and conditions of the Easement granted herein, by and between Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife, grantors (collectively, "Grantor "), and the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal corporation, grantee ( "Shorewood "). WITNESSETH: A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property identified as the on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota ( "Land "). B. Grantor intends to convey to Shorewood the right to the use of an Easement for drainage and utility purposes in perpetuity. C. The grant of this Easement will serve the policies of the State of Minnesota and Shorewood for drainage and utility purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and pursuant to the provisions of applicable law, Grantor hereby grants to Shorewood and Shorewood hereby accepts, a perpetual and non - exclusive Easement for drainage and utility purposes to the extent set forth herein. 1. Grant. To accomplish the parties' intent, Grantor hereby grants an non- exclusive and perpetual Easement to Shorewood for drainage and utility purposes in the area of the burdened parcel, which is the Land legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, which constitutes the entirety of the Land to which this Easement applies. 2. Benefit. The Easement shall benefit Shorewood and its residents. 3. Maintenance. Shorewood shall be responsible for the maintenance of the Land and/or Easement area and the drainage and utility system and be responsible for all costs associated therewith. 4. Prohibitions. Grantor shall not perform acts on the Land that would significantly impair or interfere with the Easement or drainage and utility system. The parties acknowledge that the Land is presently used for residential purposes. Grantor and the public may, subject to this Easement, continue malting such use of the Protected Land. Grantor shall not subdivide all or part of the Lands for residential, commercial or industrial development. Grantor shall not construct or install additional buildings or Exhibit D improvements of any kind including fences, driveways, parking lots and roads, on the Land, except as may be allowed by Shorewood. 5. Costs and Liabilities. Shorewood shall assume and be responsible for all obligations and shall bear all costs and liabilities of any kind accruing from its use of the Easement and its installation and maintenance of a drainage and utility system on or under the Land. 6. Waiver. The delay or omission by Grantor or Shorewood to discover a breach by the other or to exercise a right of enforcement as to such breach shall not impair or waive any rights of enforcement hereunder. 7. General. This Easement shall be assignable and flow with the respective Land identified herein. This Easement shall be binding upon and shall benefit the parties' heirs, successors and assigns. This Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. If any portion of this Easement shall be determined to be unenforceable or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. This Easement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when fully executed, shall constitute a binding agreement. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Easement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and fully executed by the parties. This Easement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter described herein. The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are agreed to as of the date set forth above. Grantor: Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife Milton H. Seifert Barrie Seifert City of Shorewood, Minnesota LE , Its: 2 EXHIBIT "A" The north, south, east and west 10 feet of the following described parcel: That part of White Street, as dedicated in Linden Park, that lies westerly of the west line of Linden Hills and easterly of a straight line between the southwest corner of Outlot "A ", Linden Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and a point on the north line of Lot 6, Linden Park, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 as measured along the north line thereof; That part of Lot 6, Linden Hills which lies easterly of a straight line, hereinafter referred to as Line "A ", between a point on the north line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 and a point on the south line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the southwest corner of said Lot 6. and which lies northerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast coiner of said Lot 6; thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 6 a distance of 169.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence westerly at right angles to said east line of Lot 6 a distance of 130.44 feet to an intersection with said Line "A" and there terminating. SHARED DRIVEWAY EASEMENT AGREEMENT This Shared Driveway Easement Agreement dated, , shall set forth the certain terms and conditions of the Easement granted herein, by and between Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife, grantors (collectively, "Grantor ") and Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife, grantees (collectively, "Grantee "), with said parties being the fee owners of the subdivided and created residential lots, and , (collectively, the "Lots "). WITNESSETH: A. Grantor is the sole owner in fee simple of certain real property identified as the on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, located in Hennepin County, Minnesota ( "Land "). B. Grantor intends to create and convey to Grantee the right to the use of an Easement for ingress and egress driveway purposes in perpetuity for the Lots. C. The grant of this Easement will serve the policies of the Grantor, Grantee, the State of Minnesota and the City of Shorewood for ingress and egress access purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants and pursuant to the provisions of applicable law, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee and Grantee hereby accepts, a perpetual and exclusive Easement for ingress and egress driveway purposes to the extent set forth herein. 1. Grant. To accomplish the parties' intent, Grantee hereby grants an exclusive and perpetual Easement to Grantee for ingress and egress driveway purposes in the area of the burdened parcel, which is the Land legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, which constitutes the entirety of the Land to which this Easement applies. 2. Benefit. The Easement shall benefit Grantor, Grantee, the City of Shorewood and its residents. 3. Maintenance Responsibility and Expenses. Grantor shall be responsible for the initial construction of the driveway. Grantee shall be responsible for the maintenance of the driveway, Land and /or Easement after its initial construction, inclusive of all costs associated therewith. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of all future fee owners of Lots and , with said owners each bearing 50% of such ongoing costs. 4. Prohibitions. Grantor shall not perform acts on the Land that would significantly impair or interfere with the Easement or driveway. The parties acknowledge that the Land is presently used for residential purposes. Grantor and Exhibit E Grantee shall not subdivide all or part of the Land for residential, commercial or industrial development. Grantor and Grantee shall not construct or install additional buildings or improvements of any kind including fences, driveways, parking lots and roads, on the Land, except as may be allowed by the City of Shorewood. 5. Waiver. The delay or omission by Grantor or Grantee to discover a breach by the other or to exercise a right of enforcement as to such breach shall not impair or waive any rights of enforcement hereunder. 6. General. This Easement shall be assignable and flow with the respective Land identified herein. This Easement shall be binding upon and shall benefit the parties' heirs, successors and assigns. This Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. If any portion of this Easement shall be determined to be unenforceable or void by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. This Easement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when fully executed, shall constitute a binding agreement. Any alteration, change or modification of or to this Easement, in order to become effective, shall be made in writing and fully executed by the parties. This Easement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter described herein. The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement are agreed to as of the date set forth above. Grantor: Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife Milton H. Seifert Barrie Seifert Grantee: Milton Seifert and Barrie Seifert, husband and wife Milton H. Seifert Barrie Seifert N Exhibit A PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT: That part of the following described tract: Lot 6, Linden Hills, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part thereof lying west of the following described Line "A ": Commencing 22 feet east from the northwest corner of said Lot 6; thence in a straight line to a point in the south line of said Lot 6, distant 22 feet east from the south west corner of said Lot 6 lies easterly of a straight line between a point on the north line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly_ from the northwest corner of said Lot 6 and a point on the south line of said Lot 6, which lies 22 feet easterly from the southewest corner of said Lot 6; and which lies southerly of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence northerly along the east line of said Lot 6 a distance of 169.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence westerly at right angles to said east line of Lot 6 a distance of 130.44 feet to an intersection with said Line "A" and there tenminating. Which lies easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest corner of the above described tract; thence on an assumed bearing of North 76 degrees 14 minutes 13 seconds East, a distance of 29.20 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the south having a central angle of 5 degrees 52 minutes 01 seconds, a radius of 293.02 feet, a distance of 30.00 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 49 degrees 52 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 21.52 feet; thence North 10 degrees 13 minutes 44 seconds East a distance of 62.32 feet; thence North 01 degree 08 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 69.68 feet to the northerly line of the above described tract and there terminating. #7D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Anderson, Warren – Minor Subdivision Meeting Date: 22 May 2017 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 27 April 2017 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Warren Anderson? Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum for detailed background on this item. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the recommendations in the Planning Director’s memorandum. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicant’s application fees cover the administrative costs incurred by the City. In addition, the division will generate $6500 for the park fund and $1200 for the sewer fund. Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicant will have thirty days from the date he receives the resolution to pay the required fees and record the resolution with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 y ifi i r CITY OF FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND Brad Nielsen 27 April 2017 Anderson - Penly Minor Subdivision 405 (17.11) Warren Anderson and Mary Penly are the owners of property located at 25000 Yellowstone Trail (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). They propose to subdivide the lot into two building sites as shown on Exhibit B. The property is zoned R -1A, Single - Family Residential, contains 125,262 square feet of area and is occupied by the applicants' home and two outbuildings. The property has frontage on Yellowstone Trail and is also bordered on its east side by Sam's Way - a platted, but undeveloped, public right -of -way that serves another home to the east. The property is quite wooded and rises approximately 24 feet from east to west. The westerly, vacant parcel will contain 40,000 square feet of area and the easterly lot will have 85,262 square feet. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Both lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements for the R -1A District. With that, it is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The applicants' surveyor must provide legal descriptions for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. From those legal descriptions, the applicants' attorney must draft deeds conveying the easements to the City. 2. The applicants must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. Memorandum Re: Anderson -Penly Minor Subd. 27 April 2017 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($6500) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1200). Credit is allowed for the existing home on the site. 4. Since the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time a building permit is applied for. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Warren Anderson and Mary Penly -2- 1NO poo�a�O�4S p� o. U W dp�Sla � L U L c� E MISS uipJPH 0 0 z eta N >1 cu � J 41A) Mal/ 4101L M 4- .0� \� 0-01 ry o/ Pa qnl-CcAAjLAn, Q pal 2 Z U O. O o U N O, c � � o m Q z<o 0 0 0 m .* 0 -s \ 4 JAM -Q 10 a� c� cl) .. nFT Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Anderson minor subdivision Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY of S 837000 -"� NORTH ig -- _ - __95.35 90. 1 _- -__ - -- -- ---------------- m' Ig __Stone Steps H yyx 4 Tq s 20.3 a . t0 f s ` . 20.J • 2 1 a , a a Pokto poi m v of v1 z i - -- - - - --- 3t. x ` op - -- yStone Poth-r � � } 0 2 7 3/ p� to 2 qp �• Cavered Dock , i ' 1 f , p� 1� Stone Steps _ 1 \ I vo INA1 , • P vices ` . • . 'Our S of "14. Such / e741'00;' w fore >mit any i or � 1.269566/ 4 6 e5 of dot s e � oom� 22' y�1do . SeLL,„y(II '23 Bell° mo9i fio Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR WARREN ANDERSON WHEREAS , Warren Anderson (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS , the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1.The real property legally described in Exhibit A be divided into two parcels, as legally described in Exhibit B. 2. This approval is subject to the Applicant recording this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit C, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. 3.The City Clerk will furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. nd ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22 day of May 2017. ___________________________ SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: ________________________________________________ SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK -1- EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of the Westerly 370 feet of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minn., lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point 400 feet Northerly of the most Southerly corner, as measured along the Westerly line of said Lot, being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence at right angles to said Westerly line to the Easterly line of the above described tract and there terminating. Exhibit A -2- PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION – EASTERLY PARCEL That part of the Westerly 370 feet of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minn., lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point 400 feet Northerly of the most Southerly corner, as measured along the Westerly line of said Lot, being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence at right angles to said Westerly line to the Easterly line of the above described tract and there terminating, lying easterly of the following described line; Commencing at the northwest corner of the above described tract; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said above described tract a distance of 95.35 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southeasterly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 55 said point distant 123.22 feet northeasterly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 55 and there terminating. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION – WESTERLY PARCEL That part of the Westerly 370 feet of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minn., lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point 400 feet Northerly of the most Southerly corner, as measured along the Westerly line of said Lot, being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence at right angles to said Westerly line to the Easterly line of the above described tract and there terminating, lying westerly of the following described line; Commencing at the northwest corner of the above described tract; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said above described tract a distance of 95.35 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southeasterly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 55 said point distant 123.22 feet northeasterly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 55 and there terminating. Exhibit B -3- PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT – EASTERLY PARCEL: The West, South, North and East 10 feet of the following parcel: That part of the Westerly 370 feet of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minn., lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point 400 feet Northerly of the most Southerly corner, as measured along the Westerly line of said Lot, being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence at right angles to said Westerly line to the Easterly line of the above described tract and there terminating, lying easterly of the following described line; Commencing at the northwest corner of the above described tract; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said above described tract a distance of 95.35 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southeasterly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 55 said point distant 123.22 feet northeasterly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 55 and there terminating. PROPOSED DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT – WESTERLY PARCEL: The West, South, North and East 10 feet of the following parcel: That part of the Westerly 370 feet of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minn., lying Southerly of the following described line: Commencing at a point 400 feet Northerly of the most Southerly corner, as measured along the Westerly line of said Lot, being the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence at right angles to said Westerly line to the Easterly line of the above described tract and there terminating, lying westerly of the following described line; Commencing at the northwest corner of the above described tract; thence northeasterly along the northerly line of said above described tract a distance of 95.35 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southeasterly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 55 said point distant 123.22 feet northeasterly from the most southerly corner of said Lot 55 and there terminating. Exhibit C -4- #7E MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Venero, Jay and Doris – Minor Subdivision/Combination Meeting Date: 22 May 2017 Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Planning Director’s Memorandum, dated 28 April 2017 Draft Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve a minor subdivision for Jay and Doris Venero? Background: See attached Planning Director’s memorandum. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed subdivision, subject to the recommendations in the Planning Director’s memorandum. Financial or Budget Considerations: The applicants’ application fees cover the administrative costs incurred by the City. Since park dedication and local sanitary sewer access charges for the parcel being conveyed to Mattamy are covered in the MCC plat, none are required as part of this application. Options: Approve the subdivision as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission; approve the subdivision with different conditions; or deny the subdivision request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Approve the subdivision subject to the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Next Steps and Timelines: The applicants will have thirty days from the date they receive the resolution to record the resolution with Hennepin County. Connection to Vision / Mission: Quality public services and a sustainable tax base. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 CITY OF 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952 -960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 April 2017 RE: Venero, Jay - Minor Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (17.14) BACKGROUND Jay Venero owns the property at 5985 Seamans Drive (see Site Vocation map — Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to split off the rear 117 feet of his property, as shown on Exhibit B, and sell it to Mattamy Homes for inclusion into its Minnetonka Country Club plat. The subject property is zoned R -1A, Single - Family Residential and contains 75,370 square feet of area. It is occupied by Mr. Venero's gardens which are the subject of a previous conditional use permit, allowing limited cormnercial sales from the property. Upon completion of the transaction,'Mattamy will remove the existing garage /greenhouse located on that portion of the site and combine the property with the MCC project. It is worth noting that this was proposed at the time the MCC project was initially approved, subject to approval of a minor subdivision: The westerly portion of the property is occupied by Mr. Venero's home and a detached accessory building. The resulting parcel will contain approximately 45,540 square feet of area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION As mentioned, the easterly parcel will be included into the second phase of the MCC project. The remaining westerly parcel, meets or exceeds the minimum lot size requirements for the R -IA zoning district. It is recommended that the minor division be approved subject to the following: 1. The public right -of -way for Seamans Drive is substandard in terms of width. The survey on Exhibit B shows 16.5 feet of additional right -of -way to be dedicated to the City. The applicant must provide a deed for the additional right -of -way. Memorandum Re: Venero Minor Subdivision 28 April 2017 2. The applicant must provide deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around the perimeter of the westerly lot. Easements for the easterly parcel will be acquired as part of the final plat for the MCC second phase.plat. 3. The applicant must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 4. Since the minor subdivision does not create any new lots, there are no additional fees for park dedication or local sanitary sewer access. These have been accounted for in the MCC project. 5. Since the division itself does not result' in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Cc: Greg Lerud Paul Hornby Lary Brown Tim Keane Brian Theis Jay Venero -2- SHOREWOOD, MI1` NES0TA VICINITY MAP -IM. 0 I NOT TO SCALE SHEET INDEX 1. COVER 2 -3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 4. PRELIMINARY PLAT INDEX 5 -6. PRELIMINARY PLAT 7 -9. PRELIMINARY SITE & UTILITY PLAN 10. GRADING INDEX 11 -15. PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 16 -18. DETAILS T1 —T6. TREE PRESERVATION PLAN N 00 200 4 BENCHMARKS 1. SPIKE IN POWER POLE ±190 FT. EAST OF SAMS WAY ON NORTH SIDE OF YELLOWSTONE TRAIL ELEVATION: 964.73 (NAVD 88) 2. RAILROAD SPIKE IN POKER POLE AT THE NORTHIIEST QUADRANT OF YELL0IYSTONE TRAIL AND CLUB VALLEY ROAD. ELEVATIOPI: 976.86 (NAND 66) CALL BEFORE YOU M Know what's below. Call before you dig. (� Carlson 3890 Pheasant 1 Ridge Drive NE, Suite 100 I hereby certify that this y plan, me or under my Print Name: Marl K sto D avm: ]30 1.1/21/16 Revtse ayout perowner MAT gAMY HOMES environmental Blalne,hlN 56014 or report was prepared by me or under my MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB EXillblt A • englneertng Phone: (763)489 -7900 dlredsup— IslonandthatIamaduty S9natum: /L Designed: B1K 7201 Washington Avenue - Suite 201 McCain 'survey(n9 Fax: ( 763) 489 -7959 thensedPmfessianalEnMnnerunder Shorewood, Minnesota SITE LOCATION wWYLWdsenmcealn,9 the lawsoftheStateofMlnnesota Date: 10!30/15 ttvnsaF:25063 Dale: 10/30/15 Edina, MN 55439 _ to e�m= :wot- somsut- mr,�au,��n. -w e,mwar.- n�'n= r.�..,wi� d.ae..g enero minor subTivision ALTA /NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY , 0S' II // PART OF LOTS 70 AND 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I I I North Line of Lot 70, AUDITOR'S ^ `/ SUBOINSION N0. 133 F, �o _ Z2� >_ n �o CJ ¢R MATTAMY HOMES. LLC VICINITY DAP i d 0 10 20 40 ( SCALE IN FEET ) (NO SCALE) I I I N SmitM1to n Rd. of L City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, MN Sectfon 33, Township 117, Range 23 PA'?M OE5GW/PACiV.- (Per Schedule A of Ttle Commitment N.. 17- 03Of46ZC, with a commitment date of March 7th, 2017 at 7.30 AIA., prepared by DCA Ube as fssuing agents far Chicago Title Insuronce Campony) Lot 70, EXCEPT the North 2 acres thereof, Auditor's 5ubdVsfon Number One Hundred Thirty- Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO: The South IJ feat of the North 2 -sa of Lot 70, Auditors 5ubdMsicn Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133), Henncpfn C -ty, W oesota. EXCEPT,' That part of Lot 70, Auditor's Subdh /clan Number Cho hundred Thirty -Three (133), Hennepin County, Affnnesoto which Iles southerly of a line drain from a pat an the west Ifne of said Lot 70 dfstant J3.10 feet earth measured along the west line of Lots 70 and 71 In said audn-'e subdMel" from the s thnest toner of Lot 16, 'Afeekers Ovtlote to Excdscr' to a paint on the east Ifne of said Lot 70 dfstant 47.80 feet north, measured along the east One of said Lots 70 & 7f from the southeast comer of sold Lot 16. Abstract Property. And The floth 228.21 /set of the South 276.01 feet of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, a ,,cured along and at rfght angles to the most Westerly Its said Lot 50, Auditor's Subdhfsfon No. f33, Hmncpfn County, Minnesota m T ens Property, Being rsp',tered as 11 s,4dencsd by Certf Rcate of Title No. 1420593. Abstract of Who is not contained h Ne. GENERAL NOBS' 1) The 8Nd vok for ihts sunny nos completed on AprJ 3rd, 2017. 2) Bearings shown hereon are based on the Nor th line of the South fJ ft. of the North 2 acres of Lot 70, AU0ITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 133, which is assumed to bear N68°3755'Ye.. 3) Surveyed property address - Unassfgned. 4) Per FEM Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 2705JC0313F pith an affedim date of November 4th, 2016, surveyed property Is focated 7 Zone X. areas det -hhed to be outsfds 0.2£ annual ch- fioodplafn. 5) Its current zoning cl-t Cotfon was prodded by the Insurer. 6) 5urveyed property contains 180,256 sq. ft. (11.84 acres). 7) Per Schedvfe B, Sectfor Two Exceptions of the vbove listed This Commitment: Item 2 - Variance recorded as Document fro. 5794013 (Abstract). (x ) Ile. 3 - Conditional Use Permit recorded as Document No. 6757274 (Abstract). ( sJ Its. 4 - Condit /anal Use Permit recorded as Document No. 6813761 (Abstract). (.11) Item 5 - Ord, of Court setting Judicial Landmarks recorded as Document No. 977567 (Temens).( xJ STATEIWE14T OF POSSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS 1� 1) Power pde and overhead dectn'c t(nes Ire easterly of R7ght -of -way Ifne. C ?ffRCARCVC To:Mattamy Homes, LLC; day A. Vemam. DCA T Is as fssuing agents for Chicago Title Insurance Company. This is to certify that this mopp o plat and the survey on NMch R N based ware made In accordance with the 2016 tAinimum Standard Detail Requiremsn is Por ALrA/NSPS Land Titre Surveys, join tfy establfJred and adopted by ALTA and NSPS, and indud.a Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(a)1 7(a), 6, and 13 of Table A thereof. The field nark nos completed on April 3rd, 2017. Data of Plat or Map: Ap O 10th, 2017 Signed: Cadson A1c Coin, Inc. By D RAFT Thomas R. Balluff, L.S. Minnesota License No. 40361 B ,RTY SURVEY Q Fmca Iles tA4 R ` t 140 r_65 R Naa n «Walt of I.vcyerty 1'ne _ _____ -M I LEGEND 00 �z ...165x. 326.72 -+ „ II _\�� `/ i • - Denotes Found fron Monument a+ - Denotes Overhead Electric e S88 °42'08' W Denotes Sanitary Manhole -- > - - ->- - Denotes Sanitary Sewer �0 3 ON /NER: . a - D eno es M a'I ox Denotes Stor Sewer JONATHAN & KATHERINE HIOpNS Pl0:33I1723330003 V 7 - +j• p Denotes Catch B asI n - Denotes Existing Fence as noted nV r lv LOT TO r \"rL JIV�I ° Denotes Electric Meter Denotes _ o^ O - Denotes Telephone Box - Gravel Surface E X C E P _ --- .- s-- T 1 0 aD I e of Lot 50, AUDTORS ' SUBDIVISION N0. 133 Denotes Utility Pale Denotes Concrete Surface "` ® - Denotes Hand Hd a _- - Denotes B(tun O - Denotes Miscellaneous Manhole �-� Southwest Comer Lot Southeast Comer of Lot 16, - ------ - - - - -- Exhi ;,' of I °NEEKERS WTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR- C ' ERS °MEEKERS CUTLOTS TO EXCELSI0�4" ' I O avc - Denotes love Pfpe PRC B ,RTY SURVEY CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR JAY AND DORIS VENERO WHEREAS, Jay and Doris Venero (Applicants) are the owners of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to convey the easterly parcel to Mattamy Homes, LLC to legally combine with its Minnetonka Country Club 2nd Addition final plat; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City a right-of-way easement legally described in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits D, attached hereto and made a part hereof, and WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described in Exhibit A be divided into two parcels, as legally described in Exhibit B. 2. This approval is subject to the following conditions: a. The easterly parcel as described in Exhibit B shall be conveyed to Mattamy Homes, LLC for legal combination to its Minnetonka Country Club 2nd Addition final plat. b. The Applicants shall record this resolution, together with the right-of-way easement legally described in Exhibit C and the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits D, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. 3. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. -1- ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of May 2017. SCOTT ZERBY, MAYOR ATTEST: SANDIE THONE, CITY CLERK -2- VENERO —EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 70, EXCEPT the North 2 acres thereof, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty- Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. ALSO: The South 13 feet of the North 2 acres of Lot 70, Auditor's Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty-Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXCEPT; That part of Lot 70, Auditor's Subdivision Number One hundred Thirty-Three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies southerly of a line drawn from a point on the west line of said Lot 70 distant 33.10 feet north measured along the west line of Lots 70 and 71 in said auditor's subdivision from the southwest corner of Lot 16, "Meekers Outlots to Excelsior" to a point on the east line of said Lot 70 distant 47.80 feet north, measured along the east line of said Lots 70 & 71 from the southeast corner of said Lot 16. AND The North 228.21 feet of the South 276.01 feet of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along and at right angles to the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, Auditor's Subdivision No. 133, Hennepin County, Minn. Exhibit A -3- PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION—WESTERLY PARCEL That part of Lot 70, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 106.00 feet, lying South of the North line of the South 13.00 feet of the North 2 acres of said Lot 70, and lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 70 distant 33.10 feet North measured along the West line of Lots 70 and 71 in said AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133 from the Southwest corner of Lot 16, "MEEKERS OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR" to a point on the East line of said Lot 70 distant 47.80 feet North, measured along the East line of said Lots 70 & 71 from the Southeast corner of said Lot 16. Subject to an easement for roadway purposes over, under, and across the West 16.50 feet thereof. Also, subject to an easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under, and across the East 10.00 feet thereof, the East 10.00 feet of the West 26.50 feet thereof, that part of the north 10.00 feet lying East of the West 16.50 feet thereof, and that part of the South 10.00 feet lying East of the West 16.50 feet thereof. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION—EASTERLY PARCEL The East 106.00 feet of that part of Lot 70, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of the North line of the South 13.00 feet of the North 2 acres of said Lot 70, and lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 70 distant 33.10 feet North measured along the West line of Lots 70 and 71 in said AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133 from the Southwest corner of Lot 16, "MEEKERS OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR" to a point on the East line of said Lot 70 distant 47.80 feet North, measured along the East line of said Lots 70 & 71 from the Southeast corner of said Lot 16. And The North 228.21 feet of the South 276.01 feet of the most Westerly 14 feet of Lot 50, as measured along and at right angles to the most Westerly line of said Lot 50, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Exhibit B -4- PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT—LEGAL DESCRIPTION The West 16.50 feet of the property described as follows: That part of Lot 70, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota, lying West of the East 106.00 feet, lying South of the North line of the South 13.00 feet of the North 2 acres of said Lot 70, and lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 70 distant 3 3.10 feet North measured along the West line of Lots 70 and 71 in said AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133 from the Southwest corner of Lot 16, "MEEKERS OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR" to a point on the East line of said Lot 70 distant 47.80 feet North, measured along the East line of said Lots 70 & 71 from the Southeast corner of said Lot 16. Exhibit C -5- PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT—LEGAL DESCRIPTION The East 10.00 feet, the East 10.00 feet of the West 26.50 feet, that part of the north 10.00 feet lying East of the West 16.50 feet, and that part of the South 10.00 feet lying East of the West 16.50 feet, of the parcel described as follows: That part of Lot 70, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County Minnesota, lying West of the East 106.00 feet, lying South of the North line of the South 13.00 feet of the North 2 acres of said Lot 70, and lying northerly of a line drawn from a point on the West line of said Lot 70 distant 3 3.10 feet North measured along the West line of Lots 70 and 71 in said AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 133 from the Southwest corner of Lot 16, "MEEKERS OUTLOTS TO EXCELSIOR" to a point on the East line of said Lot 70 distant 47.80 feet North, measured along the East line of said Lots 70 & 71 from the Southeast corner of said Lot 16. Exhibit D -6- #7F MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Minnetonka Country Club—Early Grading Agreement Meeting Date: 28 March 2017 (updated 22 May 2017) Prepared by: Brad Nielsen Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen Attachments: Draft Agreement Draft Resolution City Engineer Letter Policy Consideration: Should the City enter into an agreement authorizing Mattamy Homes to begin work on the grading and underground utilities prior to approval of the final plat for the project? Background: Mattamy Homes has requested a grading permit that would allow them to begin earthwork on MCC project in advance of having a final plat approved. Working with the City Attorney, we have prepared an early grading development agreement whereby the developer is required to provide security sufficient to cover site restoration if it fails to obtain final plat approval per the City's subdivision regulations. The agreement is attached for your consideration. Conditions of approval include the developer obtaining "no further action" letters from the Department of Agriculture and the MPCA(which have been done), approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,which is on their agenda for this evening, and City Engineer's approval. This item was continued to the 22 May meeting based on concerns by Council as to the status of Phase 1 improvements. The City Engineer has provided a letter describing what work remains to be done, the cost of those improvements and the status of financial security. As part of that letter, Mattamy has provided an updated schedule for completion of improvements. A resolution authorizing staff to enter into the agreement is attached for your consideration. Financial or Budget Considerations: Based on the City Engineer's estimate of restoration costs, the developer will be required to submit an additional letter of credit for$157,000. Options: Approve the agreement; reject the agreement; or modify conditions of approval. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution. We also wish to emphasize that the second phase is being proposed approximately one year sooner than we had initially anticipated. This is considered to be of considerable benefit to the City:1) the internal trail system will be completed earlier,2)residents will be exposed to heavy construction activity over fewer years,and 3) the City will receive park dedication fees at least one year earlier than anticipated. Next Steps and Timelines: The developer mobilized its grading equipment in advance of seasonal road restrictions and is awaiting the Council's blessing. 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 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA AGREEMENT REGARDING GRADING AND SITE UTILITY WORK OF PHASE TWO MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS , the applicant Mattamy Minneapolis, LLC ("Developer"), a limited liability company under the laws of the State of Delaware, owners of the property described as Minnetonka County Club ("MCC"), has applied for and received concept and development stage planned unit development ("PUD") approval of the above described property for the property designated as MCC; and WHEREAS , on 12 October 2015, the Shorewood City Council approved the concept stage PUD subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, on 22 February 2016, the Shorewood City Council approved the development stage and preliminary plat subject to conditions; and WHEREAS , the applicant has requested early grading of specific portions the property within the second phase of the PUD, and the Council has approved certain work on site subject to the Developer executing this Agreement and providing security in an amount established by the City Engineer. NOW THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1. Developer will commence limited grading of the site only to the extent approved by the City Engineer and as set forth in the Phase 2 Grading, Development and Erosion Control Plan, dated _______________, prepared by Carlson and McCain and on file at the Shorewood City Offices. No work will be undertaken until Developer has: A. Submitted and has approved by the City Engineer grading and erosion control plans for the site. B. Secured approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD") for all areas where grading will not be permitted pending final resolution of wetland issues. 4823-1784-9903.1 C. Secured no further action letters from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the contaminated soil remediation that has taken place on the site. D. Resolved drainage and erosion control issues to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. E. Hours of operation shall be limited as to those contained in the adopted City Engineering Manual. F. Haul routes for vehicles used in transport of materials shall be designated by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has discretion to change the designated haul routes in event of unforeseen circumstances. This Agreement may be terminated and all work on the site may be terminated by the City for applicant’s failure to use the designated haul routes. G. Applicant shall provide for daily street sweeping of Smithtown Road, or as deemed necessary by the City Engineer or City Public Works Supervisor. 2. Limitations. Developer will undertake such work with knowledge that not all conditions of final plat approval for Phase 2 have been satisfied. All work undertaken prior to satisfaction of all conditions of final plat approval and full compliance with City ordinances including, but not limited to, execution of Developer’s Agreement and posting of all required security, is solely at the risk of Developer. 3. Indemnification. Developer shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any and all claims or causes of action of whatever nature related to the grading and preparation of the site as set forth in this Agreement. Said indemnity and agreement to hold the City harmless includes payment of any and all attorney’s fees, engineering fees, witness fees or any other costs and disbursements related to this Agreement, including any City fees or costs expended to enforce the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4. Financial Security. In order to ensure compliance with this Agreement, or to assure completion or restoration of the site, Developer shall post the following securities: (a)An Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit with automatic renewal provision or cash in the amount of $157,000 in favor of the City. The Letter of Credit shall remain in place until all work set forth in this Agreement (Phase 2) as set forth on the plans referenced in 1., above has been completed and approved by the City Engineer. Additional Letters of Credit must be in place prior to any work commencing on additional Grading Phases. The Letter of Credit shall be in a form approved by the City, with an FDIC approved Bank within an office at which the Letter of Credit can be drawn within fifty (50) miles of the City. If the Letter of Credit remains in place at the time of execution of a Developer’s Agreement, the Letter of Credit, 2 4823-1784-9903.1 or a portion thereof, as determined by the City Engineer, may be extended as security for the Developer’s Agreement. (b) The Letter of Credit referenced in (a), above, shall also serve as security for purposes of repair and overlay of City street haul routes (or other roads if improperly used) damaged by vehicles and machinery involved in excavation and transportation of material to and from the subject site. (c) The Letter of Credit referenced in (a), above, shall also serve as security for purposes of reimbursing the City for any street sweeping costs and expenses not timely undertaken by applicant. In the event that applicant does not complete the daily required street sweeping the City public works may undertake the task and shall be reimbursed for their costs and expenses at established City rates. 5. Waiver. The City makes no representations that this Agreement constitutes or implies that conditions of preliminary or final plat approval have been satisfied. Dated: ___ May 2017 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandi Thone, City Clerk Dated: ___ 2017 MATTAMY MINNEAPOLIS, LLC By: Its: 3 4823-1784-9903.1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT REGARDING GRADING AND SITE UTILITY WORK OF PHASE 2 MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Mattamy Homes of Minnesota LLC has requested permission to begin grading, utility and site work for Phase 2 of the Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. in advance of Final Plan and Final Plat approval for the project; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that disturbed areas of the subject property will be restored in the event the final plat is not secured within the time limits imposed by the Shorewood Subdivision Code; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Shorewood City Council hereby approves and authorizes the City Administrator to execute the Agreement Regarding Grading and Site Utility Work of Phase 2 Minnetonka Country Club P.U.D. on behalf of the City. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 22nd day of May 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk WSB AVMMEMMM 477 Temperance Street St. Paul,MN 55101 (651)286-8450 May 17, 2017 Mr. Greg Lerud City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Minnetonka Country Club Improvements City Project No. 15-06 WSB Project No. 02925-120 Dear Mr. Lerud: The City Council considered approving a grading permit for the Minnetonka Country Club 2nd Addition at the May 8, 2017 Council meeting. The Mayor and Council had some concerns about the completion of the Minnetonka Country Club 1 st Addition improvements, prior to issuing a permit to start construction of the second addition. In the Council's discussion about the grading permit for the Minnetonka Country Club 2nd Addition, Council requested the construction schedule for the first addition and some confidence the financial securities will cover the remaining work items. Staff requested Mattamy provide their schedule for completion for the first addition of the development. Mattamy has provided their schedule to construct the remaining improvements for the first addition and their proposed schedules for the second and third additions. Mattamy's development construction schedule is enclosed. As a summary, the first addition construction schedule for 2017 includes the following: • Sidewalk construction adjacent to streets • Country Club Road trail • Bituminous wear course (final lift) 2018 Construction for the first phase includes: ■ Open space trail construction (Needs earthwork from Phase 2 and 3) Council should also note, as with all construction projects, the schedule is subject to change due to weather conditions. Mattamy submitted a request for reduction in the letter of credit in November of 2016. On December 12, 2016, Council did authorize a reduction in the letter of credit (financial securities)for the utility and street improvements for the Minnetonka Country Club, 1 st Addition. The original letter of credit submitted and reviewed by staff was $4,234,000, which by policy is 150% of the construction amount bid. The December 12, 2016, recommendation for letter of credit reduction to $1,077,600, was reviewed by staff and is sufficient for the completion of the sidewalks, trails, and bituminous wearing course for the first addition. The value of the work remaining is $718,400 and by policy, the reduction recommendation included the cost to construct the remaining items, plus 150% of the amount. The developer will be required to complete all punch list items for the public improvements prior to staff recommendation to accept the improvements and release of the financial securities. By agreement, the Building a legacy—your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer I wsbeng.com K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR PTH-GLemd-051717-MCC LOC and Schedule for CC.docx Mr. Greg Lerud May 17, 2017 Page 2 developer warrants the construction of the improvements for 2-years after city acceptance of the public improvements. If you have questions or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, WSB &Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer Enclosure ph K:\02925-120\Admin\Docs\LTR PTH-GLemd-051717-MCC LOC and Schedule for CC.docx co m CL Y m 3 v u .N L u m ° C - ++ O � E txo OJ N > L n' N L 0- L ti0 C m v 3 ra 3 'B nn � p v v o � v N O e l C N []. EE 0- N O > E 6 67 N N C N m u O u ° _ O C N CL —% `. ,�, N Y v� O N ++ v N E$ cu > m v c 3 L 4= C C — pp L .0 b O O 00+ i 'p ,� -p N N Q O ° O 0 N ccN u v= d UJ d .� a U N .0 O U _° E C C m G) m 00 aL-+ , O N E u v °- c °q v U `1 C `) E •j = -0 >. U1 Q- N U O U m E O d I- 1.-. ... ±� c ( 1 i- N 7 co u O 0 co O Z 00 u O 00 v Lnn_ co m 00 00 H c 00 a m 00 d1 Q . I I I . I . a —i. U a O 4-J Co. c ; W ^U' W � � O LpL 0 L p a co V Y L C D 4+ aN-1 U i v v O O _C U co > .Y o z � O O 5.. Q C) Q Li � p N W W W W W r w r N '7' w w W W W W W J J J J J a d d 2 d m 0 0 0 0 0 U U U U U C C ¢0 ' N C O C—�' 0 m -, E bA C to > C O C O N C O O O v ° 2 u o. v -0 ° u Y U U o ° .0 U CL ; ¢ a CL Q N N _ � 4- Q h i-+ QyJ — C C m N f9 O U v Ln E C O U C U$ O J m UJ �-' i'n m a. C U O v m n v E O v o O$ J m a C v O 0° �0 v* E N y = CU Y_ i-+ 3 Y_ - , u Z) L 1 N _p -0 Ll_ m W Lt' N N _O v U LL. W Y V N v'i m U a n C r + C N Q o N O m N m L N m L U N m L N m m L #8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title/Subject: Accept Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvements,City Project 17-12. Meeting Date: 5/22/2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Quote Results Summary, Letter of Recommendation Background: The City has received comments from local residents adjacent to the Freeman Park south parking lot regarding the dust generated from the lot during the summer and fall months. After discussions with Staff and the Shorewood City Council, Staff has solicited quotes from local contractors to perform minor grading and bituminous paving of the lot to alleviate the dust concerns when the lot is in use. Quotes were requested from six local contractors. The City received four quotes for the project with the lowest responsive quote received from Wm Mueller&Sons, Inc.,with the low quote of$63,854.00, compared to the Engineer's Opinion of Cost of$71,150.00. Options: Staff has provided the following options for Council to consider for this project. 1. Approve the resolution accepting quotes and awarding the contract to the lowest responsible and responsive quote for the Freeman Park Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12. 2. Reject all quotes for the Freeman Park Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12. 3. Take no action on this item at this time. 4. Provide staff other direction. Recommendation/Action Requested: City staff recommends Council approve the Resolution Accepting Quotes and Award of Construction Contract for the Freeman Park Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12, to Wm Mueller& Sons, Inc.,for their low quote of$63,854.00. 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. 17 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING QUOTES AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE FREEMAN PARK SOUTH PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 17-12 WHEREAS, pursuant to an invitation to provide quotes for local improvements designated as the Freeman Park South Parking Lot Improvement Project, City Project 17-12, quotes were received, opened on May 3, 2017, and tabulated according to law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc. 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 Wm Mueller & Sons, Inc. in the name of the City of Shorewood, Project No. 17-12, 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 22nd day of May, 2017. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk PROJECT: Freeman Park Parking Lot Paving Improvements OWNER: City of Shorewood, MN City Project No. 17-12 WSB PROJECT NO.: 2925-39 Quotes Opened: Wednesday, May 3, 2017, at 10:00 am Contractor Grand Total Bid 1 Wm. Mueller& Sons, Inc. $63,854.00 2 Buck Blacktop $71,925.00 3 Valley Paving $84,406.00 4 Barber Construction Co., Inc. $98,250.00 Engineer's Opinion of Cost $71,150.00 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct tabulation of the bids as received on May 3, 2017. Paul Hornby, PE rod=ject Manager =Denotes corrected figure KM2925-3901AdmiMConstruction AdminOid lnfo12925-39 Bid Tab Summary 050317 AL WSB 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 (651)286-8450 May 3, 2017 Honorable Mayor and Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Freeman Park Parking Lot Paving Improvements City of Shorewood Project No. 17-12 WSB Project No. 2925-39 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Quotes were received for the above-referenced project on Wednesday, May 3, 2017, and were opened in the office of the City Engineer. Four quotes were received. The quotes were checked for mathematical accuracy. Please find enclosed the summary indicating the low quote as submitted by Wm. Mueller& Sons, Inc., Hamburg, MN in the amount of$63,854.00. The Engineer's Estimate was $71,150.00. We recommend that the City Council consider these quotes and award a contract in the amount of $63,854.00 to Wm. Mueller& Sons, Inc. based on the results of the quotes received. Sincerely, WSB &Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, PE Associate Enclosures kkp Building a legacy—your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer I wsbeng.com K:\02925-390\Admin\Construction Admin\Bid Info\292539 LTR Rec 050317.docx #8B MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project,City Project 14-10 Accept Constructed Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the Meeting Date: May 22, 2017 Prepared by: Paul Hornby Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary Background: August 24, 2015, the City Council accepted bids and awarded the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project to S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. The Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project extended along the south side of Smithtown Road from the Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail to Country Club Road and included concrete sidewalk, concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, bituminous paving and restoration. S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. has completed the scheduled work in general conformance with the Contract documents and has requested final payment. The City Engineer has determined that the project is complete and final payment is appropriate. S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. has submitted the two-year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC-134 Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers and the signed request for final payment. A Resolution Accepting Improvements for the Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14-10, and Authorizing Final Payment is included for Council consideration of approval. Financial or Budget Considerations: The Capital Improvement Plan budget includes$795,000 for construction and $1,340,000 for overall project costs. The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $769,873.00 and the final project construction amount is$860,284.47. The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 10/Final is$71,472.24. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approval of the Resolution Accepting Improvements for Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project, City Project 14-10 and Authorizing Final Payment to S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. in the amount of$71,472.24. 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. 17 - A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT 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, the Contractor has completed the project work and has requested City acceptance of the project and final payment for the work performed and documented to date; and, WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: The City hereby accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and all warranties shall commence as of the date of substantial completion, May 2, 2017. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of May, 2017. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Pay Voucher Page 1 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 WSB Project 01459-94 - SHOR- Smithtown Road East Sidewalk Extension Project Final Pay Voucher No. 10 Contractor: S. M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. Contract No. 650 Quaker Avenue Vendor No. Jordan, MN 55352 For Period: 3/21/2017 - 5/2/2017 Warrant# Date Contract Amounts Funds Encumbered Original Contract $769,873.00 Original $769,873.00 Contract Changes $110,329.98 Additional N/A Revised Contract $880,202.98 Total $769,873.00 Work Certified To Date Base Bid Items $706,586.48 Backsheet $0.00 Change Order $0.00 Supplemental Agreement $0.00 Work Order $153,697.99 Material On Hand $0.00 Total $860,284.47 Work Certified Work Certified Less Amount Less Previous Amount Paid Total Amount This Pay Voucher To Date Retained Payments This Pay Voucher Paid To Date 01459-94 $29,955.81 $860,284.47 $0.00 $788,812.23 $71,472.24 $860,284.47 Percent Retained: 0% Amount Paid This Final Pay Voucher 1 $71,472.24 1 hereby certify that a Final Examination has been made of the noted Contract, that the Contract has been completed, that the entire amount of Work Shown in this Final Voucher has been performed and the Total Value of the Work Performed in accordance with, and pursuant to, the terms of the Contract is as shown in this Final Voucher. Approved By Approved By S. M. Hentges &Sons, Inc. Project Engineer Contractor Date Date Approved By City of Shorewood Date Pay Voucher Page 2 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Payment Summary No. From Date To Date Work Certified Amount Retained Amount Paid Per Pay Voucher Per Pay Voucher Per Pay Voucher 1 02/01/2016 02/29/2016 $12,757.52 $637.88 $12,119.64 2 03/01/2016 05/20/2016 $75,294.80 $3,764.74 $71,530.06 3 05/21/2016 05/31/2016 $49,540.08 $2,477.00 $47,063.08 4 06/01/2016 06/30/2016 $87,312.50 $4,365.63 $82,946.87 5 07/01/2016 07/31/2016 $110,970.45 $5,548.52 $105,421.93 6 08/01/2016 08/31/2016 $251,590.97 $12,579.55 $239,011.42 7 09/01/2016 09/30/2016 $162,493.20 $8,124.66 $154,368.54 8 10/01/2016 02/07/2017 $75,079.14 $3,753.95 $71,325.19 9 02/08/2017 03/20/2017 $5,290.00 $264.50 $5,025.50 10 03/21/2017 05/02/2017 $29,955.81 ($41,516.43) $71,472.24 Totals: $860,284.47 $0.00 $860,284.47 01459-94 Funding Category Report Funding Work Less Less Amount Paid Total Category Certified Amount Previous This Amount Paid No. To Date Retained Payments Pay Voucher To Date UNF 860,284.45 0.00 788,812.22 71,472.24 860,284.45 Totals: $860,284.45 $0.00 $788,812.22 $71,472.24 $860,284.45 01459-94 Funding Source Report Accounting Funding Amount Paid Revised Funds Paid To No. Source This Contract Encumbered Contractor Pay Voucher Amount To Date To Date UNF Unfunded 71,472.24 880,202.98 769,873.00 860,284.45 Totals: $71,472.24 $880,202.98 $769,873.00 $860,284.45 Pay Voucher Page 3 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher SCHEDULE A-SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $32,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $32,000.00 2 2101.502 CLEARING TREE $325.00 11 0 $0.00 14 $4,550.00 3 2101.507 GRUBBING TREE $85.00 11 0 $0.00 17 $1,445.00 4 2101.511 CLEARING & LS $4,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $4,000.00 GRUBBING CLEARING AND 5 2101.603 GRUBBING- L F $20.00 90 0 $0.00 88 $1,760.00 HEDGE 6 2104.501 REMOVE CURB & L F $3.00 200 -27 ($81.00) 257 $771.00 GUTTER 7 2104.503 REMOVE S F $1.00 350 0 $0.00 284.7 $284.70 CONCRETE WALK REMOVE 8 2104.505 BITUMINOUS S Y $4.00 500 0 $0.00 945.1 $3,780.40 DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVE 9 2104.505 BITUMINOUS S Y $5.00 2700 0 $0.00 2656.5 $13,282.50 PAVEMENT 10 2104.509 REMOVE SIGN EACH $58.00 13 0 $0.00 13 $754.00 11 2104.509 REMOVE MAIL BOX EACH $21.00 5 0 $0.00 2 $42.00 SUPPORT SAWING 12 2104.511 CONCRETE L F $8.00 30 0 $0.00 6 $48.00 PAVEMENT SAWING 13 2104.513 BITUMINOUS L F $2.60 4400 0 $0.00 4312.6 $11,212.76 PAVEMENT 14 2104.521 SALVAGE L F $20.00 30 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 RETAINING WALL 15 2104.523 SALVAGE EACH $1,200.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $1,200.00 HYDRANT&VALVE 16 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN EACH $60.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 17 2104.523 SALVAGE AND EACH $110.00 3 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 REINSTALL POST SALVAGE AND 18 2104.601 REINSTALL LUMP $1,500.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 LANDSCAPE SUM STRUCTURES SALVAGE AND 19 2104.602 REINSTALL EACH $46.00 18 0 $0.00 18 $828.00 MAILBOX 20 2105.501 COMMON C Y $45.00 830 0 $0.00 830 $37,350.00 EXCAVATION (P) Pay Voucher Page 4 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher 21 2105.507 SUBGRADE C Y $45.00 100 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 EXCAVATION 22 2105.521 GRANULAR C Y $28.00 200 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 BORROW(CV) 23 2105.604 GEOTEXTILE S Y $3.50 200 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 FABRIC TYPE IV STREET SWEEPER 24 2123.610 (WITH PICKUP HOUR $145.00 40 0 $0.00 64.5 $9,352.50 BROOM) 25 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE TON $31.00 100 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CLASS 2 26 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE TON $21.65 1500 0 $0.00 2053.71 $44,462.82 CLASS 5 BITUMINOUS 27 2231.501 PATCHING TON $135.00 500 0 $0.00 455.8 $61,533.00 MIXTURE BITUMINOUS 28 2357.502 MATERIAL FOR GAL $10.00 100 0 $0.00 300 $3,000.00 TACK COAT TYPE SP 9.5 29 2360.503 WEARING COURSE SQ YD $50.00 350 0 $0.00 712 $35,600.00 MIX (2,C) 3.0" THICK 30 2411.618 BOULDER SF $33.00 200 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 RETAINING WALL 31 2504.602 INSTALL HYDRANT EACH $2,810.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $2,810.00 &VALVE 32 2504.602 ADJUST HYDRANT EACH $2,265.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 &GATE VALVE 33 2504.602 ADJUST GATE EACH $566.00 5 0 $0.00 6 $3,396.00 VALVE & BOX 34 12504.602 ADJUST CURB BOX EACH $429.00 3 0 $0.00 2 $858.00 35 2504.602 IRRIGATION EACH $294.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 SYSTEM REPAIR 36 2505.601 UTILITY LS $1,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $1,000.00 COORDINATION 37 2506.522 ADJUST FRAME & EACH $395.00 3 0 $0.00 6 $2,370.00 RING CASTING 38 2521.501 4" CONCRETE SF $4.40 24500 -547.3 ($2,408.12) 20850.2 $91,740.88 WALK 39 2521.501 6" CONCRETE SF $6.70 3800 0 $0.00 2157.3 $14,453.91 WALK 40 2521.501 8" CONCRETE SF $9.15 400 0 $0.00 172.8 $1,581.12 WALK CONCRETE CURB 41 2531.501 &GUTTER DESIGN L F $12.95 4000 -75 ($971.25) 4061 $52,589.95 B618 Pay Voucher Page 5 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher 42 2531.601 ADA COMPLIANCE LS $2,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $2,500.00 SUPERVISOR 43 2531.618 TRUNCATED SF $53.00 84 0 $0.00 129.6 $6,868.80 DOMES 44 2540.602 MAIL BOX EACH $90.00 5 0 $0.00 2 $180.00 SUPPORT 45 2540.602 MAIL BOX EACH $31.00 18 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 (TEMPORARY) 46 2545.602 ADJUST EACH $615.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 HANDHOLE 47 2557.602 REPAIR DOG EACH $180.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 FENCE 48 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $15,000.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $15,000.00 49 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE SF $40.00 74 0 $0.00 74 $2,960.00 INSTALL SIGN 50 2564.536 PANEL TYPE EACH $475.00 2 0 $0.00 2 $950.00 SPECIAL 51 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN EACH $205.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $205.00 FURNISH AND 52 2571.601 INSTALL EACH $750.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CONIFEROUS TREE 8' HT B&B FURNISH 53 2571.601 CONIFEROUS TREE EACH $275.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 8' HT B&B FURNISH 54 2571.602 DECIDUOUS TREE EACH $275.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 2.5" CAL B&B FURNISH AND 55 2571.602 INSTALL EACH $750.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 DECIDUOUS TREE 2.5" CAL B&B 56 2572.602 TREE PRUNING EACH $153.00 5 0 $0.00 5 $765.00 57 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE L F $2.15 2000 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 STORM DRAIN 58 2573.530 INLET EACH $130.00 40 0 $0.00 21 $2,730.00 PROTECTION SEDIMENT 59 2573.533 CONTROL LOG L F $2.45 4300 0 $0.00 720 $1,764.00 TYPE WOOD FIBER 60 2574.508 FERTILIZER TYPE 3 LB $0.35 350 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 61 2574.525 COMMON TOPSOIL C Y $18.00 500 0 $0.00 221 $3,978.00 BORROW SEED MIXTURE 25- Pay Voucher Page 6 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher 62 2575.502 151 LB $2.40 60 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 63 2575.502 241ED MIXTURE 35- LB $16.00 10 0 $0.00 18.25 $292.00 64 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25- LB $21.00 10 0 $0.00 17.5 $367.50 65 2575.519 DISK ANCHORING ACRE $435.00 0.5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 EROSION 66 2575.523 CONTROL S Y $2.47 2000 0 $0.00 1634.5 $4,037.22 BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 67 2575.605 HYDROMULCH SQ YD $0.45 4200 0 $0.00 4025.3 $1,811.39 TYPE 6 68 2575.605 SEEDING ACRE $435.00 1 0 $0.00 1.5 $652.50 69 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE L F $0.16 7300 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 WHITE-PAINT 70 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE L F $0.16 100 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 YELLOW-PAINT 4" DOUBLE SOLID 71 2582.502 LINE YELLOW- L F $0.32 4300 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 PAINT 72 2582.503 CROSSWALK SF $7.50 110 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 MARKING-PAINT Totals For Section SCHEDULE A -SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: ($3,460.37) $483,117.95 SCHEDULE B -STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 73 2104.501 REMOVE PIPE L F $16.00 100 0 $0.00 234 $3,744.00 DRAIN 74 2104.501 REMOVE SEWER L F $15.75 200 0 $0.00 169.5 $2,669.63 PIPE (STORM) REMOVE 75 2104.509 DRAINAGE EACH $200.00 2 0 $0.00 2.5 $500.00 STRUCTURE GRANULAR 76 2451.609 FOUNDATION TON $25.00 200 0 $0.00 1048.03 $26,200.75 AND/OR BEDDING 77 2501.511 12" CS PIPE L F $40.00 100 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CULVERT 78 2501.515 12" CS PIPE APRON EACH $318.00 8 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 79 2501.525 22' SPAN RC PIPE- EACH $1,290.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 ARCH APRON TRASH GUARD 80 2501.602 FOR 22" SPAN PIPE EACH $88.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 APRON 81 2502.541 4" PERF PVC PIPE L F $11.90 2900 0 $0.00 2553 $30,380.70 DRAIN 6" PERF PVC PIPE Pay Voucher Page 7 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher 82 2502.541 DRAIN L F $18.00 200 0 $0.00 155 $2,790.00 22" SPAN RC PIPE- 83 2503.521 ARCH SEWER CL L F $80.00 20 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 IIA 12" RC PIPE 84 2503.541 SEWER DES 3006 L F $42.00 1600 0 $0.00 1097 $46,074.00 CL V 15" RC PIPE 85 2503.541 SEWER DES 3006 L F $44.50 90 0 $0.00 26 $1,157.00 CL V 21" RC PIPE 86 2503.541 SEWER DES 3006 L F $53.25 120 0 $0.00 111 $5,910.75 CL III 24" RC PIPE 87 2503.541 SEWER DES 3006 L F $62.50 90 0 $0.00 88 $5,500.00 CL III CONNECT TO 88 2503.602 EXISTING STORM EACH $1,100.00 3 0 $0.00 3 $3,300.00 SEWER CONST DRAINAGE 89 2506.501 STRUCTURE DES L F $409.00 70 0 $0.00 64.5 $26,380.50 48-4020 CONST DRAINAGE 90 2506.502 STRUCTURE EACH $2,118.00 6 0 $0.00 7 $14,826.00 DESIGN SPEC 1 CONST DRAINAGE 91 2506.502 STRUCTURE EACH $8,950.00 2 0 $0.00 3 $26,850.00 DESIGN SPEC 2 CONST DRAINAGE 92 2506.502 STRUCTURE EACH $9,100.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $9,100.00 DESIGN SPEC 3 93 2506.516 CASTING EACH $660.00 15 0 $0.00 23 $15,180.00 ASSEMBLY 94 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP C Y $120.00 60 0 $0.00 22 $2,640.00 CLASS III 95 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE S Y $6.00 80 0 $0.00 44.2 $265.20 FILTER TYPE IV Totals For Section SCHEDULE B -STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS: $0.00 $223,468.53 Work Order 1 -Contract Changes 12" RC PIPE 84 2503.541 SEWER DES 3006 L F ($42.00) 491 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CL V 15" RC PIPE 85 2503.541 SEWER DES 3006 L F ($44.50) 60 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CL V Pay Voucher Page 8 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher 96 2504.605 4" POLYSTYRENE SQ FT $3.30 160 0 $0.00 160 $528.00 INSULATION 97 2503.603 12" PVC C900 ILF 1 $45.001 491 0 $0.00 491 $22,095.00 98 12503.603 16" PVC C900 ILF 1 $67.25 60 0 $0.00 60 $4,035.00 Totals For Work Order 1 -Contract Changes: $0.00 $26,658.00 Work Order 2 -Project Changes BITUMINOUS 27 2231.501 PATCHING TON ($135.00) 100 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 MIXTURE 99 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $2,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $2,500.00 REMOVE AND 100 2104.501 REPLACE L F $27.70 320 0 $0.00 383.1 $10,611.87 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 101 2232.501 MILL BITUMINOUS S Y $3.00 2865 0 $0.00 3201.7 $9,605.10 SURFACE (2.0") TYPE SP 12.5 102 2360.501 WEARING COURSE TON $92.00 480 0 $0.00 458.27 $42,160.84 MIX (2,C) TYPE SP 12.5 NON 103 2360.502 WEARING COURSE TON $92.00 70 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 MIXTURE (2,C) 104 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LS $4,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $4,500.00 TEMPORARY 105 2573.602 AGGREGATE LS $2,786.00 1 0.086 $239.60 1.086 $3,025.60 TRENCH REMOVE 106 2573.602 TEMPORARY LS $21,460.00 1 0.56 $12,017.60 1.56 $33,477.60 AGGREGATE TRENCH Totals For Work Order 2 -Project Changes: $12,257.20 $105,881.01 Work Order 3 -SPLIT RAIL FENCE 107 2557.605 SPLIT-RAIL FENCE I EACH 1 $756.321 4 4 $3,025.28 4 $3,025.28 Totals For Work Order 3 -SPLIT RAIL FENCE: $3,025.28 $3,025.28 Work Order 4- PROJECT CHANGES 108 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $1,653.75 1 1 $1,653.75 1 $1,653.75 109 2504.601 WATER SERVICE LUMP $3,625.99 1 1 $3,625.99 1 $3,625.99 REPAIR SUM STORM SEWER LUMP 110 2506.601 STRUCTURE SUM $1,891.14 1 1 $1,891.14 1 $1,891.14 MODIFICATIONS 111 2531.601 INSTALL VALLEY LUMP $6,363.41 1 1 $6,363.41 1 $6,363.41 GUTTER SUM 112 2521.501 4" CONCRETE LUMP $4,599.41 1 1 $4,599.41 1 $4,599.41 Pay Voucher Page 9 of 9 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8926 Project No. 01459-94 Final Pay Voucher No. 10 01459-94 Project Material Status Quantity Amount Line Item Description Units Unit Price Contract This This Quantity Amount Quantity Pay Pay To Date To Date Voucher Voucher WALK SUM Totals For Work Order 4 -PROJECT CHANGES: $18,133.70 $18,133.70 Project Totals: $29,955.81 $860,284.47 01459-94 Contract Changes No. Type Date Explanation Estimated Amount Paid Amount To Date WO1 Work Order 6/23/2016 Contract Changes $3,366.00 $26,658.00 WO2 Work Order 8/15/2016 Project changes $85,805.00 $105,881.01 WO3 Work Order 9/12/2016 SPLIT RAIL FENCE $3,025.28 $3,025.28 WO4 Work Order 4/11/2017 PROJECT CHANGES $18,133.70 $18,133.70 Contract Change Totals: $110,329.98 $153,697.99 #9A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Purchase Card Policy Meeting Date: May 22, 2017 Prepared by: Greg Lerud Reviewed by: Attachments: Resolution No. 14-029 Resolution—Establishing the Purchase Card Policy Program information Contract Document Policy Consideration: Should the City Council authorize staff to enter into a purchase card program through PFM Financial Services? Background: The City Council considered this matter at the April 28, 2014 and June 9, 2014 City Council meetings and approved entering into the program. For whatever reason,the paperwork was never completed to enter the program. The City has never had a corporate card or purchasing cards available for making online purchases, training and travel arrangements, or for other local purchases where we do not have an existing credit arrangement. It is becoming less common for business to offer in-house charge accounts, and most business require upfront payment before the products are delivered. That has left staff, and council members, having to put some of these charges on their own credit card or personal credit,with reimbursement coming later—sometimes after the due date on the credit card. Many cities have a credit card, but there are a few of issues with a credit card. First, typically there are usually only one or two cards that are issued, so people not authorized on the account need to have a person who is authorized make the transaction. That is inefficient. Second, it is difficult to set parameters on where a card can be used. Third, if personal credit cards are used,the employee is typically charged sales tax on the purchase, and the city pays that charge when it is submitted to the city for reimbursement. Charges made on a P-Card are set as tax exempt transactions. Finally,there are no issues with late payment charges and fees. P-Cards allow for central administration with designated staff deciding when and who to issue cards, setting the credit limits on individual cards, as well as restricting or excluding purchases for certain vendors. In addition,the more P-Cards are used for transactions,the few individual checks the city must process. Another advantage is fraud protection and earning a modest rebate if the city spends at least $50,000 per year. This particular card could replace the Voyager fleet cards the city is currently using for fuel purchases. 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. Pagel A drawback to the program is that payment is required each month within seven days after the statement date of the 28th. The City Council does not meet before the date of the payment on the account. In 2014, the City Council passed a Resolution—No. 14-029 that delegated authority so no change is needed to that Resolution. A copy of that Resolution is attached here for your information. Financial or Budget Considerations: This program can ease staff purchasing for regular purchases, training and travel arrangements, as well as other expenses that are currently being paid for by city staff and which the city reimburses. In addition,the city can qualify for a rebate after a certain amount of expenditures, and there is no cost to participate in the program. Options: The City Council can reaffirm the council's earlier approval to enter the program. The City Council can decide not to enter into the purchasing card program. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends approving the proposed Resolution. Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will work with PFM to set up the account. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 14-029 A RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY FOR PAYING CERTAIN CLAIMS WHEREAS, the City Council authorizes all payments for goods and service according to state statute; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 412.271 Subd. 8 allow the City Council to delegate its authority to pay certain claims to a city administrative official; and WHEREAS, the City Administrator and the Finance Director meet the statutory definition of a qualified city administrative officials; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 471.425 Subd. 2 requires the City to pay vendors within 35 days of receipt of an invoice; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to enter into a purchasing card program with PFM Financial Services, LLC; and WHEREAS, the purchasing card program requires payment within seven days following the 28th of each month which does not allow time for presentation for City Council authorization; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood that the authority to make bond payments by wire transfer, to pay usual and customary claims for any month when a regularly scheduled meeting is canceled, and the authority to pay all legitimate charges, as reviewed by qualified city administrative officials, incurred in the purchasing card program is hereby granted to the City Administrator and the Finance Director. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following policy be adopted for administration of the purchasing card program: PURCHASING CARD POLICY Pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 471.382, cities are allowed to make purchases with credit cards or purchasing cards. The City of Shorewood hereby adopts the following purchasing card policy that incorporates the guidelines suggested by the Office of the State Auditor: The following employees are authorized to make purchases on behalf of the city and are eligible to use the cards upon approval by the City Administrator or Finance Director: Permanent Full-Time Employees Permanent Part-Time Employees The credit card may be used only to purchase goods or services that are for the express use by the City of Shorewood. The credit limit for each cardholder is to be determined by agreement between the City Administrator, Finance Director and Department Head. If a card is lost or stolen, the Finance Director shall be notified immediately. Use of the credit card for personal purchases is strictly prohibited. The only person entitled to use the credit card is the person whose name appears on the face of the card. The card should not be lent to another person for use. Card transactions can only be signed for by the cardholder. The following are several key areas that are required of cardholders: • Sign the back of the card. • Ensure that the purchasing card is used for appropriate City purchases. • Ensure that the purchasing card is kept secure and that all card transactions are signed for by the card holder. • Ensure that all detailed receipts accompany the purchasing card slip. • Turn in all purchasing card slips by the first day of each month. Employees who intentionally make unapproved purchasing card purchases are personally liable for the full amount. Bills from purchasing card companies may not contain the detail necessary to satisfy the itemization requirement pursuant to Minnesota Statute §412.271, Subdivision 2 and Minnesota Statute §471.37, Subdivision 1. All receipts not turned in by the first of the month will become the responsibility of the employee. Therefore, if the invoices and receipts are not submitted for all items charged to a credit card, the employee will be personally liable for the amount of the purchase. The purchasing card invoice shall be paid on a monthly basis as approved by the city council. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 28th day of April, 2014. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Jean Panchyshyn, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 17— RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PURCHASE PROGRAM CARD PROGROM OPERATED BY PFM AND ESTABLISHING A POLICY FOR ITS USE WHEREAS the Shorewood City Council adopted Resolution No. 14 —041 on June 9, 2014 that authorized entering into a purchase card program and creating a policy governing the use of the service; and, WHEREAS the program was never established, but the City Council finds it is in the best interest of the City of Shorewood (the "City") to enter into an arrangement with Bank of Montreal(the `Bank") to provide the City with credit by way of a Corporate MasterCard account; and, WHEREAS the City has the power and authority to borrow money and otherwise obtain credit and to grant security on its assets; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the City is authorized to enter into an arrangement with the Bank to provide the City with credit by way of a Corporate MasterCard account, under which arrangement employees of the City may be issued with Corporate Cards on the MasterCard corporate account of the City with the Bank and the City shall be responsible for the payment of all amounts, including fees and interest, charged to such corporate account, the whole substantially on the terms and conditions set forth in the draft Corporate MasterCard Account Agreement submitted to and hereby approved by the City council. 2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to sign for and on behalf of the City a Corporate MasterCard Account Agreement with the Bank substantially on the terms and conditions of the draft thereof approved by the City Council, with such changes or modifications as the persons so signing may in their discretion deem appropriate, and to sign such other documents and do such other things they in their discretion deem appropriate or advisable in connection with or to give effect to such Corporate MasterCard Account Agreement and the program contemplated thereunder. 3. That the City Council hereby approved the Purchase Card policy as attached to this Resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 22nd day of May, 2017. ATTEST Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk I, the undersigned, City Clerk for the City of Shorewood(the "City") hereby certify that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution of the directors of the City passed effective the 22nd day of May 2017, and the said Resolution is in full force and effect and unamended as of the date hereof. This day of 20 Sandy Thone, City Clerk I�IIR 9 ....................... ....................... ..........The PFM Payment Solutions Program is a cost-free payments mechanism, that reduces the typical requisition process and related costs associated with purchasing materials and services. The base of the Payment Solutions program, which is a special type of credit card, streamlines the purchase of supplies, furniture, construction materials, utilities and much more, saving staff time and money for your entity. 111 aura efIt * NO COST * Rebates on 100% of dollars spent * Reduced check writing costs * Expedited payment to vendors (24 - 48 hours) * Reduced paperwork for requisitions, purchase orders and invoices * With five cards or more, you receive employee misuse insurance of$100,000 per cardholder; with two to four cards, $25,000 per cardholder under MasterCard's MasterCoverage© * $0 liability for lost or stolen cards * Ensures quick startup - program implemented 6 to 8 weeks from the receipt of application * Best suited to clients who will spend more than $100,000 annually on goods and services asllh Ill Rel at, s Participants in the PFM Payment Solutions Program receive cash rebates on their purchases if the aggregate annual spend on the card equals or exceeds $50,000. The more items purchased using the card, the greater the rebate percentage. Rebates are calculated on 100% of aggregate spending on the P-Card. All purchases are eligible for the rebate. Il,,ower Costs, Illliinnqlf iiiroved redllindbgy kind Access The premier web-based management technology solution streamlines administrative functions and provides online access to all cardholders 24/7/365. It features multi-level access where your entity's administrators can setup permission levels for each user. It allows for users to view/modify transactions, run and view over 85 standard and custom reports, and export report data. Online access to information on all transactions is available within 24 to 48 hours of a purchase. ©PFM I pfm.com 1 0 I IIII°°III Added Value * Sample policies and procedures manual * Additional support to program administration through presentations and webinars * Monthly spend reports with projected annual spend and rebate, plus next level spend and expected rebate * Quarterly newsletter * Targeted mailings throughout the year to highlight best practices which will help maximize the value of your program * Email bulletins on current PCard changes/initiatives and updates to online system Why Choose lRlFI PFM's exceptional customer service commitment and unwavering support of our clients, sets us apart from other financial institutions. We continually work with our clients to help them maximize the value of their programs to not only reduce operating costs but also to generate an annual revenue stream. Maire II iii f iiriir tlii in You can join the hundreds of clients who now pay for goods and services using our Payment Solutions program. If you're ready to start reducing costs and earning a rebate for this year's purchases, please contact us today by visiting zrwzr.pfrrl.corn/asset.-rrlanaciernent/specialized -services/procurement.-card - p roc rare or call 631.542.5315 or by emailing srnitNlbpfrrl.corn. rIh IlRlF iir 111 'f Caiinllpanies PFM Financial Services LLC provides procurement card services to government, schools, and health care providers. PFM works with state associations to develop statewide card programs for their members. PFM Asset Management LLC (PFMAM), provides investment advice and portfolio management for governmental and not-for-profit organizations, corporations, pension funds and other institutions. PFM's financial advisory practice (collectively refers to PFM Financial Advisors LLC and Public Financial Management, Inc.) is consistently ranked the nation's number one financial advisor and offers its clients a complete scope of services and products to meet all of their financial needs. Beth Smith Senior Managing Consultant PFM Financial Services LLC pf m Airport Corporate Center One Corporate Drive,Suite 101 Bohemia, NY 11716 0 P:631.542.5315 C:516.246.1210 ©PFM I pfm.com 2 BMO EPURCHASING SOLUTIONS CORPORATE MASTERCARD PROGRAM MEMBER ACCOUNT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made as of the day of 20 , Between with its principal office at (the "Member") and BANK OF MONTREAL, a Canadian chartered bank with a branch at 115 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603 (the "Bank"). THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. MEMBER ACCOUNT AND CARDS. The Bank has established a Corporate MasterCard program with PFM Financial Services LLC. (the "Association") for its qualified members. The Association has requested that the Bank establish a MasterCard account for you and the Bank has agreed to do so. This Agreement between the Member and the Bank and the Agreement between the Bank and the Association set forth the terms and conditions under which the Bank will make its Corporate MasterCard program available to the Member. Section 1.1. The Bank will establish a MasterCard®* account for the Member (the "Member Account") under the Bank's Corporate MasterCard program with the Association as indicated in Schedule 1 with the initial credit limit of U.S. $ (the credit limit of the Member Account in effect at any time is herein called the "Member Credit Limit"). The Bank shall lend money to the Member and its Cardholders (as defined below) up to the Member Credit Limit by way of charges to the Member Account in accordance with this Agreement. The Bank reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify the Member Credit Limit and the Cardholder Credit Limits at any time. The Member agrees that the Member Account is to be used for business purposes, and not for personal, family, or household purposes (non-business purposes). Member will notify its Cardholders of the prohibition against use for non-business purposes when the Card is issued and periodically thereafter during the term of this Agreement. Member agrees that regardless of the purposes for which the Member Account is used to make purchases, all such transactions, interest, fees and related charges shall be paid to the Bank by the Member in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Section 1.2. The Member may request the Bank to issue a MasterCard card or card numbers ("Cards") on the Member Account to employees designated by the Member. Each such request (a "Request") shall be in a form attached as Schedule"2" and shall be duly completed and signed by the designated employee and, on behalf of the Member, by a Program Administrator (as defined below) as required by the Bank from time to time and shall be submitted by a Program Administrator. Rev04-02-07 Section 1.3. Upon receipt by the Bank of a Request in respect of an employee, the Bank will issue a Card on the Member Account to the employee, embossed with the name of the employee (the "Cardholder") and the Member's name and/or identifier. The Bank may issue renewal, replacement or temporary replacement cards for any Card from time to time. In addition, at the Member's request, the Bank may issue each Cardholder a personal identification number (a "PIN") enabling the Cardholder to use the Card at automated teller machines ("ATMs") accessible with the Card to obtain cash advances and effect transactions on the Member Account. The Member shall instruct each Cardholder not to disclose the Cardholder's PIN to any other person. Transaction records issued by an ATM are solely for the Member's convenience and in the event of any dispute as to the accuracy of such records, the Bank's internal records are presumptively correct and Member must establish by clear and convincing evidence that such records are in error. Section 1.4. The Member shall establish and set out in each Request a credit limit for the Card (the "Card Limit") to be issued to the employee designated in the Request, subject to limitations which may be set by the Bank. A portion of this Card Limit is available for Cash Advances. The aggregate of all Card Limits for issued Cards shall not exceed the Member Credit Limit. SECTION 2. CHARGES AND FEES. Section 2.1. Subject to the provisions hereof, the Cardholder may use the Card to charge to the Member Account (a) the price of goods or services obtained from a merchant or supplier honoring the Card, by means of payment or settlement by the Bank to the merchant or supplier(a "Purchase"); or (b) cash advances obtained through the use of the Card either directly from the Bank, through use of an ATM, or through another financial institutions honoring the Card; or purchase a money order, travelers check or similar item (a "Cash Advance"); provided, each such Purchase and Cash Advance must be for a business purpose. Any such use of a Card which results in a Charge (as defined below) to the Member Account, whether or not the Card was presented to a merchant or supplier (such as Internet, mail or telephone order Purchases) or the Cardholder's signature was obtained, or by use of a PIN, is herein called a "Transaction." Section 2.2. The Bank will maintain a sub-account of the Member Account for each Card (a "Card Account"). The Bank shall record all Transactions with respect to each Card, as well as all interest, fees, service charges, credits and adjustments relating to such Card or its use on the Card Account maintained for such Card. All Transactions, interest, fees and service charges posted to the Member Account, including by recording them on individual Card Accounts, shall constitute a charge to the Member Account (a "Charge"). Section 2.3. The annual Card fee for each Card and the service charges set forth in Schedule 1 shall apply . For each Cash Advance, the Bank adds an additional service charge as set forth in Schedule 1. This fee will be added to the Cash Advance balance. The amount of the Cash Advance also may include a surcharge that the ATM owner imposes. -2- Section 2.4. Upon receipt of a credit issued by a merchant or supplier for Purchases charged to the Member Account, the Bank shall post the credit to the Card Account. If the Bank does not receive the credit prior to the time the related charge is included in a monthly Card Account Statement (as defined below), the amount of the related charge shall be paid by the Payment Due Date. Section 2.5. The Bank and MasterCard International convert any Card Transaction made in a currency other than U.S. dollars to U.S. dollars. MasterCard International uses the MasterCard International conversion rate in effect on the day the Transaction is posted to the Card Account (currently either a wholesale market rate or a government-mandated rate) and adds a MasterCard International conversion charge. The Bank then adds the Bank's current foreign exchange markup. The MasterCard International conversion rate and charge may not be the same as existed on the day of the Transaction. The amount of the Transaction after conversion (including foreign exchange markup) is shown on the Card Account Statement as either a Purchase or Cash Advance. However, if a foreign currency Transaction is refunded to a Card Account, the MasterCard conversion rate used to convert the refund to the currency of the card is the rate that the Bank pays to MasterCard International Inc. minus the markup percentage that the Bank discloses to the Customer from time to time. This rate may not be the same as the rate that existed on the date the Transaction was refunded. For these reasons, the amount that is credited to a Card Account for a refund of a foreign currency Transaction will, in most cases, be less than the amount that was originally charged to the Card for that Transaction. SECTION 3. STATEMENTS,PAYMENTS AND INTEREST. Section 3.1. The Bank shall prepare monthly, as of the Monthly Billing Date, a Card Account statement (the "Card Account Statement") for each Card Account in which there is an outstanding balance as of the Monthly Billing Date or in which a Charge has been posted during the period commencing the day after the immediately preceding Monthly Billing Date and ending on the current Monthly Billing Date (the "Billing Period"). The Bank may upon request by the Member send to each Cardholder the Card Account Statement for such Cardholder's Card Account. The Card Account Statement will include the Transactions and the outstanding balance. Section 3.2. The Bank will prepare monthly, as of the same date in each month (the "Monthly Billing Date"), and will send to the Member an invoice (the "Member Account Statement") showing the aggregate outstanding balance of the Member Account as of such Monthly Billing Date; if more than one invoice is sent, such aggregate outstanding balance will be the sum of all the invoices. Section 3.3. Each month, the Member shall pay in full the aggregate outstanding balance of the Member Account shown on the Member Account Statement on or before the Payment Due Date in respect of such Member Account Statement, which Payment Due Date shall be the number of days after the Monthly Billing Date set out in Schedule 1. Payments must be made in U.S. Dollars. On the Payment Due Date, as agreed by the parties, the Bank shall either (i) debit the Member's specified U.S. dollar deposit account at Harris Trust and Savings Bank or one of -3- its affiliates; (ii) debit the Members Account with the Minnesota School District Liquid Asset Fund Plus; (iii) debit the Member's specified U.S. dollar deposit account at a U.S. financial institution; or (iv) Member shall pay in immediately available funds with a check or draft drawn on a U.S. financial institution for the balance shown on each Member Account Statement. Any amount not so paid on or before the applicable Payment Due Date shall be considered past due and such non-payment shall constitute a default by the Member. Section 3.4. Interest shall be charged on the amount of all Purchases, fees and service charges from the date posted to the Member Account, and from the date of the advance for Cash Advances. Interest shall be charged at the annual rate(s) defined in Schedule 1 (the "Card Rate(s))." Interest is calculated on a daily basis by multiplying each daily interest-bearing balance of Charges in each Card Account by a daily rate of interest. The daily rate of interest is equal to the applicable Card Rate divided by the actual number of days in the year (365 or 366, as the case may be). Section 3.5. The Bank will waive the interest charges on Purchases, fees and service charges if the Bank receives payment in full at its MasterCard Payment Center of the aggregate outstanding balance of the Member Account on or before the Payment Due Date each month. The Bank will not waive interest charges on Cash Advances. Section 3.6. If the Bank receives any payment in an amount less than the outstanding balance of the Member Account shown on a Member Account Statement, the Bank may apply such partial payment to the Card Accounts as the Bank elects. In respect of any Card Account, any payment will be applied towards Charges which have been included in a Member Account Statement in the following order: (a)interest, (b) fees and service charges, (c) Cash Advances (d)interest-bearing Purchases, (e)non-interest-bearing Purchases; the remainder, if any, will then be applied towards Charges which have not yet been included in a Card Account Statement in the same order as shown above. The Bank may accept payments that are marked with restrictive endorsements such as "payment in full" without losing any of its rights under this Agreement. Any payment tendered with a restrictive endorsement must be sent to the Bank's address for customer service to be effective in accordance with Section 3-311 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Section 3.7. The Member shall pay all Charges included in a Member Account Statement notwithstanding that the Member or a Cardholder disputes with the Bank any Charge or other particular. In the event of any such dispute with the Bank, the Member will follow the Customer Service Procedures outlined in Schedule 1. Section 3.8. The Member shall examine each monthly Member Account Statement, and shall ensure each Cardholder examines each monthly Card Account Statement, upon receiving it. If the Member does not notify the Bank of an error or omission with regard to any Charge to the Member Account included in or itemized on such monthly statements within sixty (60) days after the Monthly Billing Date in respect of such statement, the Member agrees that such Member Account Statement and related Card Account Statements shall be deemed presumptively to be correct and Member must establish by clear and convincing evidence that such Card Account Statement is in error. -4- Section 3.9. U.S. Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 1441 requires the withholding of tax on certain payments to foreign persons. For U.S. tax purposes, the Bank is a foreign person. However, IRC Regulation 1.144 1-1(b)(2)(ii) provides that no withholding is required on payments made to a U.S. financial institution acting as agent for the foreign person. Harris Trust and Savings Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bank is receiving all payments made under this agreement as agent for the Bank. Harris Trust and Savings Bank will comply fully with all obligations to withhold under IRC Section 1441 and Regulation 1-1441-(1). Additionally, Harris Trust and Savings Bank as a U.S. financial institution will complete an IRS Form W-9, Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification upon request. SECTION 4. MEMBER AND CARDHOLDER LIABILITY. Section 4.1. The Member shall be liable to the Bank for, and agrees to pay the Bank, all Charges to the Member Account, even if the aggregate of all outstanding Charges is in excess of the Member Credit Limit or in excess of any Card Limit, and even if as between the Member and a Cardholder any Charge resulted from improper use of a Card by the Cardholder. Section 4.2. Notwithstanding 4.1, MasterCard currently provides MasterCoverageTm* program for the benefit of issuers of corporate Cards and the corporate sponsors (such as the Member). Based on the MasterCoverage program, the Bank agrees to waive the Member's liability for certain wrongful Card transactions by Cardholders who are no longer employed by the Member. The type and amount of such Card transactions which qualify for such waiver of Company liability shall be determined by the MasterCoverage program and shall be governed by the terms, exclusions, and conditions of such programs as established from time to time by the underwriters, including but not limited to the condition that the Member meet all of its obligations to make a qualifying claim under the applicable program. The Member acknowledges having received from the Bank of the MasterCoverage Program description outlining such obligations of the Member and the current conditions, limitations, and exclusions applicable to such programs. The Bank may terminate this liability waiver at any time upon written notice to the Member in the event that the related MasterCoverage Program is terminated. Section 4.3. In the event of possible loss, theft or unauthorized use of Card, the Member agrees to notify the Bank by phone at (800) 361-3361 or fax notice to the Bank at (888) 224-5393. Promptly following receipt of such notice, the Bank shall place a hold on the affected Cardholder Account and the Member shall have no further liability for unauthorized use of such Card or Cardholder Account which does not benefit the Member. The Member shall be liable for any unauthorized use of the Card prior to the time the Bank receives notice. Unauthorized use does not include use by a person whom the Member or Cardholder has given authority to use the Member Account. Member will be liable for all use by such a person. The Member will be liable for any use authorized by the Member or a Cardholder until the Member has sent the Bank written notice and destroyed and/or recovered and safeguarded the Card that the person was using. Member shall cooperate with Bank in its efforts to investigate unauthorized use. -5- However, in the event a Cardholder's PIN is disclosed to any unauthorised person, whether by a Cardholder's failure to maintain confidentiality of the PIN, failure to keep the PIN and the Card separate or otherwise, the Member shall be liable for all Transactions through use of the PIN whether or not incurred by the Cardholder. SECTION 5. CERTAIN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BANK. Section 5.1. The Bank shall have sole discretion over the management, operation, content and features of its Corporate MasterCard program and the Cards. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, the Bank may modify any aspect of its Corporate MasterCard program. Section 5.2. The Bank shall provide the Member with management information as indicated in Schedule 1. Subject to payment of additional fees which may apply, the Bank shall provide the Member with such other management information as the Bank makes available under its Corporate MasterCard program and the Member requests from time to time. SECTION 6. CERTAIN RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE MEMBER. Section 6.1. The Member shall, and shall require its Cardholders to, abide by all written security instructions and directions (and telephone instructions in case of emergency) provided by the Bank from time to time. Section 6.2. The Member designates each of the persons whose name, title, address and signature appear on Schedule 1 as its Program Administrator. A Program Administrator shall sign, on behalf of the Member, requests for the issuance of a Card, requests to cancel a Card, requests to modify Cardholder names, addresses, costs centers, departments etc., requests to adjust individual Card Limits ("Requests"), and other documentation in connection with the day-to-day operation and administration of the program under this Agreement. The Bank may deal with any Program Administrator in respect of all matters relating to the day-to-day operation and administration of the program under this Agreement, including requests for information the Bank may reasonably require for its management and operation of the program under this Agreement. All statements, invoices, management information, Cards and other correspondence which the Bank sends to the Member under this Agreement in connection with the day-to-day operation and administration of the program shall be sent to the attention of a Program Administrator. The Bank shall be entitled to rely without inquiry on any request or notice signed by any such Program Administrator and on any instructions, authorization or information received from such person. The Member may change the person or persons designated as Program Administrator by written notice to the Bank and any such change shall be effective upon receipt by the Bank of such notice. Section 6.3. The Member shall be solely responsible for establishing and monitoring internal procedures or guidelines for its employees in respect of use of Cards by Cardholders. The Bank shall have no obligation to inquire or verify whether any use of a Card, or any Charge to the Member Account, is for business or non-business use or whether any Cardholder's use is in accordance with such internal procedures or guidelines regarding use of the Card. -6- Section 6.4. The Bank may allow a Program Administrator to submit Requests through the Internet, in which case the Bank will provide sign-in instructions, a user ID and a password to the Program Administrator. The Member shall protect the user ID and password from fraudulent use and shall immediately notify the Bank of any unauthorised disclosure of the user ID or password. Until such notification, the Bank may rely on any Request received using the user ID and password, and shall have no duty to confirm such Requests. Section 6.5. The Bank may allow a Program Administrator to submit Requests through the Internet, in which case the Bank will provide sign-in instructions, a user ID and a password to the Program Administrator. If the Member appoints other Program Administrators from time to time, an existing Program Administrator may establish a user ID and password for the new Program Administrators. Program Administrators may change their passwords at any time, and will do so when required by the Bank. The Member shall protect each user ID and password from fraudulent use and shall immediately notify the Bank of any unauthorized disclosure of any user ID or password. Until such notification, the Bank may rely on any Request received using any user ID and password, and shall have no duty to confirm such Requests. Section 6.6. The Member will provide its annual audited financial statements to the Bank within thirty (30) days of completion. The statements should be sent by U.S. mail or courier to: Harris Bank 111 W. Monroe, 2nd Floor West Chicago, IL 60690 Attention: Institutional Group SECTION 7. CARDS AND CANCELLATION OF CARDS. Section 7.1. All Cards remain at all times the property of the Bank and cannot be transferred. All Cards shall be surrendered to the Bank upon demand. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement, the Bank may cancel or suspend the right to use any Card if the Bank detects unusual or suspicious activity. Section 7.2. The Member may direct the Bank to cancel any Card at any time for any reason by providing a written Request to the Bank. The written Request must include the Cardholder's last known business address, home address and phone number. The Member shall continue to be liable for Charges made through use of any such Card made prior to the time the Bank receives the written Request. SECTION 8. TERM AND TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Section 8.1. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the date of this Agreement and shall continue until terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions hereof,provided, however, this Agreement shall terminate immediately upon termination of the Corporate MasterCard Program Agreement between the Bank and the Association. -7- Section 8.2. Either the Bank or the Member may, upon at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other, terminate this Agreement. Section 8.3. The Member or the Bank may immediately terminate this Agreement, without notice, in the event of the bankruptcy or insolvency of the other party or if the other party fails to make any payment when due under this Agreement or if the other party is in default in the performance of any of its other obligations. However, except in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency and except in the event any party fails to make any payment when due under this Agreement, if the default is readily curable, the party having the right to terminate in respect of such default may only exercise such right if the default remains uncured for ten (10) days after written notice of the default is given to the defaulting party. The right to terminate is in addition to any other right the non-defaulting party may have in respect of the default. Section 8.4. Upon termination of this Agreement: (a) all outstanding Cards shall be cancelled and all rights or benefits of the Member or any Cardholder with respect to the Cards shall be revoked or withdrawn; (b) The Member shall continue to be liable for, and to pay, the aggregate of all Charges on each Card Account whether or not then posted to the Card Account or Member Account, including without limitation charges not yet incurred, accrued fees and interest accrued or to accrue, and all such charges shall immediately be due and payable by the Member, and (c) All Cards shall be immediately returned to the Bank or, alternatively, the Member shall provide the Bank with a certificate, signed by a Program Administrator, certifying and warranting that all Cards which had been issued have been destroyed SECTION 9. DISCLAIMERS. Section 9.1. The Bank's Corporate MasterCard program including, without limitation, the management information reports provided to the Member is provided to the Member without representation or warranty as to accuracy of information provided. The Member also acknowledges that some benefits or enhancements may be supplied by firms independent of the Bank and the Bank is not responsible or liable for anything in connection with those benefits or enhancements. Section 9.2. The Bank is not liable for any claim made or loss or damages suffered by the Member arising directly or indirectly from the Member's use of the Bank's Corporate MasterCard program under this Agreement, except for damages which the Member suffers as a result of the Bank's gross negligence or willful misconduct related to the terms of this Agreement. In no event is the Bank liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages, including but not limited to, lost profits and lost revenues. -8- Section 9.3. The Bank always attempts to ensure that its Corporate MasterCard program will be operational, and to respect any available Card Limit or any available transaction limit per Card or per day or any other available limit requested by the Member. However, the Bank cannot warrant that the Corporate MasterCard program will be uninterrupted or error-free or that such limits will always be respected in each case, due to limitations of the Bank's authorization systems, systems management and ordinary stand-in processes, and of the MasterCard system including merchant set-up features. The Member therefore waives any and all claims that it may have against the Bank arising out of the use and performance of the Bank's Corporate MasterCard program under this Agreement, except for claims for damages referred to in section 9.2. Section 9.4. The Bank is not responsible for any defects in or poor quality of the merchandise or services obtained by means of any Card. Any claim or dispute between the Member and a merchant or supplier, including with respect to the merchant's or supplier's right to compensation, will be the object of a direct settlement among the Member and the merchant or supplier and any such dispute shall not affect the Member's obligation to pay all Charges to the Member Account in full to the Bank in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. SECTION 10. NOTICES. Section 10.1. All requests, notices and other correspondence in connection with the day-to-day operation and administration of the Bank's Corporate MasterCard program under this Agreement shall be sent by the Bank to any Program Administrator at the address specified in Schedule 1 and, except as set out in section 6.4, shall be sent by the Member to the Bank at its address specified in Schedule 1. Section 10.2. Any other notice or other written communication by one party to another under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered by hand or sent by courier, by prepaid post or by fax or other similar form of instant telecommunication capable of confirming receipt of transmission, to the other party at the addresses set forth below and shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee (i) if delivered by hand or by courier, on the day delivered or, if not a business day, on the next business day, (ii)if sent by ordinary prepaid post, on the 4th business day after it was posted and (iii)if transmitted by fax or other such telecommunication and receipt is confirmed prior to 3:00 p.m. (local time) on a business day, on such business day or, in any other case, at 10:00 a.m. (local time) on the business day next following the date of transmission. MEMBER: Address: Attention: Telephone: Fax: -9- BANK OF MONTREAL: Address: Attention: Telephone: Fax: Section 10.3. A party may give notice of a change of address for the purposes of this Section in the manner provided above, and thereafter any notices or communication shall be given to that party at such changed address. SECTION 11. AMENDMENT. Section ILL The Bank may amend this Agreement at any time by giving written notice to Member not less than fifteen (15) days prior to the effective date of the amendment. The Bank may immediately modify the Member Credit Limit or any Card Limit upon written notice to Member. Any amendment or modification is effective as at a date stipulated in the notice. SECTION 12. CARDS WITHOUT AN EMPLOYEE'S NAME. Section 12.1. If the Member requests that the Bank issue a Card that will not bear an employee's name, such as a Card assigned to a department of the Customer or a MasterCard Corporate Fleet Card assigned to a vehicle instead of an individual employee, the following additional provisions shall apply: (a)notwithstanding Section 1.3, the Card shall be embossed with the name of the department or vehicle, as appropriate, and any person using the card from time to time shall be the "Cardholder" of the Card; (b) notwithstanding Section 4.3, the Member acknowledges that the Card will not have a Cardholder's signature, and agrees to be liable for all Purchases made with the Card (but in the case of a MasterCard Corporate Fleet Card assigned to a vehicle, only from merchants providing fuel and maintenance services), whether or not the Purchases were made by a duly authorized employee; (c)notwithstanding Sections 1.3 and 2.1, the Bank will not issue a PIN in connection with the Card and the Cardholder cannot obtain Cash Advances; and (d) notwithstanding Section 3.1, the Bank will send Card Account Statements for the Card to the Member. Section 12.2. If the customer requests that the Fleet Card be assigned to a vehicle instead of an individual employee (a "Vehicle Card"), then the following additional provisions shall apply: (a) the operator of the vehicle from time to time shall be the "Cardholder" of the Vehicle Card; (b) notwithstanding Section 4.3, the Customer acknowledges that the Vehicle Card will not have a Cardholder's signature, and agrees to be liable for all Purchases made with the Vehicle Card from merchants providing fuel and maintenance services, whether or not the Purchases were made by a Cardholder; (c)notwithstanding Sections 1.3 and 2.1, the Bank will not issue a PIN in connection with the Vehicle Card and the Cardholder of the Vehicle Card cannot obtain Cash Advances; and (d)notwithstanding Section 3.1, the Bank will send Card Account Statements for the Vehicle Card to the Member. -10- SECTION 13. GENERAL. Section 13.1. The Member shall provide the Bank with such financial information with respect to the Member as the Bank may from time to time reasonably request. Section 13.2. No term or provision of this Agreement is deemed waived and no breach excused, unless the waiver or consent is in writing and signed by the party claimed to have waived or consented. Any consent by any party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other, whether express or implied, does not constitute a consent to, waiver of, or excuse for, any other different or subsequent breach. Section 13.3. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes all previous negotiations, proposals, commitments, writings and understandings of any nature whatsoever, whether oral or written, unless they have been expressly incorporated by additional reference in this Agreement. Section 13.4. This Agreement may not be transferred or assigned by the Member, voluntarily or involuntarily, or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the Bank, which may be arbitrarily withheld. The amalgamation, merger or consolidation of the Member shall be deemed to be an assignment of this Agreement. If transferred or assigned without the Bank's prior written consent, this Agreement will be deemed to be terminated, unless the Bank agrees in writing otherwise. Section 13.5. Any terms of this Agreement which by their nature continue after the Agreement terminates, will remain in effect and will apply to each party's successors and permitted assigns. Section 13.6. References to this Agreement include all Schedules attached hereto, which Schedules are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement. The Member acknowledges that the Schedules have been expressly brought to its attention and it knows their content. Section 13.7. The headings in this Agreement are for ease of reference only and are not to be used in interpreting this Agreement. Section 13.8. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable, invalid or void, all other provisions will nevertheless continue in full force and effect. Section 13.9. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each party and its respective successors and permitted assigns. Section 13.10. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the state of Minnesota and federal law applicable therein. The Member irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the state of Minnesota and the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota and agrees that any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement may be commenced in such courts. Member and the Bank each irrevocably waive any right to trial by jury in any proceeding related to this Agreement. Member and Bank shall -11- each bear all its fees and costs and the expenses of its own attorneys in connection with any proceeding under this Agreement. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] -12- IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement on the dates written below. This day of 20 (MEMBER) By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: This day of 20 BANK OF MONTREAL By: Name: Title: All services are provided by Bank of Montreal. ®* Bank of Montreal is a licensed user of the registered trade-mark owned by MasterCard International Inc. TM* Trade-mark of MasterCard International Inc. Bank of Montreal is a registered user. ® Registered trade-mark of Bank of Montreal. TM Trade-mark of Bank of Montreal. -13- SCHEDULEI SCHEDULE 1 to the BMO ePurchasing Solutions Corporate MasterCard Program Account Agreement dated as of between Bank of Montreal and (the "Agreement"). A. Pricing Schedule. The following fees and service charges are in effect as at the date of the Agreement. All fees are in U.S. dollars. (1) Annual Card Fee per Card: $ 0. (2) ATM Cash Advance Fee. ATM USD Cirrus® Network 3.50 (US) Cirrus Network 4.50 (Worldwide) Over the Counter MasterCard bank(US) 5.00 MasterCard bank 6.00 (Worldwide) (3) Retrieval of a Sales Draft or issuance of any replacement statement or monthly report will be the Bank's standard service charge for such items at the time of the request. (4) Standard Report Fees: $ 0. (5) Custom Report Fees & Flat File Development: $150/hour, subject to $1,500 minimum charge per report/flat file. Charge will be waived if individual Member net transaction volume exceeds $10,000,000 for any consecutive 12 month period. (6) Foreign Currency Transaction Markup and Refund will be charged at a rate of 2.5%. B. Payment Due Date. The Payment Due Date shall be seven (7) days after the Monthly Billing Date. C. Card Currencies and Card Rate(s). (1) U.S. dollar. The Card Rate for U.S. dollar Cards shall be the Bank's U.S. Prime Rate plus 7%. The U.S. Prime Rate is the rate announced by the Bank from time to time as its prime interest rate for U.S. dollar loans. The Card Rate shall change automatically upon a change in the U.S. Prime Rate, without notice to the Member. D. Program Administrator. The Member hereby designates each of the persons whose name, title, address, numbers and signature appears below as its Program Administrator: Name: Title: Address: Telephone number: Fax number: Signature of Program Administrator: Name: Title: Address: Telephone number: Fax number: Signature of Program Administrator: Name: Title: Address: Telephone number: Fax number: Signature of Program Administrator: E. Member Service Procedures. Notices to the Bank and Authorization Procedures. The Bank must be notified in writing when the Member wishes to amend the participation conditions of the Bank's Corporate MasterCard program under the Agreement. Documentation authorized by a Program Administrator must accompany requested changes to: • add employees to the program; -2- • delete employees from the program; • modify employees names, addresses,phone numbers, cost centers, departments, etc.; • adjust individual employee Card Limits. Requested changes, correspondence or enquiries concerning the day-to-day operation and administration of the Bank's Corporate MasterCard program under the Agreement are to be forwarded to: BMO ePurchasing Solutions 3300 Bloor Street West 7th Floor, Center Tower Toronto, Ontario Canada M8X 2X3 Attn: Manager Corporate Clients Telephone: U.S. & Canada Toll Free (800) 844-6445 Outside U.S. & Canada (416) 232-0789 Fax: U.S. & Canada Toll Free (888) 677-5042 Outside U.S. & Canada (416) 232-8469 Lost or Stolen Card Procedure. The Member and the Cardholder will notify the Bank as soon as it is aware that a Card is lost, stolen or missing and, if required, request a new Card, by phoning Member Services at: U.S. & Canada Toll Free (800) 361-3361 Outside U.S. & Canada (416) 232-8020 Upon such notification, the Bank will cancel the missing Card. Disputed Charge Procedure. Except for Purchases involving disputes between the Member or a Cardholder and a merchant or supplier, all Charges which the Member or a Cardholder disputes with the Bank will be reported immediately to the Bank by the Member or a Cardholder. The Member will pay all such disputed Charges. In the next Billing Period, such disputed Charges will then be removed from the Member Account. Upon investigation, any Charges requiring charge back to the Member Account will be subject to interest commencing on the date interest would have commenced had the Charge not been removed from the Member Account, subject in the case of a Purchase to the Bank providing a copy of the transaction slip, if requested by the Member or a Cardholder, within a reasonable time. The Member or the Cardholder will notify the Bank of all Charges in dispute with the Bank in respect of the Member Account by phoning Member Service at: U.S. & Canada Toll Free (800) 263-2263 Outside U.S. & Canada (416) 232-8440 -3- F. Online Management Reporting. The Member may choose to enroll in BMO details Online° which provides a suite of standard reports accessible via Internet and available to the Member on demand. ACKNOWLEDGED: (MEMBER) BANK OF MONTREAL By: By: Name: Name: Title: Title: -4- I M Q City of Shorewood Council Meetin g Item #96 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Title/Subject: Ordinance 541;Approving City Fee Schedule Update MEETING TYPE Meeting Date: Monday, May 22, 2017 Regular Meeting Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Reviewed by: Tim Keane, City Attorney Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Ordinance Summary Publication Resolution Master Fee Schedule Repealed Ordinance Policy Consideration: Pursuant to MN State Law municipalities shall set forth fees to be reimbursed for administrative costs and expenses associated with issuing permits, licenses and providing other city services. Background: The City of Shorewood and its activities as a municipality requires setting forth fees and charges to reimburse the city for administrative and other expenses related to the issuing of permits, licenses and other services. The city is required to maintain a relevant schedule of fees and regularly audit their effectiveness and ensure that cost to issue permits or provide services are covered but that costs do not exceed the cost to issue the permit or provide the service as municipalities are not to profit from the fees and charges. Municipalities vary in their practices on how these fees are established and amended, some opting by ordinance and some opting by resolution. The City of Shorewood has had a long standing practice of establishing and amending fees by ordinance. Land use fees are required to be set by ordinance, pursuant to MN State Statute §462.353 Subd. 4a, if the city collects in excess of$5,000 cumulative on an annual basis. The City of Shorewood has established fees for licensing, permits, programs, and services that include but are not limited to building, zoning, planning, business, animal, park and recreation, rentals, solicitors, fire prevention, utility, franchise, administrative citations, and other miscellaneous fees that further the health, safety and welfare of the community at large. The following Ordinance 541 is proposing to change the practice by repealing and replacing Chapter 1301 of the current Shorewood Municipal Code to allow for reference of a Master Fee Schedule to allow the establishment and amendment of fees by resolution, with the exception of land use fees that will remain in the ordinance and adopted by ordinance. This will ensure a more efficient and economical process while still keeping council control of the fees charged by the city. The cost and time savings should be significant (see below Financial and Budget Considerations) and the Master Fee Schedule is a much more user-friendly document for the public. Staff plans on reviewing the fees for relevance and reformatting the Master Fee Schedule over the next several months. The land use fees will remain in the Master Fee Schedule with a notation highlighting that they are only amended by 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 All fees and charges shall be fixed and determined by the council and set forth in the master fee schedule which will be adopted by resolution and uniformly enforced. Staff is requesting the council approve amending Chapter 1300: Municipal Fees of the Shorewood City Code by removing the actual fees from the Code with the exception of the land use fees which will be still be required to be amended or established by ordinance and replacing it with referencing the Master Fee Schedule which will establish fees by Council resolution. Previous and future resolutions amending or establishing new fees are collated into the Master Fee Schedule as necessary and prudent. These updates are set forth by Council resolution and incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule upon adoption of the proposed established fees. This provides a cost-effective and expedient process for reviewing fees for relevance and providing annual updates to the schedule of city fees. Financial or Budget Considerations: Cost-Savings: 1)The change in process eliminates all codification of actual fee amendments and newly established fees: our current costs for codification run approximately $2,500 to $3,000 annually and I would expect an impact and probable savings of approximately$500 per year from eliminating the need for codifying the updates. 2)The process eliminates the publication of each update to the fee schedule as resolutions are not required to be published in the local newspaper but all ordinances become effective only upon required publication. Publication costs depend on the size of the publication and run approximately$15 per column inch to $68.50 per column inch and are currently being published by the city in two local newspapers to capture all residents. As an example Ordinance 539 which was an amendment to the fee schedule was approved in March and cost$379.48 to publish in both papers and Ordinance 540 also a fee schedule amendment approved in March of this year cost the city$233.52. 1 expect the city to see a significant savings in publication costs by implementing the new process. 3)All of the above require city staff time to accomplish which would be an additional savings for the city. Recommendation/Action Requested (3 Motions): 1) Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve Ordinance 541 repealing in its entirety Chapter 1300 of the Shorewood City Code Titled Municipal Fees Chapter 1301 License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees and adopting a new Chapter 1300 Titled Municipal Fees Chapter 1301 Establishing a Master Fee Schedule for the City of Shorewood. Motion, second and simple majority vote required. 2) Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve publication of a summary ordinance and the text of the summary pursuant to MN Statute §331A.01 which would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance without publishing the land use fee portion which has not been amended, as a cost and time saving measure. Motion, second and four- fifths vote required. 3) Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve Resolution 17-XX adopting the Master Fee Schedule for the City of Shorewood. Motion, second and simple majority vote required. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public service, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 541 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 1300 TITLED MUNICIPAL FEES CHAPTER 1301 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 1300 TITLED MUNICIPAL FEES CHAPTER 1301: ESTABLISHING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: TITLE 1300 MUNICIPAL FEES Section 1: Chapter 1301 Section 1301.01 Purpose Section 1301.02 Adoption of Master Fee Schedule by Resolution Section 1301.03 Land Use Fees 1301.01 PURPOSE. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter pursuant to Minnesota State Law and Shorewood’s activities as a municipal entity requires us to set forth and establish certain fees and charges to reimburse the city for administrative and other expenses related to the issuing of permits, licenses and other services. The fees and charges for licensing, permits, programs, and services include but are not limited to building, zoning, planning, business, animal, park and recreation, rentals, solicitors, fire prevention, utility, franchise, administrative citations, and other miscellaneous fees that further the health, safety and welfare of the community at large. 1301.02 ADOPTION OF MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY RESOLUTION. Adoption of fee schedule by resolution. All fees and charges shall be fixed and determined by the council and set forth in the master fee schedule, with the exception of land use fees, which will remain in the code and will be adopted by ordinance. The master fee schedule will be adopted by resolution and uniformly enforced. The master fee schedule will be reviewed for relevancy and/or when new fees are established and amended as needed by resolution and adopted by the city council. 1301.03 LAND USE FEES LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use * Site plan review/certificate 1201.07.2 $150 Subdivision sketch plan review 1202.03.1 $200 Subdivision (Metes and Bounds) 1202.03.1a(2) $350 plus $100 escrow (three lots or less) Subdivision (Preliminary plat) 1202.03.1a(2) $350 plus $25/lot plus $1,000 escrow Subdivision (final plat) 1202.03.1a(2) $500 plus $25/lot plus $1,000 escrow Park dedication 1202.07 $6,500/unit or 8% of raw land value (cash in lieu of land) Comprehensive plan amendment $200 pre-application $800 formal application Extension of deadline for 50% of original application fee recording resolutions Note: Base fees are non-refundable. Escrow deposits are to cover consulting engineer and attorney expenses. Applicants are informed that any city expenses not covered by these fees will be billed to them. Unused escrow fees will be returned to applicant upon written request. Building permit 1001.03 1997 U.B.C. SECTION 107 1997 U.B.C. TABLE 1-A AND STATE RULE 1300.0160 Reinspection fee Residential Roofing permit $35 Siding permit $75 Window permit S.B.C. $75 Mechanical permit S.B.C. $75 Plumbing permit S.B.C. State Statute or 2.5% of value, $35 minimum State Statute or $15/fixture, $35 minimum LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Removal or abandonment, U.F.C. $35 first tank plus $20 each underground tanks additional Demolition permit S.B.C. $50* Sign permit application fee 1201.03.11f $20 Approved sign permit fee Per 1997 U.B.C. Table 1-A Fence permit 1201.03.2f $20 Grading/filling permit S.B.C. Per 1997 U.B.C. Table A-33-A and A-33-B Home occupation permit 1201.03.12c $200 (special) Underground irrigation 901.01.2d $20 system permit R.O.W. Encroachment 901.01.2b $40 permit R.O.W. or easement $300 vacation request R.O.W. work annual 901.07 $200 registration R.O.W. excavation permit 901.09 $75 administration fee Per additional excavation - 901.09 $20 unpaved area Underground utility/telecom 901.09 $45 per 100 L. Ft. (plus installation - direct boring minimum permit fee) or tunneling Underground utility/telecom 901.09 $60 per 100 L. Ft. (plus installation-open trenching minimum permit fee) Obstruction permit 901.09 $20 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Degradation fee 901.09 Varies Restoration fee 901.12 Varies * Fee is waived when in conjunction with a building permit or when burned by Fire Department. Section 2: This ordinance is in effect upon publication in the Official Newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL this 22nd day of May 2017. _______________________________ ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor ____________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk (Official Publication) CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 541 (SUMMARY PUBLICATION) AN ORDINANCE REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY CHAPTER 1300 TITLED MUNICIPAL FEES CHAPTER 1301 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 1300 TITLED MUNICIPAL FEES CHAPTER 1301: ESTABLISHING A MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: TITLE 1300 MUNICIPAL FEES Chapter 1301 Section 1: Section 1301.01 Purpose Section 1301.02 Adoption of Master Fee Schedule by Resolution Section 1301.03 Land Use Fees 1301.01 PURPOSE. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter pursuant to Minnesota State Law and Shorewood’s activities as a municipal entity requires us to set forth and establish certain fees and charges to reimburse the city for administrative and other expenses related to the issuing of permits, licenses and other services. The fees and charges for licensing, permits, programs, and services include but are not limited to building, zoning, planning, business, animal, park and recreation, rentals, solicitors, fire prevention, utility, franchise, administrative citations, and other miscellaneous fees that further the health, safety and welfare of the community at large. 1301.02 ADOPTION OF MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BY RESOLUTION. Adoption of fee schedule by resolution. All fees and charges shall be fixed and determined by the council and set forth in the master fee schedule, with the exception of land use fees, which will remain in the code and will be adopted by ordinance. The master fee schedule will be adopted by resolution and uniformly enforced. The master fee schedule will be reviewed for relevancy and/or when new fees are established and amended as needed by resolution and adopted by the city council. 1301.03 LAND USE FEES (as delineated in the full ordinance) Section 2: Pursuant to MN Statute §331A.01 this ordinance is published in a summary format. A complete copy of Ordinance 541 is available at city offices or on the city website. This ordinance is in effect upon publication in the Official Newspaper. ADOPTED BY THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MAY 22, 2017. S/S Sandie Thone City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 17-xxx ADOPTING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood and its activities as a municipality requires setting forth fees and charges to reimburse the city for administrative and other expenses related to the issuing of permits, licenses and other services; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood must maintain a relevant schedule of fees and regularly audit their effectiveness; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has established fees for licensing, permits, programs, and services that include but are not limited to building, zoning, planning, business, animal, park and recreation, rentals, solicitors, fire prevention, utility, franchise, administrative citations, and other miscellaneous fees that further the health, safety and welfare of the community at large; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood City Council at its May 22, 2017 regular meeting, repealed and replaced Chapter 1301 of the city code pertaining to municipal fees allowing for the council to set forth fees and amend the master fee schedule by resolution, with the exception of land use fees, which will remain in the code and be set by ordinance pursuant to MN State Statutes; and WHEREAS, all fees and charges shall be fixed and determined by the council and set forth in the master fee schedule which will be adopted by resolution and uniformly enforced. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, the Master Fee Schedule for the City of Shorewood is adopted. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 22nd day of May 2017. _______________________________ ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor _________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk 5755 Country Club Road * Shorewood, MN * 55331 ‘– 952.960.7900/www.ci.shorewood.mn.us City of Shorewood MASTER FEE SCHEDULE City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Introduction In May of 2017 the Shorewood City Council approved an amendment : Municipal Fees of the Shorewood City Code removing the actual fees from the Cod, with the exception of Land Use Fees, and replacing it with referencing the Master Fee Schedule which will establish fees by Council resolution. Land Use Fees are required pursuant to MN State statutes to be amended and established by o communities that collect in excess of $5,000 in said fees on an annualPrevious and future resolutions and ordinances amending or establishing new fees will be collated into the Master Fee Schedule as necessary and prudent. forth by Council resolution (and ordinance in the case of land use fees) and incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule upon adoption of the p fees. This provides a cost-effective and expedient process for reviewing fees for relevance and providing annual updates to the schedule of city f and a user-friendly document for public use. A copy of the Master Fee Schedule is available on the city websi at www.ci.shorewood.mn.us or at city offices located at 5755 Country Club Road in Shorewood, MN 55331. To obtain an electronic copy please email cityofshorewood@gmail.com. City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Police alarm permits 601.06.1 $100 3rd false alarm and thereafter Fire alarm permits 601.06.1 $200 2nd false alarm and thereafter LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Administrative enforcement 104.03 Class A Offenses: $100 Violations of Public Health Regulations (Chapters 501-503, except those violations which are also Zoning Code Violations) Class B Offenses: $300 Violations of Rental Housing Regulations (Chapter 1004) Subsequent Class B Violations $1,000 Class C Offenses: $300 Violations of Building Regulations (Chapters 1001-1003 and 1005) Violations of Wetland Regulations (Chapter 1102) Violations of Tree Preservation Regulations (Chapter 1103) City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Violations of Zoning Regulations (Chapter 1201) Subsequent Class C Violations: 2nd citation within 24 months of issuance of previous citation: 25% increase over scheduled civil penalty 3rd citation within 24 months of issuance of previous citation: 50% increase over scheduled civil penalty 4th citation within 24 months of issuance of previous citation: 100% increase over scheduled civil penalty LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Recreational fire permit 501.03 No charge Open burning permit 501.03 $100 per site Boat docks and boat storage facility 304.05 $35 license Tobacco retailer license 302 $250/premise Tobacco administrative fines: Tobacco licensees in violation $75/first offense $200/second offense in 24-month period $250/thereafter within 24-month period Individuals in tobacco violation $50 per offense Adult use license City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Investigative fee 309 $500 Adult use facility license $1,675 + $50/video booth or stall Dog licenses, per animal 701.03.2 $10/$5 license late fee Kennel license 701.04.2 $25/initial license $10/renewal license Horse permit 702.04 $25 Animal impound fees 701.08.4 $25 first offense of year, $50 thereafter Daily boarding fee $25 Additional services when $95 inoculation required $35 bath Street excavation permit 901.01.2b $150 Premises permit - new 301.08.4 $100 investigation fee Gambling permit - exempt 301.09.3 $25 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses System contractor license $1,000 bond Refuse hauler license 503.05.4 $50 plus $25/truck Tree trimmers license 305.01 $30  City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Commercial lawn fertilizer Application license (annual) 310.03.2d $30 Farm and other animals 704.09 $50 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Therapeutic massage annual $100 business license fee Fireworks dealer license/permit $100 per site/per year Domestic partnership registry 110.06 $25 Registration $25 Amendment $25 Termination certificate, $2 certified Multiple dock facility license 1201.24, Subd. 10 $2 per slip/per year II. Liquor Intoxicating liquor license - on-sale 401.06.1 $7,500 Wine license - on-sale 401.06.1 $1,000 Intoxication malt liquor/wine license - on-sale 401.06.1 $2,000 Intoxicating liquor - off-sale 401.06.1 $310  City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Liquor special club license 401.06.1 $250 Special Sunday license 401.06.1 $200 3.2% malt/Liquor license - on-sale 401.06.2 $300 3.2% malt liquor Liquor license - off-sale 401.06.2 $50 3.2% malt liquor or intoxicating liquor Temporary license 401.06.2 $25 Liquor license investigation fee - new license 401.06.1 $500 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee II. Liquor Liquor license investigation fee - 401.06.1 $250 Renewal with change in managers/owners/and the like Liquor licensees in violation 401.06.2 $500/first offense $1,000/second offense in 24-month period $1,500/third offense in 24-month period $2,000/fourth offense in 24-month period  City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– III. Utility Rates Sewer Sewer connection permit 904.07.1 $150 Residential: Sanitary Sewer Service 904.15.1a $77.29/qtr/sewer only $51.53/qtr/low income sewer only Commercial: $8.75 Base $2.02/1,000 gallons Sanitary sewer surcharge 904.09.5 $100/month Local sewer availability charge 904.18.3 $1,200 Water Water connection permit 903.03.1a Inside $50 Outside $60 Watering restriction violation 903.12 $50 first violation  City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– $25 increase each succeeding violation (e.g. 2nd violation $75, 3rd violation $100, and the like) LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Water Water meter 903.04.1 5/8"x3/4"meter w/swivels Cost plus 10% 5/8" x 3/4" copperhorn 1" meter includes swivel Cost plus 10% 1" copperhorn Cost plus 10% 1" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% 1 1/2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% 2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% 1 1/2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% 2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Meter test Cost plus 10% 903.08.4 $80 $17.50/quarter first 5,000 gallons, plus $2.95 per 1,000 gallons in excess of 5,000 gallons up to 50,000 gallons, and $4.25 per 1,000 gallons in excess of 50,000 gallons Water service 903.09.1a per quarter  City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Water service - low income 903.09.1a(1) $15/quarter minimum Water turn-on and shut-off fee 903.04 $50 Water connection fee 903.03.3 $10,000 Single-family residential See chart and formula in 903.04 Subd. 3. ' Multi-family residential, Commercial See chart and formula in 903.04 ' Schools, churches, government and Subd. 3.a. other non-residential LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Stormwater Management Stormwater Management Utility $18.30/qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. Residential equivalent factor $26.13/qtr: lots 10,000-50,000 sq. ft. Basic system rate 905.03 $34.01/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft. Recycling Residential recycling fee $14/quarter/household IV. Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Special assessment search $25 Mailed minutes (nonresident) $75.00 annual $.25/page/individual Mailed agendas $35 annual City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– $.25/page/individual Copies $.25/page/single side 8.5 x 11 @ $.50/page/single side anything larger Color copies $1/page/single side Mailing labels (all city residents) $35 all residents on printed mailing Labels Aerial topography: Mylar copy $16/acre plus $5/mylar Electronic $50/megabyte of data City Code book $75 CD Rom $25 Updates $25/year City Zoning Code $20 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee IV. Miscellaneous Fees and Charges City Zoning Code $20 Comprehensive Plan (softbound color copy $35 City Subdivision Ordinance City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– (softbound copy) $8 Election filing fee $2 Spring clean-up fees 507.09.1 Up to $10 507.09.2 $20 air conditioners* $20 water softeners* $12 appliances, including water heaters* $10 mattresses and rolled carpets/padding* $15 large furniture* $5 tires with or without rims* $13 truck tires without rims* $0 auto batteries* * Or as determined based upon actual cost of disposal Transient business, 308.08 peddling/soliciting $50/applicant Sand barrel/sand charge $40 barrel and sand/$30 sand only Tri-annual rental housing Appeal filing fee 1004.06.6 $100 License fee, per unit (includes up 1004.03(3) $60 to three inspection/unit) Additional inspections as necessary 1004.03(3) $20/inspection City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Return check fee $25 Plans and specifications, paper copy $35 Plans and specifications, CD copy $25 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee V. Park and Recreation Park and recreation use fees 902.06.3 Organized sports participant $10/per participant, per sport, per season Lights $15/hour Tournaments, per rink $30/day plus attendant salary 505.02.4 Special Event Registration and Permit $50/day for events on public property with 75 or more attendees/participants. Soccer/Football/Baseball/Softball Fields (per field) Damage deposit, all fields $125/flat fee Football Field, unlighted $50/hour or $210/day Lights $30/hour Diamond field (baseball) $50/day Entire soccer area, unlighted $150/day Tennis Courts $5/court/hour Multi-use buildings Resident Base Fee Damage deposit, all buildings $50 City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Manor/Badger $25 Eddy Station $100 Picnic Pavilions Resident Base Fee Manor/Freeman $25 Eddy Station Pavilions $50 VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use * *Land Use Fees must be amended or established by Ordinance Zoning/amendments 1201.04.1a $600 plus $1,000 escrow Zoning permits 1201.07 $20 Conditional use permit 1201.04.1a $200 (residential) 1201.05.3a $400 plus $100 escrow (nonresidential) $1,000 plus $1,000 escrow (communication facilities) Variances and appeals 1201.05.3a $250 plus $150 escrow (residential) $300 plus $150 escrow (nonresidential) Planned unit development 1201.25.6b(2)(b) Concept plan $300 plus $100 escrow Development stage plan $300 plus $100 escrow Final plan $300 plus $100 escrow LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use * *Land Use Fees must be amended or established by Ordinance City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Site plan review/certificate 1201.07.2 $150 Subdivision sketch plan review 1202.03.1 $200 Subdivision (Metes and Bounds) 1202.03.1a(2) $350 plus $100 escrow (three lots or less) Subdivision (Preliminary plat) 1202.03.1a(2) $350 plus $25/lot plus $1,000 escrow Subdivision (final plat) 1202.03.1a(2) $500 plus $25/lot plus $1,000 escrow Park dedication 1202.07 $6,500/unit or 8% of raw land value (cash in lieu of land) Comprehensive plan amendment $200 pre-application $800 formal application Extension of deadline for recording 50% of original application fee resolutions Note: Base fees are non-refundable. Escrow deposits are to cover consulting engineer and attorney expenses. Applicants are informed that any city expenses not covered by these fees will be billed to them. Unused escrow fees will be returned to applicant upon written request. Building permit 1001.03 1997 U.B.C. SECTION 107 1997 U.B.C. TABLE 1-A AND STATE RULE 1300.0160 Reinspection fee $35 Residential $75 Roofing permit $75 Siding permit $75 Window permit S.B.C. State Statute or 2.5% of value, $35 City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– Mechanical permit S.B.C. minimum State Statute or $15/fixture, $35 minimum Plumbing permit S.B.C. LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Removal or abandonment, U.F.C. $35 first tank plus $20 each underground tanks additional Demolition permit S.B.C. $50* Sign permit application fee 1201.03.11f $20 Approved sign Per 1997 U.B.C. Table 1-A permit fee Fence permit 1201.03.2f $20 Grading/filling permit S.B.C. Per 1997 U.B.C. Table A-33-A and A-33-B Home occupation permit 1201.03.12c $200 (special) Underground irrigation 901.01.2d $20 system permit R.O.W. Encroachment 901.01.2b $40 permit City of Shorewood Master Fee Schedule/Adopted May 22, 2017 ‘– R.O.W. or easement $300 vacation request R.O.W. work annual 901.07 $200 registration R.O.W. excavation permit administration fee 901.09 $75 Per additional excavation - 901.09 $20 unpaved area Underground utility/telecom 901.09 $45 per 100 L. Ft. (plus minimum permit fee) installation - direct boring or tunneling Underground utility/telecom 901.09 $60 per 100 L. Ft. (plus minimum permit fee) installation-open trenching Obstruction permit 901.09 $20 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Degradation fee 901.09 Varies Restoration fee 901.12 Varies * Fee is waived when done in conjunction with a building permit or when burned by Fire Department. TITLE 1300 MUNICIPAL FEES Subject Chapter License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees 1301 1300-1 Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1300-2 CHAPTER 1301 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Section 1301.01 Purpose 1301.02 Establishment of fees and charges 1301.01 PURPOSE . Fees and charges by the city are established as set forth in other sections of the City Code and as set forth in this Title 1300. If there is inconsistency between fees and charges established in this Title 1300 and other sections of the City Code, the terms and conditions set forth in Title 1300 shall prevail. The City Council may amend this Title 1300 from time to time at its sole discretion by simple majority of all of its members. (1987 Code, 1301.01) (Ord. 263, passed 12-14-1992) ' 1301.02 ESTABLISHMENT OF FEES AND CHARGES . Fees and charges by the city are hereby established as set forth in Schedule A. Each section of the City Code which contains any such fee or charge is hereby amended to reflect the amount set forth in Schedule A. If this Title 1300 does not establish a fee or charge, it shall remain as stated in other sections of the City Code. SCHEDULE A LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Police alarm permits 601.06.1 $100 3rd false alarm and thereafter Fire alarm permits 601.06.1 $200 2nd false alarm and thereafter 1301-1 Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Administrative enforcement 104.03 Class A Offenses: $100 Violations of Public Health Regulations (Chapters 501-503, except those violations which are also Zoning Code Violations) Class B Offenses: $200 Violations of Rental Housing Regulations (Chapter 1004) Class C Offenses: $300 Violations of Building Regulations (Chapters 1001-1003 and 1005) Violations of Wetland Regulations (Chapter 1102) Violations of Tree Preservation Regulations (Chapter 1103) Violations of Zoning Regulations (Chapter 1201) Subsequent Violations: 2nd citation within 24 months of issuance of previous citation: 25% increase over scheduled civil penalty 3rd citation within 24 months of issuance of previous citation: 50% increase over scheduled civil penalty 4th citation within 24 months of issuance of previous citation: 100% increase over scheduled civil penalty 1301-2 Licenses, Permits, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Recreational fire permit 501.03 No charge Open burning permit 501.03 $100 per site Boat docks and boat storage 304.05 $35 facility license Tobacco retailer license 302 $250/premise Tobacco administrative fines: Tobacco licensees in violation $75/first offense $200/second offense in 24-month period $250/thereafter within 24-month period Other individuals in tobacco violation$50 per offense Adult use license 309 Investigative fee $500 Adult use facility license $1,675 + $50/video booth or stall Dog licenses, per animal 701.03.2 $10 $5 license late fee Kennel license 701.04.2 $25/initial license $10/renewal license Horse permit 702.04 $25 Animal impound fees 701.08.4 $25 first offense of year, $50 thereafter Daily boarding fee $25 Additional services when $95 inoculation required $35 bath Street excavation permit 901.01.2b $150 Premises permit - new 301.08.4 $100 investigation fee Gambling permit - exempt 301.09.3 $25 1301-2A Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses System contractor license $1,000 bond Refuse hauler license 503.05.4 $50 plus $25/truck Tree trimmers license 305.01 $30 Commercial lawn fertilizer Application license (annual) 310.03.2d $30 Farm and other animals 704.09 $50 Licenses, Permits, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference I. Miscellaneous Permits and Licenses Therapeutic massage annual $100 business license fee Fireworks dealer license/permit $100 per site/per year Domestic partnership registry 110.06 $25 Registration $25 Amendment $25 Termination certificate, $2 certified Multiple dock facility license 1201.24, Subd. 10 $2 per slip/per year II. Liquor Intoxicating liquor license - on- sale 401.06.1 $7,500 Wine license - on-sale 401.06.1 $1,000 Intoxication malt liquor/wine license - on-sale 401.06.1 $2,000 Intoxicating liquor - off-sale 401.06.1 $310 Liquor special club license 401.06.1 $250 Special Sunday license 401.06.1 $200 3.2% malt Liquor license - on-sale 401.06.2 $300 3.2% malt liquor Liquor license - off-sale 401.06.2 $50 3.2% malt liquor or intoxicating liquor 401.06.2 $25 Temporary license Liquor license investigation fee - new license 401.06.1 $500 Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference II. Liquor Liquor license investigation fee - 401.06.1 $250 Renewal with change in managers/owners/and the like Liquor licensees in violation 401.06.2 $500/first offense $1,000/second offense in 24-month period $1,500/third offense in 24-month period $2,000/fourth offense in 24-month period III. Utility Rates Sewer Sewer connection permit 904.07.1 $150 Sanitary Sewer Service 904.15.1a Residential: $72.85/qtr/sewer only $48.57/qtr/low income sewer only Commercial: $71.90/qtr, plus $2.55/ea 1,000 gallons in excess of 28,500 gallons per qtr. Sanitary sewer surcharge 904.09.5 $100/month Local sewer availability charge 904.18.3 $1,200 Water Water connection permit 903.03.1a Inside $50 Outside $60 Watering restriction violation 903.12 $50 first violation $25 increase each succeeding violation (e.g. 2nd violation $75, 3rd violation $100, and the like) Licenses, Permits, Service Charges and 1301.02 Miscellaneous Fees 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference Water Water meter 903.04.1 5/8" x 3/4" meter includes Cost plus 10% swivels 5/8" x 3/4" copperhorn Cost plus 10% 1" meter includes swivel Cost plus 10% 1" copperhorn Cost plus 10% 1" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% 1 1/2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% 2" meter (with flanges) Cost plus 10% 1 1/2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% 2" pressure-reducing valve Cost plus 10% Meter test 903.08.4 $80 Water service 903.09.1a $17.50/quarter first 5,000 gallons, plus $2.95 per 1,000 gallons in excess of 5,000 gallons up to 50,000 gallons, and $4.25 per 1,000 gallons in excess of 50,000 gallons per quarter Water service - low income 903.09.1a(1) $15/quarter minimum Water turn-on and shut-off fee 903.04 $50 Water connection fee 903.03.3 $10,000 Single-family residential See chart and formula in 903.04 ' Subd. 3. Multi-family residential, See chart and formula in 903.04 ' Commercial Subd. 3.a. Schools, churches, government and other non-residential Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference Stormwater Management Stormwater Management Utility $12.71/qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. Residential equivalent factor $18.14/qtr: lots 10,000-50,000 sq. ft. Basic system rate 905.03 $23.62/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft. Recycling Residential recycling fee $14/quarter/household IV. Miscellaneous Fees and Charges Special assessment search $25 Mailed minutes (nonresident) $75.00 annual $.25/page/individual Mailed agendas $35 annual $.25/page/individual Copies $.25/page/single side 8.5 x 11 @ $.50/page/single side anything larger Color copies $1/page/single side Mailing labels (all city residents) $35 all residents on printed mailing labels Aerial topography: Mylar copy $16/acre plus $5/mylar Electronic $50/megabyte of data City Code book $75 CD Rom $25 Updates $25/year City Zoning Code $20 Licenses, Permits, Service Charges and 1301.02 Miscellaneous Fees 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference IV. Miscellaneous Fees and Charges City Zoning Code $20 Comprehensive Plan (softbound color copy $35 City Subdivision Ordinance (softbound copy) $8 Election filing fee $2 Spring clean-up fees 507.09.1 Up to $10 507.09.2 $20 air conditioners* $20 water softeners* $12 appliances, including water heaters* $10 mattresses and rolled carpets/padding* $15 large furniture* $5 tires with or without rims* $13 truck tires without rims* $0 auto batteries* * Or as determined based upon actual cost of disposal Transient business, 308.08 peddling/soliciting $50/applicant Sand barrel/sand charge $40 barrel and sand/$30 sand only Tri-annual rental housing Appeal filing fee 1004.06.6 $100 License fee, per unit (includes up 1004.03(3) $60 to three inspection/unit) Additional inspections as necessary 1004.03(3) $20/inspection Return check fee $25 Plans and specifications, paper copy $35 Plans and specifications, CD copy $25 2008 S-3 1301-7 Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference V. Park and Recreation Park and recreation use fees 902.06.3 Organized sports participant $10/per participant, per sport, per season Lights Tournaments, per rink $15/hour $30/day plus attendant salary Soccer/Football/Baseball/Softball Fields (per field) Damage deposit, all fields $125/flat fee Football Field, unlighted $50/day Lights $30/hour Diamond field (baseball) $50/day Entire soccer area, unlighted $150/day Tennis Courts $5/court/hour Multi-use buildings Resident Base Fee Damage deposit, all buildings $50 Manor/Badger $25 Eddy Station $100 Picnic Pavilions Resident Base Fee Manor/Freeman $25 Eddy Station Pavilions $50 VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use Zoning/amendments 1201.04.1a $600 plus $1,000 escrow Zoning permits 1201.07 $20 Conditional use permit 1201.04.1a $200 (residential) 1201.05.3a $400 plus $100 escrow (nonresidential) $1,000 plus $1,000 escrow (communication facilities) Variances and appeals 1201.05.3a $250 plus $150 escrow (residential) $300 plus $150 escrow (nonresidential) Planned unit development 1201.25.6b(2)(b) Concept plan $300 plus $100 escrow Development stage plan $300 plus $100 escrow Final plan $300 plus $100 escrow Licenses, Permits, Service Charges and 1301.02 Miscellaneous Fees 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Charge/Fee Reference VI. Building, Zoning, Land Use Site plan review/certificate 1201.07.2 $150 Subdivision sketch plan review 1202.03.1 $200 Subdivision (Metes and Bounds) 1202.03.1a(2) $350 plus $100 escrow (three lots or less) Subdivision (Preliminary plat) 1202.03.1a(2) $350 plus $25/lot plus $1,000 escrow Subdivision (final plat) 1202.03.1a(2) $500 plus $25/lot plus $1,000 escrow Park dedication 1202.07 $6,500/unit or 8% of raw land value (cash in lieu of land) Comprehensive plan amendment $200 pre-application $800 formal application Extension of deadline for recording 50% of original application fee resolutions Note: Base fees are non-refundable. Escrow deposits are to cover consulting engineer and attorney expenses. Applicants are informed that any city expenses not covered by these fees will be billed to them. Unused escrow fees will be returned to applicant upon written request. Building permit 1001.03 1997 U.B.C. SECTION 107 1997 U.B.C. TABLE 1-A AND STATE RULE 1300.0160 Reinspection fee $35 Residential Roofing permit S.B.C. $75 Siding permit S.B.C. $75 Window permit $75 Mechanical permit S.B.C. State Statute or 2.5% of value, $35 minimum Plumbing permit S.B.C. State Statute or $15/fixture, $35 minimum Shorewood - Municipal Fees 1301.02 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Removal or abandonment, U.F.C. $35 first tank plus $20 each underground tanks additional Demolition permit S.B.C. $50* Sign permit application fee 1201.03.11f $20 Approved sign Per 1997 U.B.C. Table 1-A permit fee Fence permit 1201.03.2f $20 Grading/filling permit S.B.C. Per 1997 U.B.C. Table A-33-A and A-33-B Home occupation permit 1201.03.12c $200 (special) Underground irrigation 901.01.2d $20 system permit R.O.W. Encroachment 901.01.2b $40 permit R.O.W. or easement $300 vacation request R.O.W. work annual 901.07 $200 registration R.O.W. excavation permit 901.09 $75 administration fee Per additional excavation - 901.09 $20 unpaved area Underground utility/telecom 901.09 $45 per 100 L. Ft. (plus installation - direct boring minimum permit fee) or tunneling Underground utility/telecom 901.09 $60 per 100 L. Ft. (plus installation-open trenching minimum permit fee) Obstruction permit 901.09 $20 Licenses, Permits, Service Charges and 1301.02 Miscellaneous Fees 1301.02 LICENSE, PERMIT, SERVICE CHARGES AND MISCELLANEOUS FEES Type of Charge/Fee City Code Reference Charge/Fee Degradation fee 901.09 Varies Restoration fee 901.12 Varies * Fee is waived when done in conjunction with a building permit or when burned by Fire Department. (1987 Code, 1301.02) (Ord. 263, passed 12-14-1992; Ord. 274, passed 5-10-1993; Ord. 277, passed ' 8-23-1993; Ord. 279, passed 9-27-1993; Ord. 285, passed 1-24-1994; Ord. 287, passed 3-14-1994; Ord. 292, passed 5-23-1994; Ord. 299, passed 6-12-1995; Ord. 301, passed 6-12-1995; Ord. 302, passed 7-10-1995; Ord. 309, passed 2-12-1996; Ord. 322, passed 6-9-1997; Ord. 328, passed 12-15-1997; Ord. 329, passed 12-15-1997; Ord. 332, passed 2-23-1998; Ord. 340, passed 9-14-1998; Ord. 344, passed 9-28-1998; Ord. 351, passed 5-24-1999; Ord. 353, passed 6-14-1999; Ord. 356, passed 9-13-1999; Ord. 359, passed 12-13-1999; Ord 360, passed 1-10-2000; Ord 365, passed 8-14-2000; Ord. 369, passed 2-12-2001; Ord. 370, passed 2-26-2001;Ord. 412, passed 2-28-2005; Ord. 416, passed 7-25-2005; Ord. 432, passed 12-11-2006; Am. Ord. 437, passed 7-9-2007; Am. Ord. 438, passed 8-13-2007; Am. Ord. 439, passed 9-10-2007; Am. Ord. 442, passed 11-5-2007; Am. Ord. 445, passed 12-10-2007; Am. Ord. 446, passed 1-28-2008; Am. Ord. 452, passed 7-14-2008; Am. Ord. 457, passed 4-13-2009; Am. Ord. 463, passed 1-11-2010; Am. Ord. 471, passed 11-22-2010; Am. Ord. 483, passed 9-26-2011; Am. Ord. 488, passed 11-28-2011; Am. Ord. 489, passed 1-9-2012; Am. Ord. 491, passed 2-13-2012; Am. Ord. 494, passed 3-26-2012; Am. Ord. 502, passed 5-28-2013; Am. Ord. 507, passed 2-3-2014; Am. Ord. 513, passed 6-9-2014; Am. Ord. 518, passed 1-12-2015)