Loading...
03-25-19 CC Reg Mtg Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2019 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING E 3 A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Zerby_ Johnson_ Labadie_ Siakel_ Sundberg_ Attachments CONSENT AGENDA — Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. City Council Work Session Minutes of March 11, 2019 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2019 C. Approval of the Verified Claims List D. Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for 2017 Pavement Reclamation Project — Howards Pt Rd, Kathleen Ct, Oak Ridge Circle, Summit Ave, Echo Rd — City Project 17 -13 E. Accept Quote: Court Maintenance Cathcart /Silverwood Parks MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council Action will be taken) A. Don Aslesen: Freeman Park Drainage 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Jim Lundberg, Executive Director of LMCC 6. PARKS Minutes Minutes Claims List Engineer Memo Resolution 19 -028 Park /Rec Director Memo Resolution 19 -029 A. Report by Commissioner Mangold on 03 -12 -19 Parks Commission Meeting Minutes B. Order Equipment for Freeman Park South Playground Planning Director Memo Resolution 19 -030 C. Accept Plans and Authorize Bids for Badger Park Playground Planning Director Memo Resolution 19 -031 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA— March 25, 2019 Page 2 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Gorham on 03 -05 -19 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes B. Setback Variance Inground Swimming Pool and Patio Planning Director Memo 6035 Spruce Hill Court Resolution 19 -032 C. Lot Line Rearrangement and Lot Area Variance Planning Director Memo 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road Resolution 19 -033 D. Minor Subdivision at 24775 Glen Road Planning Director Memo Resolution 19 -034 E. Direction on Potential Lighting Amendments Planning Director Memo 8. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Change Order 3 Boulder Bridge Motor Control Center Project Public Works Director Memo Resolution 19 -035 9. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Sale of 22000 Stratford Place B. Utility Rates 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff a. Year -End General Fund Report b. Severe Weather Awareness Week B. Mayor and City Council 11. ADJOURN City Administrator Memo Resolution 19 -036 Finance Director Memo Ordinance 563 Finance Director Memo City Administrator Report 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2019 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Labadie, Siakel, Sundberg and Johnson (arrived at 6:06 p.m.); City Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Fauske B. Review Agenda Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. ISLAND STREET PROJECT /MINNETRISTA City Administrator Lerud explained that a few months ago, the City starting hearing talk that Minnetrista was upset that the City was planning to do their own street project. He said a few years ago when Minnetrista had planned to redo their roads and there was an attempt for the two cities to coordinate the schedule so the entire island roads could be done in the same construction season. He stated that the City was not prepared to do the project at the time, so Minnetrista moved forward with their own project. He stated that recently, the City had met with Minnetrista staff and their pavement management specialist who proposed a few options for proceeding. He reviewed the three options presented and approximate costs. He stated that staff is looking for direction from the Council as to how they would like to proceed. Councilmember Siakel asked if Minnetrista had paid the City of Mound when they drove through their newly constructed roads. Public Works Director Brown stated that he did not believe they paid a fee. Councilmember Siakel stated that she is surprised by the request for the fee for our City to drive through another City. She stated that since WSB are the engineers for both cities she does not understand why it was never mentioned when there was discussion of moving projects forward or delaying them. She stated that she has no problem with being a good neighbor but feels this is overly generous especially because she does not think they paid a fee to Mound when they did their work. Public Works Director Brown stated that he can check into whether a payment was made. Councilmember Sundberg confirmed that City Administrator Lerud was recommending the first option from his memo. Councilmember Siakel asked why City Administrator Lerud was recommending throwing in sealcoating as well, because, to her, that is regular maintenance. City Administrator Lerud stated CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 2 of 3 that his reasoning was that he wanted to avoid arguing with Minnetrista in nine years about the road and felt this would be a way to have a clean slate. Councilmember Johnson arrived at the meeting. Councilmember Labadie stated that she is concerned about the precedent this may set because for almost any road project, the argument could be made that the equipment is driving on other city's roads. Public Works Director Brown stated that there had been a rumor that they were planning to post their roads with a load restriction of 4 ton only, which was why they put together a meeting with the city administrator and public works director of Minnetrista to see if it was just a rumor. He stated that they admitted that the Council was considering this change. He explained that if Minnetrista did this, the contract costs for the project would be very high which is why they expressed to them that the City understands the wear and tear on a new roadway and that they wanted to work with Minnetrista. Councilmember Labadie asked what the procedure would be to alter their load restrictions and asked whether they would have the authority to do that. Public Works Director Brown stated that he believes this particular roadway can be done by ordinance provided it is not a State Aid roadway. Councilmember Labadie expressed concern that this is a very discretionary measure because it uses terms like the City will "review ", "limit damage ", "repair ". Councilmember Johnson stated that he questions how the damage may be proven to be the City's fault because of the project and not garbage trucks. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not see this as a good neighbor approach but rather a way to avoid a fairly obvious threat from them regarding the load restriction. She does not want residents to get caught in the middle of a conflict between the two cities. The Council directed staff to present the option of a haul road fee and sealcoat to Minnetrista. City Administrator Lerud suggested that there may be a way of making the examination of the road more objective, so he will do some research. Councilmember Siakel asked Public Works Director Brown to inspect the road ahead of the project and suggested that he even take video footage of it. 3. DISCUSS PROPOSED CHANHASSEN WATERMAIN EXTENSION City Engineer Fauske stated that last September, the City allowed the resident at 21125 Christmas Lane to hook up to water service from the City of Chanhassen. She stated that after the permission was given, Chanhassen decided to take a step back and look at the whole area because this was the third property in the area that has requested a water service connection. She noted that Joe Schneider, the resident at 21125 Christmas Lane is present at tonight's meeting if the Council has any questions for him. She stated that if the two cities decide to move forward with a watermain extension that staff is suggesting a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). Councilmember Sundberg asked if there may be any problems getting a JPA. City Engineer Fauske stated that she did not think there would be an issue with a JPA. Public Works Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 3 of 3 Brown gave an overview of other areas of the City that utilize and are served by Chanhassen water services. Joe Schneider, 21125 Christmas Lane, stated that he knows all of his neighbors and noted that the two closest to his home are connected with the pipes off of Holly Lane. He stated that this originally started as a small thing to hook up two homes and then turned into a watermain extension for seven homes. He noted that he thinks what Chanhassen is asking for is reasonable and that he is also willing to help clean up the easement situation that have showed up. He stated that this has a sense of urgency for him because he has a new home that will be ready for occupancy in about a month. He stated that he does not want to refurbish the existing well on the property. Mayor Zerby asked if this could be turned around and brought back to the Council at their March 25, 2019 meeting. City Engineer Fauske stated that they will try to turn it around that quickly but does not want to miss anything. Public Works Director Brown stated that there are some details that will have to be included such as where the connection fee goes and who reads the meter. The Council expressed support for the proposed watermain extension. City Administrator Lerud stated that the ROWay on -line permit is up and suggested that staff show it to the Council now rather than extending the Council meeting later. City Engineer Fauske explained that the ROWay is the right of way on -line permit application program that is available in the On -line Forms and Permits section of the City's website. She gave a brief overview of the ROWay application and the active permit map available. Mayor Zerby suggested that a link to the ROWay map be made available on the website so people do not have to try to dig around for it. He suggested that staff, especially Public Works, be trained to use this information so they are aware when work is going on and if it is what the permit is actually for. City Engineer Fauske noted that when someone fills out an application there is an automatic e- mail generator that sends notification to her and Public Works Director Brown. Councilmember Siakel noted that the dates listed make it appear that the projects will be lasting for months and suggested finding a way to narrow the timeframe of the work down so people that may see this information aren't worried. 4. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of March 11, 2019, at 6:47 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. ATTEST: Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2019 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call 213 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg; City Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Fauske B. Review Agenda Mayor Zerby noted that item 7A had been removed from the agenda because the applicant had withdrawn their proposal. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, approving the agenda with the removal of item 7A, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2019 B. Approval of the Verified Claims List C. Approve Revised Job Descriptions D. Approve Hiring Nelia Criswell as Part -Time Administrative Assistant E. Regular Appointment of Wade Woodward as Building Official Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 2 of 7 A. Senator David Osmek: Annual Legislative Update Senator Osmek gave a legislative update to the Council. He noted that he serves as Chair of the Energy and Utilities Committee and they have been working on community solar gardens. He reviewed the costs and noted that it has not worked out the way they had intended so they are trying to refine the language that helps provide a bidding process. He stated that he also serves on the Transportation Committee and working on safety improvements for area roads. He serves on the Capital Investment Committee and asked that if the City has any requests to let him know. He explained that he also serves on the Local Government Committee and reviewed a bill that he has backed away from regarding an annual RFP process for consultant services. He explained that he is also working on a distracted driving bill. Councilmember Sundberg stated that the City has a newly established Citizen Recycling Committee that has taken favorable notice of his Right to Repair bill. Mayor Zerby stated that he would like to speak about Highway 7 and noted that he thinks this area is often overlooked by MNDot. He stated that they have been trying to get a sidewalk so it is safe for people to cross at the light into Excelsior. He stated that they also have concerns about Highway 7 starting at 41 that has a long run with no stoplights, so residents are having a hard time getting out onto Highway 7. Senator Osmek stated that he will have a talk with the pertinent parties to see if he can get a little traction for some of these projects along Highway 7. Councilmember Labadie thanked Senator Osmek for coming to the Council and noted that she would like to echo Mayor Zerby's concern about the Highway 7 corridor. She thanked him for including awareness of texting and driving as part of the driver's ed curriculum. 6. PARKS - None 7. PLANNING - None 8. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. 2018 Arborist Tree Report Public Works Director Brown explained that staff has been working with S and S Tree Service for years and noted that they had a recent name change to Davey Tree. He reviewed the plan and budget for their tree and boom truck services. He noted that the City also utilized their services as a consultant where Davey Tree staff would offer consultations at private properties. He explained that the feedback from residents has been very positive for this service. He stated that they were not able to meet the goal of seventy -three trees removed in 2018 because of limited availability of Davey Tree equipment and matching up with the City schedules. He stated that only thirty -three trees were removed last year with their assistance. He noted that over a ten -year period, there are ninety -one trees slated for removal. Mayor Zerby asked what the replacement plan is for the trees that have been taken down because he knows the City had talked about creating more diversity. Public Works Director Brown stated that the focus has primarily been on removal at this point. He stated that there is a balancing act to creating passive open space and tree cover. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Councilmember Johnson asked whether the goat buckthorn experiment would free up some places to plant trees. Public Works Director Brown stated that because the tree cover is so thick there it would be difficult to plant smaller trees and have them thrive. Councilmember Johnson asked how many consultation visits were allowed for residents and stated that he would like to do a better job at informing the public that this tree consultation service is available. City Administrator Lerud stated that there are one - hundred visits allotted for $65 /visit. Public Works Director Brown stated that he thinks it can be advertised more to get the word out about this service. B. Accept Professional Services Agreement for Glen Road /Amlee Road /Manitou Lane Street Reconstruction and Utility Project, City Project 18- 08 Public Works Director Brown explained the history of these proposed street reconstruction projects. He stated that the construction plans were moved to 2020 in order to create a better communication process with the residents. He explained that staff is recommending Council approve preparation of the feasibility report and the preliminary design. Wally Piroyan, 24845 Glen Road, stated that for the past eight months the City has proposed street reconstruction, water mains, curb and gutter despite having minimal support. He noted that the minimal support has been reflected in the survey that was conducted in September of 2018. He noted that he believes that many of the residents who voted yes did not understand the financial impact or the City's encroachment on their property or the aesthetic damage from having two - hundred trees removed on one of the City's oldest streets. He stated that he and other concerned residents planned to meet with every homeowner to get their response to the planned reconstruction project on a written petition. He stated they went house to house and made multiple attempts to reach all fifty residents, including the residents at the townhome facility. He stated that their results show that there are twenty -eight residents against City water or providing City additional property or access for a new road within the existing roadway footprint and thirteen stated verbally that they supported the entire project. He stated that they are still working to contact the additional homeowners. He noted that the votes from Gideon Glen are at seven against and noted that many of them are wintering out of State. He stated that these answers came after the City offered the no obligation hook up for watermain services. He stated that it is very clear that the vast majority of the residents are opposed to this project in its entirety. He read aloud a portion of Minnesota State Statute 429 and noted that sixty -seven percent of the residents must support a project in order for it to move forward. He stated that they are asking that any feasibility study only include a new road, and not City water or curb and gutter. Richard Eng, 25170 Glen Road, explained that the residents are requesting that the project include constructing the road within the existing footprint. He read aloud a portion of State Statute 8820. He gave a brief history of the neighborhood and noted that stormwater management is one of the largest concerns in the area and does not think that increasing the surface area will help with that situation. He noted the study completed in 1975 by OSB regarding stormwater runoff in this area. He stated that the residents are requesting that the watershed projections from these areas noted in this study be calculated and considered as part of this project. He asked what the plan is for stormwater treatment as part of this project. He read aloud a portion of a letter from City Engineer Fauske stating that the City's goal was to improve drainage issues and asked for resident input on where those areas were. He referenced minutes from the September 24, 2018 Council meeting where Mayor Zerby stated that the City will not fix all the stormwater issues facing Glen Road, just some of them. He stated that he would like to have more clarification from the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Mayor on that statement as well as from the City. He stated that he does not believe that there is enough money in the City's budget for this project. He explained that the residents are asking for the City to include in the feasibility study the cost savings of reducing the street widths. Chet Ritchie 24995 Glen Road, stated that he would like to see the street reconstruction and would like to see it redone as close to the same footprint as possible and understands that will mean not having City water. Councilmember Johnson confirmed with City Engineer Fauske that part of Task One in the staff report was to study stormwater mitigation. Councilmember Siakel asked if the drainage study would be conducted by Barr or WSB. City Engineer Fauske stated under the current proposal it would be conducted by WSB. Councilmember Labadie thanked the residents for going door to door to gather information from residents, however, that type of approach from one neighbor to another may not always provide the most accurate results because people sometimes do not want to make their neighbor angry. She stated that the City has been considering this project for a long time and has had well attended neighborhood meetings. Councilmember Johnson stated that he has received numerous comments from residents in this area that felt the tactics used in gathering information were heavy- handed and some of them felt bullied. Councilmember Labadie stated that she did not get feedback from residents and noted that her comments were based on her gut feeling about the survey and how she would have reacted. Mayor Zerby stated that he heard three primary concerns from the residents tonight, drainage, road width and the watermain hook up. He stated that in order to get an accurate picture of the drainage in the area, the feasibility study will need to move forward. He asked how the City is determining the width of the road within the feasibility study. Public Works Director Brown stated that the City approved standard has been twenty -four foot wide driving surface that is inside the curb and gutter. He stated that the Council could approve something different and noted that it is subjective decision, but there will be trade -offs. He stated that the trade -offs will be that school buses, snow plows and emergency vehicles may have trouble getting through if there are cars parked on the street. Mayor Zerby noted that the City survey indicated fifty -four percent in favor of water and asked for clarification from the City ordinance as to the approval rating to move forward. Public Works Director Brown stated that the Council had set the ordinance to state that it needs a sixty -seven percent approval by residents in order for the Council to consider the project. Councilmember Johnson asked if the sixty -seven percent number could be over - ridden by Council discretion. City Administrator Lerud explained that the sixty -seven percent number pertains to assessment projects and there is no proposed assessment for this project, but noted that in that type of project, it is a hard number. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Councilmember Sundberg stated that the City needs to have a better understanding of the water issues and thinks the only way to get that is through the feasibility study. Councilmember Siakel stated that she agrees that stormwater management needs to be addressed. She stated that she feels that if the Council approves the feasibility study the recommendation should also be followed. She stated that she does not want the City to spend money on a feasibility study and then not follow through and do the work. Public Works Director Brown suggested that as part of the feasibility report the City could ask for both the standard width of twenty- two -foot wide and the twenty -foot wide. Councilmember Labadie asked what road width was required for the new fire truck to safely maneuver. She stated that if he did not have an answer tonight, she would like this information brought back for Council consideration. Councilmember Sundberg stated that the core responsibility of the Council is to provide for the safety of the citizens and agrees that safety is a huge issue to her. Public Works Director Brown stated that he would like to defer the answer to Councilmember Labadie's question to Fire Chief Gerber. Councilmember Labadie stated that she would also like to get Fire Chief Gerber's opinion on the implications if the City decides not to install water along this street. Mayor Zerby stated that he would like to see the road be constructed as narrow as possible but still be safe. He stated that he is torn about the question about watermain installation. Councilmember Johnson asked City Engineer Fauske when the Council can make the decision regarding City water being included. City Engineer Fauske stated that it can wait up until the time the City advertises for bids and noted that it could be included as a bid alternate. Councilmember Johnson stated that he agrees with Councilmember Siakel's concerns about approving the feasibility study and then the project not moving forward. Mayor Zerby stated that he thinks it is a safety issue and the drainage issues need to be addressed. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 19 -028, "A Resolution to Approve a Professional Services Agreement with WSB for Preparation of a Feasibility Report and Preliminary Design for Glen Road, Manitou Lane and Amlee Road and Utility Improvements," Including Watermain Construction and with the option for a Twenty -Foot Wide Street, City Project 18 -08. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Appeal Compliance Deadlines for Nuisance Violation 24800 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling noted that the City has received complaints about an outside wood burning furnace with regard to smell and the particulates it produces. She explained that staff sent a violation letter with two compliance deadlines to the property owners. She stated that she had met with the homeowners prior to the first deadline and they indicated that they were researching options and asked for more time. Mayor Zerby noted that the property owners are neighbors and have been very cooperative with the City to address the issue and would support giving them more time. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Councilmember Sundberg asked if extending the deadline to April 1, 2019 would be enough time. James Quast, 24800 Smithtown Road, noted that if some of the snow goes away it should be fine. He explained what he had been doing to his current system in order to try to decrease the smoke. He stated that they have plans to put on another stack but is not sure that will address the problem completely because when the air is heavy it keeps the smoke down rather than letting it go up and dissipate. Constance Quast, 24800 Smithtown Road, explained that because of wind and weather the smoke present in the area is always changing. She noted that their only source of heat is their woodstove, which is why they asked for a little more time to address the issue. Mr. Quast stated that they have been heating the house with wood since 1974. Councilmember Siakel asked if the Quasts were considering heating their home with anything besides wood. Ms. Quast stated that they have considered it, but with their budget constraints does not think it will happen within the next year. Sundberg moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Extension of the Deadline for the Nuisance Violation at 24800 Smithtown Road, until April 1, 2019 to allow the Applicants Additional Time to complete a Compliance Plan, and until April 30, 2019 to complete any necessary repairs, as recommended in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0. 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff SolSmart Memo: City Administrator Lerud noted that this item is informational only. 2. Census 2020 Planning Director Darling stated that forms and postcards will be going out to homeowners soon and asked that everyone fill out their census forms and turn them in. She noted that Federal funding and congressional districts are determined by census information so it is very important the information be as up to date and accurate as possible. She explained that there is an on -line option to fill out the census form this year. Other Public Works Director Brown stated their department has been very busy and commended his crew for a great job this winter. He stated that drainage has been the primary issue they are dealing with at this point because of piled up snow. He stated that they began clearing drains a little over a week ago in an effort to ease the drainage issues. He stated that he is concerned about Boulder Bridge Pond and Mary Lake and noted that they will be monitoring them closely. Councilmember Sundberg expressed her appreciation to the Public Works Department for doing a dynamite job with this winter work. She thanked the residents that have helped by clearing some of the drainage areas and the fire hydrants. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MARCH 11, 2019 Page 7 of 7 Public Works Director Brown stated that the City has met with the County and they will be replacing all the cross drains on the LRT. He noted that it is about a two -year process and he will share the list of priority drains with the Council. Mayor Zerby stated that there will be a lot of work necessary this spring and suggested that the City reach out the surrounding cities and explain that the City staff may not be able to assist in all the ways it has in the past because staff will be busy on our own issues. Public Works Director Brown stated that they were notified today that the seasonal weight restrictions will be going on the roads on March 15, 2019 and noted that signage will be posted. City Engineer Fauske stated that there was a third open house held for the islands. She reminded the Council that there are some burial mounds that were found and staff reached out to an archeologist who indicated that the entire area has historical significance. She stated that staff is suggesting that the City hire an archeologist to go through the necessary process. Finance Director Rigdon noted that the external financial auditors are in house this week and he expects it to go well. Planning Director Darling stated that the Minnetonka Country Club development has almost reached the halfway point in terms of new homes constructed. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie stated that she attended the Mayor's Forum on behalf of Mayor Zerby. She stated that it was well attended and there were a lot of questions asked of the presenters. She shared some of the common questions that were asked of the City. Councilmember Sundberg noted that the Citizen Recycling Committee met last week and she is excited about working with the group. 11. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Zerby announced that the Council would recess the meeting and convene into an executive session pursuant to MN Statutes 13D.05, Subd 3(b) for the purpose of attorney - client discussion regarding potential liability relation to the Grant Street stormwater improvements at 8:43 p.m, Mayor Zerby reconvened the City Council meeting at 9:24 p.m. 12. ADJOURN Sundberg moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 11, 2019, at 9:25 PM. Motion passed 5/0. Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: Sandie Thone, City Clerk #2 C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Verified Claims Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Michelle Nguyen, Senior Accountant Greg Lerud, City Administrator Joe Rigdon, Finance Director Attachments: Claims lists Policy Consideration: Should the attached claims against the City of Shorewood be paid? Background: Claims for council authorization. 65272 - 65320 & ACH 437,570.25 Total Claims $437,570.25 We have also included a payroll summary for the payroll period ending March 17, 2019. 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. Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND 101 General Fund 101 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 62,755.27 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 10,567.85 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -13- 4102 -0000 808.27 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -13- 4103 -0000 847.38 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -13- 4121 -0000 916.71 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4122 -0000 907.72 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -13- 4131 -0000 1,745.21 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -13- 4151 -0000 133.91 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -15- 4101 -0000 5,011.45 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -15- 4121 -0000 375.90 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4122 -0000 377.74 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -15- 4131 -0000 517.31 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -15- 4151 -0000 30.24 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -18- 4101 -0000 5,312.68 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -18- 4121 -0000 398.49 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4122 -0000 403.73 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -18- 4131 -0000 922.13 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -18- 4151 -0000 36.83 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -24- 4101 -0000 5,446.14 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -24- 4121 -0000 291.73 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4122 -0000 377.27 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -24- 4131 -0000 1,106.60 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -24- 4151 -0000 30.42 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -32- 4101 -0000 8,422.10 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -32- 4102 -0000 415.41 0.00 OVERTIME 101 -32- 4105 -0000 385.68 0.00 STREET PAGER PAY 101 -32- 4121 -0000 575.57 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4122 -0000 712.19 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -32- 4131 -0000 2,580.76 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -32- 4151 -0000 592.43 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -33- 4101 -0000 2,906.92 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -33- 4102 -0000 453.01 0.00 OVERTIME PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/18/2019 - 2:26 PM) Page 1 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 101 -33- 4103 -0000 562.50 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -33- 4121 -0000 251.98 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -33- 4122 -0000 275.08 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -33- 4131 -0000 255.74 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -33- 4151 -0000 213.77 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -52- 4101 -0000 1,717.54 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -52- 4121 -0000 114.88 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4122 -0000 154.61 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -52- 4131 -0000 727.87 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -52- 4151 -0000 143.64 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION 101 -53- 4101 -0000 1,074.72 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 101 -53- 4103 -0000 1,480.00 0.00 PART -TIME 101 -53- 4121 -0000 80.62 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4122 -0000 193.92 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 101 -53- 4131 -0000 23.46 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 101 -53- 4151 -0000 27.21 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 62,755.27 62,755.27 FUND 201 Shorewood Comm. & Event Center 201 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 2,154.11 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 201 -00- 4101 -0000 1,484.13 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 201 -00- 4103 -0000 371.25 0.00 PART -TIME 201 -00- 4121 -0000 111.32 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4122 -0000 131.30 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 201 -00- 4131 -0000 17.59 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 201 -00- 4151 -0000 38.52 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 2,154.11 2,154.11 FUND 601 Water Utility 601 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 6,560.86 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 601 -00- 4101 -0000 4,583.84 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 601 -00- 4102 -0000 96.42 0.00 OVERTIME 601 -00- 4105 -0000 192.84 0.00 WATER PAGER PAY 601 -00- 4121 -0000 365.45 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4122 -0000 352.45 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 601 -00- 4131 -0000 823.91 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 601 -00- 4151 -0000 145.95 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 6,560.86 6,560.86 FUND 611 Sanitary Sewer Utility 611 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 5,437.36 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 611 -00- 4101 -0000 3,764.46 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/18/2019 - 2:26 PM) Page 2 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description 611 -00- 4102 -0000 96.42 0.00 OVERTIME 611 -00- 4105 -0000 192.84 0.00 SEWER PAGER PAY 611 -00- 4121 -0000 304.11 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4122 -0000 293.61 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 611 -00- 4131 -0000 668.24 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 611 -00- 4151 -0000 117.68 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 5,437.36 5,437.36 FUND 621 Recycling Utility 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 619.27 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 621 -00- 4101 -0000 474.70 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 621 -00- 4121 -0000 35.60 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4122 -0000 31.19 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 621 -00- 4131 -0000 75.14 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 621 -00- 4151 -0000 2.64 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 619.27 619.27 DEFERRED COMPENSATION FUND 631 Storm Water Utility 1,902.70 WORKERS COMPENSATION 631 -00- 1010 -0000 0.00 11,678.82 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 631 -00- 4101 -0000 8,782.02 0.00 FULL -TIME REGULAR 631 -00- 4102 -0000 1,013.63 0.00 OVERTIME 631 -00- 4121 -0000 678.84 0.00 PERA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4122 -0000 627.97 0.00 FICA CONTRIB - CITY SHARE 631 -00- 4131 -0000 186.90 0.00 EMPLOYEE INSURANCE - CITY 631 -00- 4151 -0000 389.46 0.00 WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND Total: 11,678.82 11,678.82 FUND 700 Payroll Clearing Fund 700 -00- 1010 -0000 88,968.81 0.00 CASH AND INVESTMENTS 700 -00- 2170 -0000 0.00 43,209.19 GROSS PAYROLL CLEARING 700 -00- 2171 -0000 0.00 9,718.11 HEALTH INSURANCE PAYABLE 700 -00- 2172 -0000 0.00 5,234.36 FEDERAL WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2173 -0000 0.00 2,622.08 STATE WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2174 -0000 0.00 9,940.18 FICA/MEDICARE TAX PAYABLE 700 -00- 2175 -0000 0.00 8,402.25 PERA WITHHOLDING PAYABLE 700 -00- 2176 -0000 0.00 4,794.92 DEFERRED COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2177 -0000 0.00 1,902.70 WORKERS COMPENSATION 700 -00- 2179 -0000 0.00 95.00 SEC 125 DEP CARE REIMB PAYABLE 700 -00- 2181 -0000 0.00 1,300.72 DISABILITY INSURANCE 700 -00- 2183 -0000 0.00 710.00 HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT 700 -00- 2184 -0000 0.00 591.30 DENTAL DELTA 700 -00- 2185 -0000 0.00 448.00 DENTAL - UNION PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/18/2019 - 2:26 PM) Page 3 Account Number Debit Amount Credit Amount Description FUND Total: 88,968.81 88,968.81 Report Total: 178,174.50 178,174.50 PR - G/L Distribution Report (03/18/2019 - 2:26 PM) Page 4 Accounts Payable Completer Check Proof List by Vendor User: nmguyen Printed: 03/20/2019 - 12 44P Batch: 00002.03.2019 - CC -03 -25 -2019 Invoice No Description Vendor: 102 ABDO SICK & MEYERS LLP 411666 2018 Certified Audit Svcs Check Total: Vendor: 104 ADAM'S PEST CONTROL INC 2754001 Building Inspection- Shorewood 2755784 Building Inspection- Southshore 15,000.00 Check Total: Vendor: 337 ADVANCED ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMI 62092 Boulder Bridge MCC Replacement Check Sequence: 2 Check Total: Vendor: 171 AE2S CONSTRUCTION, LLC PV #5- Proj05491 P.V.$5 - Project #05491 - Boulder Bridge MCC 60.00 Check Total: Vendor: 4 AFSCME CO 5 MEMBER HEALTH FUND March -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Dental -IInion Check Total: Vendor: 659 ASHLAND WOODS LLC AshlandWd -03 -19 Reimbursement for Watermain - Ashland Woods 5,349.16 Check Total: Vendor: 125 BOYER TRUCKS PARTS DISTRIBUTION CE 32- 842194 %1 Equipment Repair AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) , 7 '' 7 City of Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Sequence: 1 ACH Enabled: False 15,000.00 03/25/2019 101 -16- 4301 -0000 15,000.00 Check Sequence: 2 ACH Enabled: True 71.33 03/25/2019 101 -19 -4400 -0000 60.00 03/25/2019 201 -00 -4400 -0000 131.33 Check Sequence: 3 ACH Enabled: False 5,349.16 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4680 -0000 5,349.16 Check Sequence: 4 ACH Enabled: False 2,955.92 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4680 -0000 2,955.92 Check Sequence: 5 ACH Enabled: True 448.00 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2185 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Dental -IInion 449.00 Check Sequence: 6 ACH Enabled: False 50,000.00 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4680 -0000 50,000.00 Check Sequence: 7 ACH Enabled: True 575.72 03/25/2019 101 -32- 4221 -0000 Page 1 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 2 Check Total: 575.72 Vendor: 891 C. S. McCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION, INC. Check Sequence: 8 ACH Enabled: False PV #6- P02925 -40 P.V.$6 - Project #02925-40-2017 Street Relamat 44,661.14 03/25/2019 404 -00 -4680 -0027 Check Total: 44,661.14 Vendor: 137 CENTURY LINK Check Sequence: 9 ACH Enabled: False 9524702294 -FE19 952- 470 - 2294 -PW 124.54 03/25/2019 101 -32- 4321 -0000 9524707819 -FE19 952- 470 - 7819 -SSCC 250.08 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4321 -0000 New Line 9524709605 -FE19 952- 474 - 9605- Amesbury 80.04 03/25/2019 601 -00- 4394 -0000 9524709606 -FE19 952- 474 - 9606 - Amesbury 74.08 03/25/2019 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Check Total: 528.74 Vendor: 1022 CHIDI CHIDOZIE Check Sequence: 10 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 915 CINTAS Check Sequence: 11 ACH Enabled: False February -2019 Monthly Svc - PWs 1,693.86 03/25/2019 101 -32 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 1,693.86 Vendor: 1021 MARILYN & HELENE CLARK Check Sequence: 12 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019 - Garden Fair Refund 50.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 50.00 Vendor: 150 CLASSIC CLEANING COMPANY, LLC Check Sequence: 13 ACH Enabled: False 27916 City Hall Monthly Svc 495.00 03/25/2019 101 -19 -4400 -0000 27917 Public Works Monthly Svc 295.00 03/25/2019 101 -32 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 790.00 Vendor: 3 DELTA DENTAL OF MINNESOTA Check Sequence: 14 ACH Enabled: True March -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Dental - Non Union 591.30 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2184 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Dental - Non Uni Check Total: 591.30 Vendor: 547 CATHERINE L. DEMARS Check Sequence: 15 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 2 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 5 EFTPS - FEDERAL W/H Check Sequence: 16 ACH Enabled: True PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Federal Income Tax 5234.36 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2172 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Federal Income 7 PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 FICA Employee Portio 4,028.07 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2174 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 FICA Employee] PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 FICA Employer Portioi 4,028.07 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2174 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 FICA Employer 1 PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Medicare Employee Pc 942.02 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2174 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Medicare Emplo, PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Medicare Employer Po 942.02 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2174 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Medicare Emplo, Check Total: 15,174.54 Vendor: 1026 MARK & PAULA FREER Check Sequence: 17 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 40.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 40.00 Vendor: 1020 JO FRERICHS Check Sequence: 18 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: UB "00239 Pavel & Olga Ghuhenya Check Sequence: 19 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 28.12 03/19/2019 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 12.06 03/19/2019 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 12.05 03/19/2019 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 52.23 Vendor: UB "00236 Shirley & George Goers Check Sequence: 20 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 24.46 03/19/2019 601 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 28.53 03/19/2019 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 12.23 03/19/2019 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 12.33 03/19/2019 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 77.55 Vendor: 6 HEALTH PARTNERS -GROUP Check Sequence: 21 ACH Enabled: False March -2019 PR Batch 00001.03.2019 Health Ins - CoPay 3,596.99 03/04/2019 700 -00- 2171 -0000 PR Batch 00001.03.2019 Health Ins - GOP! March -2019 PR Batch 00001.03.2019 Health Insurance -HSA 6,121.23 03/04/2019 700 -00- 2171 -0000 PR Batch 00001.03.2019 Health Insurance March -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Health Ins - CoPay 3,596.99 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2171 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Health Ins - GOP! March -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Health Insurance -HSA 6,121.23 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2171 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Health Insurance Check Total: 19,436.22 AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 3 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 215 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFORMATION TECH] Check Sequence: 22 ACH Enabled: True 1000126938 Monthly Radio Fleet &MESB 130.38 03/25/2019 101 -32- 4321 -0000 Check Total: 130.38 Vendor: 1028 SUE HENNING Check Sequence: 23 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 40.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 40.00 Vendor: 436 MARK HODGES Check Sequence: 24 ACH Enabled: True Jan- Mar -2019 Video Tape Services 210.00 03/25/2019 101 -11- 4400 -0000 Check Total: 210.00 Vendor: 896 HUEBSCH SERVICES Check Sequence: 25 ACH Enabled: True 4247638 SSCC Mats 32.00 03/25/2019 201 -00 -4400 -0000 4247638 City Hall Mats 97.03 03/25/2019 101 -19 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 129.03 Vendor: 2 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST - 302131 -457 Check Sequence: 26 ACH Enabled: False PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Deferred Comp Flat At 4,632.00 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2176 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Deferred Comp F PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Deferred Comp Percen 162.92 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2176 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Deferred Comp F Check Total: 4,794.92 Vendor: 686 KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN Check Sequence: 27 ACH Enabled: True March -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Long Term Disability 610.48 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2181 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Long Term Disat March -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Short Term Disability 690.24 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2181 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 Short Term Disat Check Total: 1,300.72 Vendor: 1024 JENNIE KIRSHBAUM Check Sequence: 28 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- Garden Fair Reftwd- Jennie Kirshbaum & 50.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 50.00 Vendor: 243 KLM ENGINEERING, INC. Check Sequence: 29 ACH Enabled: False 7101 AT &T Antenna Modifications - Smithtown Towe 5,300.00 03/25/2019 990 -00- 2200 -0000 Check Total: 5,300.00 Vendor: 1025 SHIRLEY MAIL KOOYMAN Check Sequence: 30 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 40.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 4 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 5 Check Total: 40.00 Vendor: 247 DREW KRIESEL Check Sequence: 31 ACH Enabled: False February -2019 Building Maint. Services 512.00 03/25/2019 201 -00 -4400 -0000 February -2019 Building General Supplies Exp 92.85 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4245 -0000 February -2019 Events Progrant/Class Services 467.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 1.071.85 Vendor: 531 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES Check Sequence: 32 ACH Enabled: False 290107 IPMAAnntmI Conference - Sandie Thone 75.00 03/25/2019 101 -13- 4331 -0000 Check Total: 75.00 Vendor: 1018 SANDRA LESTER Check Sequence: 33 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: UB "00238 Michael & Debra Ligudzinski Check Sequence: 34 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 2.98 03/19/2019 601 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 3.47 03/19/2019 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 1.49 03/19/2019 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 1.49 03/19/2019 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 9.43 Vendor: 1019 VERONICA MALANE Check Sequence: 35 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 1016 SANDRA MANGLE Check Sequence: 36 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 965 MCI COMM SERVICE Check Sequence: 37 ACH Enabled: False March -11 -2109 6N372303- 952- 470 - 9606 - Amesbury 33.71 03/25/2019 601 -00- 4394 -0000 March -11 -2109 6N372302- 952- 470 - 9605- Amesbury 33.71 03/25/2019 601 -00- 4394 -0000 Check Total: 67.42 Vendor: 1013 LUCY McINERNY Check Sequence: 38 ACH Enabled: False AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 5 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair -Refund 50.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 50.00 Vendor: 283 METRO SALES INC Check Sequence: 39 ACH Enabled: False INV1293388 Ricoh/NIP -C3002 Color Copier 3,063.40 03/25/2019 101 -19- 4221 -0000 Ricoh/NIP -C3002 Color Copier Check Total: 3,063.40 Vendor: 279 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL (WASTEWATE. Check Sequence: 40 ACH Enabled: True 1093158 Monthly Waste Water Svc 72,430.21 03/25/2019 611 -00- 4385 -0000 Check Total: 72,430.21 Vendor: 300 MINNESOTA DNR ECOLOGICAL & WATER Check Sequence: 41 ACH Enabled: False 1974 -5226 2018 Water Sold 1,546.36 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4437 -0000 Check Total: 1,546.36 Vendor: 11 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE Check Sequence: 42 ACH Enabled: True PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 State Income Tax 2,622.08 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2173 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 State Income Tax Check Total: 2,622.08 Vendor: 1029 MN MECHANICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Check Sequence: 43 ACH Enabled: False 1022 Flanged Pratt Valve - Boulder Bridge MCC 3,250.67 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4680 -0000 Check Total: 3250.67 Vendor: 305 MNSPECT, LLC Check Sequence: 44 ACH Enabled: True 7794 Inspection Services 1,715.00 03/25/2019 101 -24 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 1,715.00 Vendor: UB "00235 Travis & Laurel Murphy Check Sequence: 45 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 5.29 03/19/2019 601 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 6.16 03/19/2019 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 2.65 03/19/2019 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 2.64 03/19/2019 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 16.74 Vendor: 1017 MARY NOLTE Check Sequence: 46 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 6 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 665 OPTUM BANK Check Sequence: 47 ACH Enabled: True PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 HSA - OPTUM BANK 710.00 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2183 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 HSA - OPTUM B. Check Total: 710.00 Vendor: 9 PERA Check Sequence: 48 ACH Enabled: True PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 MN -PERA Deduction 3,901.05 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2175 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 MN -PERA Dedu PR -03 -18 -2019 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 MN PERA Benefit Em 4,501.20 03/18/2019 700 -00- 2175 -0000 PR Batch 00002.03.2019 MN PERA Bennet Check Total: 9,402.25 Vendor: 332 PETTY CASH Check Sequence: 49 ACH Enabled: False 03 -07 -2019 First Aid Supplies 5.59 03/25/2019 101 -19- 4245 -0000 Check Total: 5.59 Vendor: UB "00237 Joellen & Bryan Price Check Sequence: 50 ACH Enabled: False Refund Check 10.58 03/19/2019 601 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 12.34 03/19/2019 611 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 5.29 03/19/2019 631 -00- 2010 -0000 Refund Check 5.29 03/19/2019 621 -00- 2010 -0000 Check Total: 33.50 Vendor: 1014 DON RAMLER Check Sequence: 51 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 1027 CAROL ROTHE Check Sequence: 52 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 1000 SABRE PLUMBING & HEATING Check Sequence: 53 ACH Enabled: False 5960PrestwickCt Water Permit Refnd - 5960 Prestwick Court 60.00 03/25/2019 601 -00- 3717 -0000 Check Total: 60.00 Vendor: 360 SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPA Check Sequence: 54 ACH Enabled: False April- 2019 -013 Monthly - Operating Budget Exp 105,474.42 03/25/2019 101 -21 -4400 -0000 Jan- 2019 -11CPF Monthly -Henn Cty Process Fee 282.00 03/25/2019 101 -21 -4400 -0000 AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 7 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 8 Check Total: 105,756.42 Vendor: 446 STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF P Check Sequence: 55 ACH Enabled: False 272200005102406 Amesbury Mpal -20405 Knightsbrg 100.00 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4437 -0000 Facility ID -5616 272200006102410 SE Area MPal-5775 Covington Rd 100.00 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4437 -0000 Facility ID-5617 272200007102408 Boulder Bridge -28125 Bldr Brdg 100.00 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4437 -0000 Facility ID-5619 272200008102407 Badger Well -24255 Smithtown Rd 100.00 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4437 -0000 Facility ID -5619 Check Total: 400.00 Vendor: 1030 STERNBERG LANTERNS, INC. Check Sequence: 56 ACH Enabled: False 49904 Street Lights Repair -Pole Mounted Fixtures 5,592.00 03/25/2019 404 -00 -4620 -0000 Check Total: 5,592.00 Vendor: 694 TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL, INC. Check Sequence: 57 ACH Enabled: True M24573 Council Meeting 271.50 03/25/2019 101 -13 -4400 -0000 M24573 Planning Meeting 215.00 03/25/2019 101 -18 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 486.50 Vendor: 392 VALLEY -RICH CO. INC. Check Sequence: 58 ACH Enabled: False 26674 Watermain Break - Howards Pt & Edgewood Rd 9,260.70 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4400 -0000 26675 Watermain Break - Smithtown Rd & Boulder Bric 11,145.60 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 20,406.30 Vendor: 421 VERIZON WIRELESS Check Sequence: 59 ACH Enabled: False 9825298034 Sewer & Water - Acct842017386 93.28 03/25/2019 601 -00- 4321 -0000 Acct #842017386 -00001 9825298034 Sewer & Water - Acct842017386 93.28 03/25/2019 611 -00- 4321 -0000 Acct #842017386 -00001 Check Total: 186.56 Vendor: 1015 VERNA VON GOLTZ Check Sequence: 60 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 415 WARNER CONNECT Check Sequence: 61 ACH Enabled: True 29937305 Monthly Network Maint Services 2,836.35 03/25/2019 101 -19- 4321 -0000 29937353 Additional Services Charge 425.07 03/25/2019 101 -19- 4321 -0000 Check Total: 3261.42 AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 8 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Vendor: 486 WARNING LITES OF MINNESOTA, INC. Check Sequence: 62 ACH Enabled: False 208260 Traffic Control Seminar - Scott Schroeder 44.95 03/25/2019 101 -32- 4331 -0000 Check Total: 44.95 Vendor: 1012 THOMAS WARTMAN Check Sequence: 63 ACH Enabled: False 26985EdgwdRd Escrow Refund - Minor Sub App -26985 Edgewc 100.00 03/25/2019 880 -00- 2200 -0000 Check Total: 100.00 Vendor: 402 WATER CONSERVATION SERVICES, INC. Check Sequence: 64 ACH Enabled: True 9329 Watermain Break - Smithtown Rd & Boulder Bric 525.91 03/25/2019 601 -00 -4400 -0000 Check Total: 525.91 Vendor: 408 WM MUELLER & SONS INC Check Sequence: 65 ACH Enabled: True 242186 Salt & Sand 2,019.57 03/25/2019 101 -33- 4245 -0000 Check Total: 2,019.57 Vendor: 1023 DONISE WRIGHT Check Sequence: 66 ACH Enabled: False 2019- GardenFair 2019- GardenFair 25.00 03/25/2019 201 -00- 4248 -0000 Check Total: 25.00 Vendor: 410 WSB AND AS SOCIATES, INC. Check Sequence: 67 ACH Enabled: True 0- 002925- 120 -33 Minnetonka Country Club -City Project 83.75 03/25/2019 101 -31- 4303 -0000 0- 002925 -240 -24 Riviera Land & Shorewood Ln St 2221.50 03/25/2019 404 -00 -4680 -0020 0- 002925- 400 -17 Street Reclamation Improvement 2,167.00 03/25/2019 404 -00 -4680 -0027 R- 010930 - 000 -13 Shwd Ln Ravine Stabilization 198.75 03/25/2019 631 -00- 4303 -0000 R- 012131 -000 -7 Woodhaven 2nd OirtlotAReplat 160.50 03/25/2019 101 -31- 4303 -0000 R- 012809 -000 -5 Street Reclamation- Enchanted 21,374.75 03/25/2019 404 -00 -4680 -0023 R- 012957 -000 -3 Sewer Lining 563.00 03/25/2019 601 -00- 4303 -0000 R- 013163 -000 -2 23825 Lawtonka Drive Subdivision 161.25 03/25/2019 101 -00- 3414 -0000 R- 013226 -000 -1 Gen Eng Svc 4,000.00 03/25/2019 101 -31 -4400 -0000 R- 013234 -000 -1 Misc. Engineering Support 2,688.25 03/25/2019 101 -31- 4303 -0000 R- 013430 -000 -1 MST Svcs 115.00 03/25/2019 631 -00- 4302 -0009 R- 013510 -000 -1 25875 Valleywood Lane -Minor Subdivision 79.50 03/25/2019 101 -00- 3414 -0000 Check Total: 33,913.25 Vendor: 411 XCEL ENERGY, INC. Check Sequence: 68 ACH Enabled: True ShW629849830 5655 Merry Lane 22.11 03/25/2019 101 -52- 4380 -0000 5655 Merry Lane AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PM) Page 9 Invoice No Description Amount Payment Date Acct Number Reference Check Total: 22.11 Total for Check Run: 437.570.25 Total of Ntunber of Checks: AP- Computer Check Proof List by Vendor (03/20/2019 - 12:44 PNO Page 10 I M Q City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title / Subject: Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the 2017 Street Reclamation Project (Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Oak Ridge Circle, and Summit Avenue) Cif Pro'ecf 17 -13 J 1 Meeting Date: March 25, 2019, 2019 #21D Prepared by: Katie Koscielak, Project Manager Reviewed by: Alyson Fauske, City Engineer MEETING TYPE Attachments: Resolution, Final Payment Summary Regular Meeting Background: The City Council awarded the construction contract for the 2017 Reclamation Project (Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Oak Ridge Circle, and Summit Avenue), City Project 17 -13, to C. S. McCrossan Contracting Inc. on September 11, 2017. C. S. McCrossan Contracting 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. C. S. McCrossan Contracting, Inc. has submitted the two -year Maintenance Bond, Minnesota Form IC -134 Withholdings Affidavit, lien waivers, and the signed request form for final payment. A Resolution Accepting Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the 2017 Street Reclamation Project (Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Oak Ridge Circle, and Summit Avenue), City Project 17 -13, is included for Council consideration of approval. Financial or Budget Considerations: The project construction contract as bid was awarded by the Council in the amount of $810,924.60. During the progress of construction, Change Orders 1, 2, 3, and 4 were necessary to facilitate construction, Change Orders 1, 2, 3, and 4, as approved by Council, increased the construction Contract to $842,575.89. The final construction cost is in the amount of $867,754.15, 7% above the original bid. The amount remaining for payment with Payment Request No. 6 /Final is $44,661.14. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council approve the attached resolution "Accepting the Improvements and Authorizing Final Payment for the 2017 Street Reclamation Project (Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Oak Ridge Circle, and Summit Avenue), City Project 17 -13" 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 RESOLUTION 19 -028 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT FOR THE 2017 STREET RECLAMATION PROJECT (HOWARDS POINT ROAD, KATHLEEN COURT, OAK RIDGE CIRCLE, AND SUMMIT AVENUE) CITY PROJECT 17 -13 WHEREAS, ON September 11, 2017, the City of Shorewood entered into a contract with C. S. McCrossan Contracting, Inc. for the 2017 Street Reclamation Project (Howards Point Road, Kathleen Court, Oak Ridge Circle, and Summit Avenue), City Project 17 -13; 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 inspections 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, MINNESOTA 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 final completion, October 29, 2018. Passed by the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota this 25th day of March 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Pay Voucher m� Page 1 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project 02925 -40 - SHOR - 2017 Street Reclamation Improvement Project Final Pay Voucher No. 6 Contractor: C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. Contract No. 7865 Jefferson Highway Vendor No. Maple Grove, MN 55311 -6240 For Period: 9/1/2018 - 2/5/2019 Warrant # Date Contract Amounts Funds Encumbered Original Contract $810,924.60 Original $810,924.60 Contract Changes $31,651.29 Additional N/A Revised Contract $842,575.89 Total $810,924.60 Work Certified To Date Base Bid Items $835,002.86 Backsheet $0.00 Change Order $32,751.29 Supplemental Agreement $0.00 Work Order $0.00 Material On Hand $0.00 Total $867,754.15 I 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 Project Engineer Approved By C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. Contractor Date Date Approved By City of Shorewood Date Work Certified This Pay Voucher Work Certified To Date Less Amount Retained Less Previous Payments Amount Paid This Pay Voucher Total Amount Paid To Date 02925 -40 $1,340.45 $867,754.15 $0.00 $823,093.01 $44,661.14 $867,754.15 Percent Retained: 0.0000% Amount Paid This Final Pay Voucher $44,661.14 I 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 Project Engineer Approved By C. S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. Contractor Date Date Approved By City of Shorewood Date Pay Voucher Page 2 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project No. 02925 -40 Final Pay Voucher No. 6 02925 -40 Payment Summary No. From Date To Date Work Certified Amount Retained Amount Paid Per Pav Voucher Per Pav Voucher Per Pav Voucher 1 10/03/2017 12/15/2017 2 12/16/2017 03/30/2018 3 03/31/2018 07/11/2018 4 07/12/2018 08/02/2018 5 08/03/2018 08/31/2018 6 09/01/2018 02/05/2019 $106,797.59 $8,626.50 $703,526.82 $42,977.79 $4,485.00 $1,340.45 Totals: $867,754.15 02925 -40 Fundina Cateaory Resort $5,339.88 $431.32 $35,176.35 $2,148.89 $224.25 ($43,320.69) $101,457.71 $8,195.18 $668,350.47 $40,828.90 $4,260.75 $44,661.14 $0.00 $867,754.15 Funding Work Less Less Amount Paid Total Category Certified Amount Previous This Amount Paid No. To Date Retained Payments Pay Voucher To Date UNF 867,754.15 0.00 823,093.02 44,661.13 867,754.15 Totals: $867,754.15 $0.00 02925 -40 Funding Source Report $823,093.02 $44,661.13 $867,754.15 Accounting Funding Amount Paid Revised Funds Paid To No. Source This Contract Encumbered Contractor Pay Voucher Amount To Date To Date UNF Unfunded 44,661.13 842,575.89 810,924.60 867,754.15 Totals: $44,661.13 $842,575.89 $810,924.60 $867,754.15 Pay Voucher Page 3 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project No. 02925 -40 Final Pay Voucher No. 6 02925 -40 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 A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS 1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LS $40,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $40,500.00 REMOVE 2 2104.501 SEWER PIPE L F $1100 220 0 $0.00 189 $2,457.00 (STORM) REMOVE 3 2104.501 BITUMINOUS L F $620 580 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 CURB 4 2104.501 REMOVE CURB L F $11.50 180 0 $0.00 142 $1,63100 & GUTTER REMOVE 5 2104.503 BITUMINOUS SF $16.00 50 0 $0.00 35 $560.00 WALK REMOVE 6 2104.505 BITUMINOUS S Y $6.10 950 0 $0.00 1269.3 $7,742.73 PAVEMENT REMOVE 7 2104.505 BITUMINOUS S Y $14.50 1320 0 $0.00 1041 $15,094.50 DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REMOVE 8 2104.509 DRAINAGE EACH $310.00 6 0 $0.00 9 $2,790.00 STRUCTURE SAWING 9 2104.513 BITUMINOUS L F $160 2105 0 $0.00 2200 $7,920.00 PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH) 10 2104.523 SALVAGE SIGN EACH $25.85 31 0 $0.00 50 $1,292.50 11 2104.523 SALVAGE EACH $150.00 6 0 $0.00 6 $900.00 CASTING REMOVE SUMP 12 2104.602 DISCHARGE EACH $310.00 2 0 $0.00 1 $310.00 PIPE 13 2504.602 IRRIGATION EACH $250.00 5 0 $0.00 5 $1,250.00 SYSTEM REPAIR STREET 14 2121610 SWEEPER HOUR $128.00 24 0 $0.00 315 $4,288.00 (WITH PICKUP BROOM) 15 2130.501 WATER MGAL $2725 5 0 $0.00 72 $1,962.00 16 2211.501 AGGREGATE TON $25.00 420 0 $0.00 470.96 $11,774.00 BASE CLASS 5 17 2215.501 FULL DEPTH S Y $4.85 22260 0 $0.00 2315922 $112,32222 RECLAMATION BITUMINOUS 18 2231.502 PATCHING S Y $29.00 50 0 $0.00 13 $95.70 MIXTURE Pay Voucher Page 4 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project No. 02925 -40 Final Pay Voucher No. 6 02925 -40 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 BITUMINOUS 19 2357.502 MATERIAL FOR GAL $4.65 2420 0 $0.00 1728 $8,03520 TACK COAT TYPE SP 12.5 20 2360.501 WEARING COURSE MIX TON $64.00 2870 0 $0.00 2960.67 $189,482.88 (2,C) TYPE SP 12.5 21 2360.502 NON WEAR TON $64.00 2870 0 $0.00 310127 $198,60928 COURSE MIX (2,C) TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING 22 2360.503 COURSE S Y $11.50 1320 133 $152.95 1318 $15,157.00 MIXTURE (2,C) 3" THICK 23 2360.601 BITUMINOUS EACH $1,200.00 3 0 $0.00 3 $3,600.00 SPILLWAY 24 2451.507 GRANULAR C Y $40.00 70 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 BEDDING 25 2501.511 12" CS PIPE L F $48.00 214 0 $0.00 149.4 $7,171.20 CULVERT 26 2501.515 12" CS PIPE EACH $900.00 9 0 $0.00 7 $6,300.00 APRON 12" RC PIPE 27 2501541 SEWER DES L F $5150 27 0 $0.00 63 $3,370.50 3006 CL V CONNECT TO 28 2501602 EXISTING EACH $470.00 6 0 $0.00 8 $3,760.00 STORM SEWER 29 2504.602 ADJUST GATE EACH $855.00 2 0 $0.00 9 $7,695.00 VALVE & BOX CONST 30 2506.501 DRAINAGE L F $495.00 12 0 $0.00 16.5 $8,167.50 STRUCTURE DES 48 -4020 CONSTRUCT 31 2506.502 DRAINAGE EACH $1,785.00 3 0 $0.00 4 $7,140.00 STRUCTURE (2'X3') 32 2506.516 CASTING EACH $740.00 3 0 $0.00 12 $8,880.00 ASSEMBLY ADJUST FRAME 33 2506.522 & RING EACH $325.00 42 0 $0.00 45 $14,625.00 CASTING 34 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEAL EACH $275.00 6 0 $0.00 1 $275.00 35 2511.501 RANDOM CY $140.00 24 0 $0.00 8 $1,120.00 RIPRAP CLASS Pay Voucher Page 5 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project No. 02925 -40 Final Pay Voucher No. 6 02925 -40 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 III 36 2521.501 6" CONCRETE S F $14.00 75 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 WALK CONCRETE 37 2531.501 CURB & L F $3030 470 0 $0.00 720 $21,816.00 GUTTER DESIGN B618 38 2531.618 TRUNCATED SF $68.00 12 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 DOMES 39 2535.501 BITUMINOUS L F $9.50 670 125 $1,187.50 532 $5,054.00 CURB 40 2540.602 MAIL BOX EACH $92.00 66 0 $0.00 88 $8,096.00 (TEMPORARY) 41 2557.602 FENCING EACH $250.00 5 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 42 2561601 TRAFFIC LS $6,150.00 1 0 $0.00 1.215 $7,47225 CONTROL 43 2564.531 SIGN PANELS SF $36.00 124.75 0 $0.00 75.65 $2,72140 TYPE C 44 2564.602 SIGN PANELS EA $78.00 28 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 TYPE D 45 2564.602 LED BLINKER EACH $5,000.00 6 0 $0.00 4 $20,000.00 STOP SIGN 46 2571502 SILT FENCE, L F $1.65 3580 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 TYPE MS STORM DRAIN 47 2571530 INLET EACH $150.00 33 0 $0.00 27 $4,050.00 PROTECTION SEDIMENT 48 2571533 CONTROL LOG L F $5.10 3790 0 $0.00 5810 $29,631.00 TYPE WOOD FIBER STABILIZED 49 2571535 CONSTRUCTION LS $2,500.00 1 0 $0.00 1 $2,500.00 EXIT 50 2571603 LINEAR L F $1165 415 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 SEDIMENT TRAP 51 2575.505 SAO1DDING TYPE S Y $5.75 3300 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 EROSION 52 2575.523 CONTROL S Y $1.51 625 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 BLANKETS CATEGORY 3 RAPID 53 2575.572 STABILIZATION S Y $2.10 720 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 METHOD 4 54 2575.605 SEEDING (INCL ACRE $42,000.00 026 0 $0.00 0.89 $37,380.00 TOPSOIL, SEED, Pay Voucher Page 6 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project No. 02925 -40 Final Pay Voucher No. 6 02925 -40 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 FERT, HYDROMULCH) Totals For Section A. SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS: $1,340.45 $835,002.86 Change Order 1 - Extend Completion to 05/31/2018 02925- EXTEND 55 40 COMPLETION L S $0.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 DATE Totals For Change Order 1 - Extend Completion to 05/31/2018: $0.00 $0.00 Change Order 2 - Additional requested by City REMOVE AND 55 2104.603 REPLACE SF $4522 80 0 $0.00 80 $3,617.60 BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 56 2506.602 CHIMNEY SEALS EACH $326.81 35 0 $0.00 35 $11,43835 Totals For Change Order 2 - Additional requested by City: $0.00 $15,055.95 Change Order 3 - EXTEND COMPLETION DATE 02925- EXTEND 57 40 COMPLETION LS $0.00 1 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 DATE Totals For Change Order 3 - EXTEND COMPLETION DATE: $0.00 $0.00 Change Order 4 - CHANGES NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION 58 2105.507 COMMON BORROW (LV) C Y $14.87 225 0 $0.00 225 $3,345.75 CALCIUM 59 2131.506 CHLORIDE GAL $150 573 0 $0.00 573 $2,005.50 SOLUTION CONST 60 2506.502 DRAINAGE EACH $1,665.79 1 0 $0.00 1 $1,665.79 STRUCTURE DES 60 -4020 MILL 61 2232.504 BITUMINOUS S Y $5.00 477 0 $0.00 477 $2,385.00 SURFACE 62 2105.507 SUBGRADE C Y $32.00 84.9 0 $0.00 84.9 $2,716.80 EXCAVATION 63 2564.602 INSTALL SIGN EACH $137.50 21 0 $0.00 29 $3,987.50 FLOATATION 64 2471503 SILT CURTAIN L F $15.89 100 0 $0.00 100 $1,589.00 TYPE STILL WATER Totals For Change Order 4 - CHANGES NECESSARY FOR $0.00 $117,69534 17,695.34 Project Totals: $1,340.45 $867,754.15 Pay Voucher Page 7 of 7 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 -8926 Project No. 02925 -40 Final Pay Voucher No. 6 02925 -40 Contract Changes No. Type Date Explanation Estimated Amount Amount Paid To Date CO1 Change Order 10/18/2017 Extend Completion to 05/31/2018 $0.00 $0.00 CO2 Change Order 3/27/2018 Additional items requested by City $15,055.95 $15,055.95 CO3 Change Order 5/23/2018 EXTEND COMPLETION DATE TO JUNE 15, 2018 $0.00 $0.00 CO4 Change Order 8/1/2018 CHANGES NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION $16,595.34 $17,695.34 Contract Change Totals: 1 $31,651.29 1 $32,751.29 City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Court Resurfacing Location: Silverwood and Cathcart Parks Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Twila Grout, Park and Rec Director Reviewed by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Resolution #2E MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Background: Tennis Court resurfacing should be done every 4 years. This year Cathcart and Silverwood Park are scheduled to be resurfaced. Dermco- LaVine provided the city with a quote to resurface the tennis and sport courts at Cathcart and Silverwood Parks. The work would consist of: • Wash and clean as needed • Patch any low areas and fill all cracks • Apply a 4 coat color system. (2 coats of Laykold NuSurf resurfacer with filler; 2 coats of Laykold Colorflex acrylic color with filler.) Finish Color — Dark Green • Re- stripe with 2" white lines • Stripe blue pickleball lines on tennis courts. • Re- stripe basketball courts with 2" white lines to fit the area • Clean up site Cathcart Park estimate is $14,600. Silverwood Park estimate is $3,500. The total cost to resurface the tennis courts at Silverwood and Cathcart is $18,100. Financial or Budget Considerations: $18,100 for the project from Fund 402. The 2019 CIP included a $17,200 estimate for this work based on quotes from 2017. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council approve the quote and authorize the project to move forward. 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. RESOLUTION NO. 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION APPROVING RESURFACING OF CATHCART AND SILVERWOOD TENNIS /BASKETBALL COURTS AND ACCEPTING THE QUOTE FROM DERMCO - LAVINE CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood ( "City ") authorize the resurfacing of the tennis and basketball courts for Silverwood and Cathcart Park; and WHEREAS, the cost to the City would be $18,100 for resurfacing the tennis and basketball courts for Cathcart and Silverwood Park; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby accepts the quotes from Dermco- LaVine to resurface the tennis and basketball courts at Cathcart and Silverwood Park and authorizes staff to execute the bid. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Mangold convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Mangold, Commissioners Vassar, Rock, and Hirner; Planning Director Darling Absent: Commissioner Barr B. Introduction of New Park Commissioner Michael Hirner Commissioner Hirner gave a brief summary of his background and noted that he had lived in the community for eleven years. C. Review Agenda Commissioner Vassar stated that she would like to see some sports teams to see what their vision is for the Parks. Planning Director Darling suggested adding this discussion Business. pen house meeting with the to the existing item B under New Chair Mangold would also like to add a brief discussion on where the Commission is on the tennis court expectations and suggested it be added under Old Business as Item D. Rock moved to approve the an'enda as amended. Vassar seconded the motion. Motion 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2019 Vassar moved to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2018 meeting as written. Hirner seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 7 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Elect Chair and Vice -Chair Vassar moved to nominate Justin Mangold to serve as Chair and Ed Rock to serve as Vice - Chair. Hirner seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. B. Discuss 2019 Work Program /Schedule Planning Director Darling reviewed the 2019 Work Program outline and noted that she believes that Freeman Park and Badger Parks are almost wrapped up. She ' reviewed the proposed schedule for park and warming house tours. Chair Mangold stated that he likes that these items are kept on the work plan and thinks they should stay. Planning Director Darling asked when the Commission would like to see the work session meeting with the local athletic associations. Chair Mangold noted that he thinks the City needs to be able to do a better job of communicating with them, but there isn't a good system in place at this point. He asked if the idea is to speak with each sport individually or all the various sports atone time. Commissioner Vassar stated that she was originally thinking all together but it may make more sense to meet with them sport by sport. Planning Director Darling asked if the Commission wanted to try to invite the athletic associations to the park tours. The Commission discussed the difficulty of incorporating the meetings into the park tours because they are already busy. The Commission discussed the idea of meeting on "neutral" ground rather than asking them to come t© "the City Hall and the idea of having one joint meeting and fine tune and individualize the approach later. Chair Mangold asked if it would be possible to add the meeting with the athletic associations to the May agenda and find a way communicate with the athletic associations. He noted that the Freeman Park tour will take much more time because of its size and suggested that the Commission may want to add another night to the tour because he always feels rushed. The Commission discussed holding the athletic association meeting in May, splitting Freeman Park onto a stand -alone park tour in June, conducting the Manor Park and Silverwood Park tour in July, and the Badger Park /Gideon Glen /Cathcart tour to August. The Commission will discuss Capital Improvements in September but asked to have the five -year plan and inventory information available in the May packets so they have the information in time for the park tours. Commissioner Vassar suggested planning a celebration for spring of 2020 with a ribbon cutting ceremony for Badger Park when it is finally completed. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 PAGE 3 OF 7 C. Liaisons to City Council Meeting March — Chair Mangold April — Commissioner Vassar May — Commissioner Hirner June — Commissioner Barr July — Commissioner Rock August — Chair Mangold Planning Director Darling asked if anyone from the Commiss packets. Commissioner Hirner stated that he would like elect Commission would like paper packets and noted that th+ on the table in the back for residents. D. Discuss Ice Rinks/Warming H like only electronic ckets. The remainder of the (ways paper packets available Commissioner Vassar stated that she had not been able to visit a single warming house this year but noted that in driving by, it was obvious that there were staffing issues. She stated that she thinks the ice looks really good and that Public Works was doing a great job of getting the ice cleared even with the large amount of snow there has been. She liked the cocoa and cookies events and thinks it is a great way to get people to get out to the parks. Commissioner Hirner stated that he had not attended the cocoa and cookies event, but he had stopped out to each warming house and the feedback he got was that people wished there was better signage and communication about when the warming houses are actually open. Commissioner Vassar stated that she thinks the City may need to increase the pay scale to possibly get more interest ih the staffing. Chair Mangold stated that he thinks this should be dug into a bit more to find out what other cities are doing for this position and the salary range. Commissioner Vassar stated that the other issue is that the warming house attendants need to have background checks which takes a bit longer to complete and may be contributing to having trouble staffing because it means the job is advertised in September, but they don't start work until January. Commissioner Hirner stated that he was not aware that Manor Park even had an ice rink. He stated that he thinks that needs to be publicized better so people know it is a possibility. Planning Director Darling noted that was the intent of the cocoa and cookies events, but some of them had to be cancelled due to weather. Commissioner Rock suggested there be a way for people to sign up for electronic notification when the rink/warming house will be open. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 PAGE 4 OF 7 Planning Director Darling noted that she had included a letter the City had received regarding Freeman ice from a resident who lives next door. She stated that the resident was not aware that the City did not have enough staffing to keep all three open. Chair Mangold stated that the City will ultimately need to do more work to make it more functional at Freeman Park. He suggested that it be an agenda item at the next meeting. Mangold moved to recommend Council direct staff to look into pay scales compared to other cities and consider adjusting the pay scale for warming house attendants. Vassar seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. The Commission expressed their appreciation for the speed and efficiency that Public Works has been able to get the ice cleared considering how much snow has fallen this year. Commissioner Hirner noted that at Manor Park the b had no place to sit down and watch their children skz 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Review Budget for Freeman Park (Including Planning Director Darling reviewed the availE approximately $213,000 not including monieE the soccer nets and court maintenance at' i larger projects that the Commission has disc courts; development of Southshore Park; re Freeman trails project; and Sluerwood and ( Chair Mangold asked what the projE Planning Director Darling stated tl replacing the pieces on the playgrc the track -ride and adding engineers that there are additional costs if th' merry-go-round, and a Wrinkle Wall cost is cleared so people and additional equipment) funds in Fund 402 and noted that the balance is )ady allocated to Badger Park playground rehab, kart and Silverwood Parks. She reviewed the .d and their projected costs: Badger Park tennis or' painting of hockey boards at Cathcart Park; cart playgrounds. playground structures. it the total cost is estimated at $57,422 which includes ,id structures, painting the uprights and railings, removing wood fiber as well as shipping and installation. She noted Commission would like to add a new swingset, paint the Commissioner Hirner noted that he had attended a presentation on parks and equipment. He noted that talked ,a lot about "inclusion" being more than just a ramp to get them in and out of the playground. He stated that they also talked about fitness equipment, including senior citizens and adults. The Commission discussed adding additional equipment and how to keep the budget lower, but still do it right, in order to have money for other projects in the City. The Commission discussed the importance of having a swingset at this park and the whether it should be updated to the new frame style and whether the Expression Swing could be installed on the existing frame or not. Chair Mangold stated that he would support a new swingset and the merry -go -round being taken out so the outline of the playground space can be a more typical rectangular shape. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 PAGE 5 OF 7 Planning Director Darling stated that the merry -go -round is in fairly good shape and believes that it was placed in this spot for safety purposes. The Commission discussed the types of swings on a new swingset structure and whether it is possible to do an Expression Swing next to a bucket swing along with four standard belt swings. Vassar moved to recommend approval of new PrimeTime swing frame, with one Zero G swing, one Expression swing and the remainder belt swings. Hirner seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. The Commission discussed the merry -Go- Round. Planning Director Darling noted that she had spoken with the playground consultant about straightening out the boundary and was told that it should be possible. The Commission discussed the Wrinkle Wall Orb and its cost as well as other equipment options that cost less. Rock moved to include the arch swing from the staff report as an added item at Freeman Park, and if the cost comes in low enough, to find an additional small balance structure to get the total cost in the $10,000 range. Hirner seconded,the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. Vassar moved to recommend painting the playground structure. Rock seconded the B. Edge Control for Freeman Park Sou Chair Mangold stated that he is adamant that not stay the way it is. Planning Director Darling r including concrete; plastic, o The Commission discussE advantages /disadvantages,, Mangold moved to recom Park South Playground, in 4 -0. r o -round with the colors chosen for the Motion carried 3 -1 (Mangold). ge shape needs to be simplified and should in from the last meeting on edging options well as keeping the existing timbers. wanting to move away from the existing timbers and the nd approval of concrete curb as edge control for Freeman updated layout. Vassar seconded the motion. Motion carried C. Review Structures and Site Plan for Badger Park Planning Director Darling reviewed the shelter and noted that the City will have to do a custom design because of soil issues. She stated that it will be steel /concrete with wood wrap arounds. She reviewed the three design options that include stone facades, beam connections, as well as the amount of posts. She noted that the costs for the different options are very similar. Mangold moved to recommend Option 1 for the building post layout at Badger Park. Rock seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 7 The Commission discussed the bathroom layout and the bottle filler and high /low drinking fountain. Planning Director Darling explained that the two - bathroom units will be unisex and will both have diaper changing stations. The Commission noted that they liked the bathroom design and planned layout. The Commission discussed the planned drinking fountain design and making sure the City has a consistent tone in the parks moving forward. Planning Director Darling stated that in talking with the watershed, the entire site will need to be treated because the City has gone over its threshold with the updates to the Park. She stated that there will be a sediment trench around the existing pond to help with water run -off. She stated that even if the City decides to update the tennis courts, the water treatment will be taken care of already. The Commission discussed additional landscaping elements along the lacrosse wall and the bathroom structure to soften it and bring it into scale; such as a few evergreen trees. Commissioner Vassar noted that the City will need to take a look how the things that were put in last fall will fare after all the snow and snow plowing. She noted that two of the trees near the Southshore Center are leaning at a not natural angle because of plowing. Planning Director Darling stated that she believes the City still has a landscape guarantee that those issues may fall under. She noted that she will'dscuss this and the underground electrical lines with the landscape architect. D. Tennis Court Expectations Chair Mangold stated that staff rescheduled the tennis court rehab project farther out are pulled Freeman Park South forward. He stated that he would like the Commission to discuss where this falls on a priority list. He stated that he thinks the tennis court should be done sooner rather than later. Commissioner Vassar stated that she agrees because it came as a shock to her that the tennis courts were not being done before the playground at Freeman. She stated that she thinks it should be the next thing on the list but is unsure how it can be paid for. Chair Mangold stated that he thinks the Council can worry about how the City pays for it, but wants to make it clear to the Council where the Park Commission sees it on the priority list and timeline. He stated that he wants to make it clear to the Council that the Commission does not want to see this pushed out another budget cycle like it was this past year. He stated that he is comfortable making this comment during an update to the Council. He stated that there could also be a joint meeting with the Council to discuss it further. He clarified that he did not feel anybody did anything wrong, but wants to make the Park Commission thoughts on the importance of upgrading the tennis courts clear to the Council. Commissioner Vassar stated that she would like to know the Council's feeling about completing Badger Park and what they think about upgrading the tennis courts. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 PAGE 7 OF 7 Chair Mangold stated that he thinks the Council has been completely behind the Park Commission on overall plans for Badger Park but has run into where things fall because of all the other issues that the Council has to consider. There was a Consensus of the Commission to pass along the information to the Council that the Badger Park tennis courts be moved to the front of the priority list for the City. 6. STAFF AND LIAISON REPORTS / UPDATES A. City Council There was no report. B. Staff Planning Director Darling reported on the City Council meetinc the Commission that the census will be starting soon and E information so the count is accurate. Commissioners asked a she stated that the survey should be starting soon if it hasn't 7. ADJOURN March 11, 20' uraged every t the trash coll ed already. She reminded to fill out the on survey and Hirner moved to adjourn the Park Commission Meeting of March 12, 2019 at 9:34 p.m. Vassar seconded the motion. Motion carried 4 -0: M City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Order Materials for Playground Rehab Location: Freeman Park South Playground Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director #6B MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting Attachments: Plan and Quotes for Equipment Park Commission memorandums from February 12 and March 12, 2019 Resolution Background: The Park Commission has been working on the Freeman Park south playground rehabilitation project for a few months and is at the point where we are ready to place the order for the playground equipment. The Park Commission recommends the following: • Rehab the existing playground by replacing most of the plastic pieces and decks on the playground structure, remove the track -ride, and painting the railings and uprights. The pea gravel surface would be replaced with engineered wood fiber • Replace the existing swingset and swings with a modern version • Add two new pieces of equipment Arch swing and Walk the Plank to replace the Track - ride. These new items would be placed around the south end of the project replacing the track -ride line • Paint the Merry -Go -Round • Replace the existing timbers used as edge control with concrete: estimated at about $7,000 using 2018 estimates. This would also allow the City the opportunity to reconfigure the playground to a more rectangular shape Cost without concrete edge control: $71,669.13 Staff recommends including the concrete edge control as a bid alternative for the Badger Park project. The playground representative is currently working on a revised graphic the city would use as a plan for this purpose. Financial or Budget Considerations: The money for this project would be from Fund 402. The 2019 CIP included a $100,000 estimate for this work. The Park Commission decided to rehab the existing structure rather than 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. install a new one to reduce the cost. Earlier this year, the City Council added $60,000 into Fund 402 specifically for this project from the excess fund reserves. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends the City Council approve the quote and authorize the purchase of this equipment. The quotes may be modified if the City Council as the Council authorizes. Approval requires a simple majority. ry City of Shorewood Attn: Marie Darling 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952-960-7912 mailto: mdarling @ci. shorewood.mn.us Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground 5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Ph. 800-622-54251763-546-7787 Fax 763 -546 -5050 1 harlan a)mnwiplay.com Freeman Park D9432H2 QUOTE #24028 03/14/2019 Ship To Zip: 55331 1 RDU GameTime - 10122 Crawl Tube Parts $1,830.00 $1,830.00 2 RDU GameTime - 10124 90 Degree Crawl Tube $2,187.00 $4,374.00 P arts 2 RDU GameTime - 10177 Kick Plates parts $221.00 $442.00 1 RDU GameTime - Aux. Hdwe. $108.56 $108.56 2 10768 GameTime - Toad Stool Seat $424.00 $848.00 2 80000 GameTime - 49" Sq Punched Steel Deck $1,181.00 $2,362.00 8 80001 GameTime - 49 "Tri Punched Steel Deck $700.00 $5,600.00 1 80656 GameTime - Access Attachment 3'& 4' $632.00 $632.00 1 90032 GameTime - 3' Transfer Platform W /Guardrail $2,562.00 $2,562.00 1 90068 GameTime - 3' Curved Fat Pipe Climber $1,329.00 $1,329.00 1 90203 GameTime - Tic -Tac -Toe Panel Above Dk $1,266.00 $1,266.00 1 90306 GameTime - Climber Archway W /Socket & $570.00 $570.00 Barrier 1 90639 GameTime - Spiral Climber (5' -0" & 5' -6 ") $778.00 $778.00 1 90653 GameTime - 3'- 6 "/4' -0" Zip Swerve Slide Left $1,574.00 $1,574.00 1 90668 GameTime - Spiral Step Climber (4' -0" & $1,069.00 $1,069.00 4' -6 ") 1 91144 GameTime - High Point Entryway - Guardrail $518.00 $518.00 1 178749 GameTime - Owner's Kit $55.00 $55.00 1 12583 GameTime - Ada Primetime Swing Frame, 3 $1,215.00 $1,215.00 1/2" Od - Purple 2 12584 GameTime - Ada Primetime Swing Aab, 3 $752.00 $1,504.00 1/2" Od - Purple 4 8910 GameTime - Belt Seat 3 1/2 "Od(8910) $246.00 $984.00 1 5128 GameTime - Expression Swing 3 1/2" X 8' $1,376.00 $1,376.00 1 8552 GameTime - 3 1/2" Zero -G Chair (5 -12) -Gale $502.00 $502.00 Chain 1 90305 GameTime - Climber Archway W /Socket & $451.00 $451.00 Guardrail 1 5056 GameTime - Arch Swing $6,267.00 $6,267.00 1 8662 GameTime - Walking The Plank $1,653.00 $1,653.00 Page 1 of 2 ry post- Spring Green poly -sky blue decks -blue accent /railings - purple Minnesota / Wisconsin Playground 5101 Highway 55, Suite 6000 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Ph. 800-622-54251763-546-7787 Fax 763 -546 -5050 1 harlan a)mnwiplay.com Freeman Park D9432H2 * *IF the City pays for the equipment at the time of order -you qualify for a cash with order discount of $1,283.01 (to be deducted) SubTotal: Freight: Total Amount: QUOTE #24028 03/14/2019 $39,869.56 $2,897.57 $42,767.13 This quotation is subject to current Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground policies as well as the following terms and conditions. Our quotation is based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Purchases in excess of $1,000.00 to be supported by your written purchase order made out to Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground. Prieing: f o. b. factory, quote is good for 30 days from the date quoted. A tax- exempt certificate is needed at time of order entry for all orders whether from tax- supported goverment agencies or not. Sales tax, if applicable, will be added at time of invoice unless a tax exempt certificate is provided at time of order entry. Payment terms: net 30 days for tax supported governmental agencies. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts. Equipment shall be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. Retainage not accepted. Freight charges: Prepaid & added Exclusions: unless specifically included, this quotation excludes all site work and landscaping; removal of existing equipment; acceptance of equipment and off- loading; storage of goods prior to installation; equipment assembly and installation; safety surfacing; borders and drainage provisions. Order Information: Bill To: Company: Attn: Address: City, State, Zip: Contact: Tel: Fax: Acceptance of quotation: Accepted By (printed): Signature: Title: Facsimile: Ship To: Proj ect Name: Attn: Address: City, State, Zip: Contact: Tel: Fax P.O. No: Date: Phone: Purchase Amount: $42,767.13 Page 2 of 2 Minnesota /Wisconsin Playground "11 0 T . 15 N I r M Min Highway 55, Suite 6000 AYGR0 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 QUOTE #24029 Ph. 800-622-54251763-546-7787 Consultant: Harlan (Lehman Fax 763 -546 -5050 1 harlan@mnwiplay.com 03/14/2019 Freeman Park D9432H1 Labor City of Shorewood Ship To Zip: 55331 Attn: Marie Darling 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 952- 960 -7912 mailto: mdarling @ci. shorewood.mn.us 1 Lump Sum Paint all posts, Climbers and railings on $10,848.00 $10,848.00 structure - Cost is based on paintinig ALL items listed below: Posts $5,624.00 Railings /overhead & climbers $5,224.00 1 Lump Sum Paint Merry Go Round (one color) $2,880.00 $2,880.00 1 Removal GameTime - Disposal of existing Track Ride $270.00 $270.00 1 INSTALL GameTime - 6 place swings $2,483.00 $2,483.00 1 EWF Lump Sum - furnish & blow in 256 cu yds of $9,766.00 $9,766.00 wood fiber (12" depth), no felt 1 Lump Sum Paint Handrails on Merry Go Round $500.00 $500.00 1 INSTALL Install Arch Swing & Walk The Plank $2,155.00 $2,155.00 SubTotal: $28,902.00 Total Amount: $28,902.00 This quotation is subject to current Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground policies as well as the following terms and conditions. Our quotation is based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Purchases in excess of $1,000.00 to be supported by your written purchase order made out to Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground. Prieing: f o. b. factory, quote is good for 30 days from the date quoted. A tax- exempt certificate is needed at time of order entry for all orders whether from tax- supported goverment agencies or not. Sales tax, if applicable, will be added at time of invoice unless a tax exempt certificate is provided at time of order entry. Payment terms: net 30 days for tax supported governmental agencies. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts. Equipment shall be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. Retainage not accepted. Freight charges: Prepaid & added Page 1 of 2 Minnesota /Wisconsin Playground " �� O T . 15 N I r M Min Highway 55, Suite 6000 AYGR0 Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 QUOTE #24029 Ph. 800-622-54251763-546-7787 Consultant: Harlan (Lehman Fax 763 -546 -5050 1 harlan@mnwiplay.com 03/14/2019 Freeman Park D9432H1 Labor Order Information: Bill To: Ship To: Company: Proj ect Name: Attn: Attn: Address: Address: City, State, Zip: City, State, Zip Contact: Contact: Tel: Tel: Fax: Fax: Acceptance of quotation: Accepted By (printed): P.O. No: Signature: Date: Title: Phone: Facsimile: Purchase Amount: $28,902.00 Pricing valid for 30 days. Please request a new price after that time. Our quotation is based on shipment of all items at one time to a single destination, unless otherwise noted, and changes are subject to price adjustment. Payment terms: Payment in full, net 30 days subject to credit approval. A 1.5% per month finance charge will be imposed on all past due accounts. Equipment will be invoiced separately from other services and shall be payable in advance of those services and project completion. To order: Please complete the acceptance portion of this quotation and provide color selections, purchase order copy and other key information requested. This quote may or may not not include any state of local taxes. Sales tax will be added to the order if required, unless otherwise noted. Acceptance of this proposal indicates your agreement to the terms and conditions stated herein. Please issue on purchase order for the equipment and a separate purchase order for surfacing and /or equipment installation services. Delivery: Standard shipping time for GameTime is 30 -35 days. Allow an additional 4 -7 days for transit. Page 2 of 2 --------------------- I / - -J ZONE 1 I \ I � � I I � � I I � L - - - - -- I are+x w4L�ir� \ eaves t«tmnn \ a,®m .inrwwE / &1644W <cu —3 �/ ctemeN' 3• 4' / 0 S 3 eoix / s V -6" 5 ar mn c= one emoe ICY •/ 10bg� e11p 6111E 4, 109 IMP OEM PACUM twFmc m 4• nuNO / r 6 4 t / / taller tx I e+>e P01E FMCNMi ' EXISTING BORDER / N i I / 1 - GENERAL NOTES: ` A EQUIPMENT TO BE BE REPAINTED / B EXISTING EQUIPMENT — TO BE MAINTAINED C NEW EQUIPMENT ORDERED WITH 6 DIGIT PART NUMBERS / D UPRIGHTS TO BE REPAINTED / I E NEW EQUIPMENT ORDER WITH 5 DIGIT PART NUMBERS EMM / / \ Mfg. By.' Sold 8 Distn'buted By. P.0. Box 27325, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Freeman Park ^..,.. o., 763- 546 -7787 1- 800 - 622 -5425 �3�m@TPii@ ����(� soYn•wlsco sin Fax 763 - 546 -5050 Shorewood, Minnesota En,i,i,��gchiI�Ii,�d Ti,ro,9h Pi% `"' P'R0UM E -Mail info @mnwiplay.com 10 -26 -18 DWG. D9432H THIS PRINT IS 7HE PROPERTY OF MINNESOTA WISCONSIN PLAYGROUND INC. AND IS NOT TD BE USED, COPIED OR REPRODUCED WffHOUT THEIR EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERIMISSION. I SCALE: 1" = 12t -0" �I I \ / N i I / 1 - GENERAL NOTES: ` A EQUIPMENT TO BE BE REPAINTED / B EXISTING EQUIPMENT — TO BE MAINTAINED C NEW EQUIPMENT ORDERED WITH 6 DIGIT PART NUMBERS / D UPRIGHTS TO BE REPAINTED / I E NEW EQUIPMENT ORDER WITH 5 DIGIT PART NUMBERS EMM / / \ Mfg. By.' Sold 8 Distn'buted By. P.0. Box 27325, Golden Valley, MN 55427 Freeman Park ^..,.. o., 763- 546 -7787 1- 800 - 622 -5425 �3�m@TPii@ ����(� soYn•wlsco sin Fax 763 - 546 -5050 Shorewood, Minnesota En,i,i,��gchiI�Ii,�d Ti,ro,9h Pi% `"' P'R0UM E -Mail info @mnwiplay.com 10 -26 -18 DWG. D9432H THIS PRINT IS 7HE PROPERTY OF MINNESOTA WISCONSIN PLAYGROUND INC. AND IS NOT TD BE USED, COPIED OR REPRODUCED WffHOUT THEIR EXPRESSED WRITTEN PERIMISSION. I SCALE: 1" = 12t -0" SA CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 •952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.d.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us To: Park Commission From: Marie Darling, Planning Director Meeting Date: February 12, 2019 Re: Freeman Park South Playground Rehab Planning Attachments: Existing Equipment at Freeman Color Options Edge Protection Options Staff Suggestions for Replacement Equipment Background: At the December 11, 2018 meeting, the Commission recommended rehabbing the existing playground and wanted more information on the following: • Colors • Playground Protection/Edge Protection • Fun New Additional Equipment Colors options: In speaking with the playground manufacturer, we have several color options, attached. The slides that were replaced are Royal Purple and the replaced deck is blue. The existing railings are sky blue and the quote didn't include painting them, although for a small additional fee, they could also be painted. Option 1: Keep the railings sky blue, decks blue, and all the new plastic Royal purple, with the posts any color that is in the attached palette, I've shown green below. You can google the Gametime Color Wizard to select options and try to find a color combination that you like. Option 2: Order the crawl segments in another color. The color wizard will show only one color for each type of feature, like plastic pieces, decks, metals, etc., but you can still choose multiple options. Edge Protection After the 2017 tour where the Commission found a spike sticking up out of the timber border, the PW staff did some maintenance work and it is currently in good shape. The border doesn't have to be replaced to add wood fiber. If the Commission elects to replace them, attached are the standard options for plastic barrier protection. Specialty corners are also needed for changing directions (about 15 of them). Concrete curbs are also an option. The border would need to be about 320 feet. Concrete: $22 per lineal foot, estimate based on 2018 projects. Total ± $7,040 Plastic border: $13 per lineal foot plus $1,500 for specialty corners. Total f $5,660 New Equipment After looking at the options, staff recommend keeping the Merry Go Round which was installed in 2011 and replace the zip -line equipment with one of the attached options. The manufacturer can paint it to match the new color scheme for a fee. The Commission can choose one or two of any of the equipment shown in the attached pages, or direct staff to keep looking. We mostly chose equipment by the same vendor as the playground rehab to save on shipping costs, but that is not the only option. We can also include a couple pieces of fitness equipment geared toward 13 and above, like the cardio walker, upper body press or similar option. Those options are also included in the attached photos as well. r ADA PowerScape Swing Frame #10847 8' (2.4m) $1,831 ASTM Use Zone: 24'11" x 32'1" (7.6m x 9.8m) #10848 Add -A -Bay'" $1,100 ASTM Use Zone: 375" x 32'1" (11.4m x 9.8m) 5" (13cm) O.D. galvanized steel uprights & toprail. #10848 Use Zone includes one regular swing bay and one Add -A -Bay. Seat packages sold separately. ADA Xscape Swing Frame #26119 5 to 12 swing 8'(2.4m) $1,271 ASTM Use Zone: 24'4" x 3091" (7.6m x 9.8m) #26120 5 to 12 Swing Add- A- BayTt4 $768 ASTM Use Zone: 37'5" x 32'1" (llAm x 9.8m) #36056 • 2 to 5 Swing 7' (2.1m) $1,252 ASTM Use Zone: 24'4" x 30'11" (7.6m x 9.8m) #36057 • 2 to 5 Swing Add -A -BayT" $747 ASTM Use Zone: 37'5" x 321" (11.4m x 9.8m) 3 -1/2" (9cm) O.D. galvanized steel uprights & toprail. #26120 and # 36057 Use Zones includes one regular swing bay and one Add -A -Bay. Seat packages sold separately. Arch Swing #5056 • Single Seat (shown) $5,965 ASTM Use Zone: 24'x 28'5" (73m x 8.7m) #5057 • Double Arch Swing $11,793 ASTM Use Zone: 358" x 28'5" (10.9m x 8,7m) Galvanized steel uprights. Seat included. ® WARNING: Installation over a hard surface such as concrete, asphalt, or packed earth may result in serious injury from falls. ADA PrimeTime Swing Frame #12583 8'(2.4m) $1,150 ASTM Use Zone: 24'9" x 32'1" (7.5m x 9.8m) #12584 Add -A -Bay'" $711 ASTM Use Zone: 37'2" x 371" (11.3m x 9.8m) 3 -1/2" (9cm) O.D. galvanized steel uprights & toprail. #12584 Use Zone includes one regular swing bay and one Add -A -Bay. Seat packages sold separately. PowerScape Tire Swing #10777 • 6'8" (2m) (shown) $2,238 ASTM Use Zone: 207" x 2611" (6.3m x 8.2m) #10778 • Add -A -Bay" $1,560 ASTM Use Zone: 41'5" x 207" (12.6m x 6.3m) 3 -1/2" (9cm) O.D. galvanized steel uprights & toprail. SWINGS 123 To: From: Meeting Date: Re: Attachments: Background: SA -B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us Park Commission Marie Darling, Planning Director March 12, 2019 Freeman Park South Playground Rehab Estimates At the February 12, 2019 meeting, the Commission chose color options for rehabbing the existing playground, but wanted more information on the swingset rehab, wrinkle wall orb and a budget update on the project. No new information was available on edge protection at the time of packet production. Fund 402 The City Council recently transferred $60,000 into Fund 402 from excess fund reserves to complete the Freeman South Playground. Fund 402 would have a balance of about $213,000 after expenses related to Badger Park, the soccer nets, and planned court resurfacing at Cathcart and Silverwood. Projects in the next few years drawing on these resources are (with estimates from CIP): • Badger Park Tennis Courts ($350,000) • Development of Southshore Park ($100,000) • Rehab or painting Hockey Boards at Cathcart Park ($150,000) (this estimate is a replacement estimate. Painting and replacing damaged boards that are damaged would be less expensive than replacing) • Freeman trails project ($200,000) • Silverwood and Cathcart Playgrounds ($200,000) Transfers into the fund from the general fund will start at about $45,000 in 2020 and will increase by about $5,000 a year for the foreseeable future. The $42,000 transfer into the fund in 2019 has already occurred and is included in the Fund 402 balance above. Costs to date for Freeman Park The cost of replacing all the pieces on the playground structures (except the newer slide pieces), painting the uprights and all railings, removing the track -ride and adding engineered wood fiber, with shipping and install, total: $57,422 Cost of New Swingset (shown below for six swings) and Swings (Including Install): $9,143 Cost of Painting the Existing Swingset: $1,050 ADA PrimeTime Swing Frame #12583 8' (2.4m) $1.215 ASTM Use Zone: 24'9" x 327' (75m x g6m) #12584 Add- A -Bayr" $752 ASTM Use Zone: 37'2" x 32T' (11.3m x 9$m) 3 -U2" (9cm) O.D. galvanized steel uprights & toprai I Zero -G Swing 5 to 12 Zero -G Chair The cost of the new swingset would be reduced by $2,500 with the substitution of two toddler swings instead of the expressions swings. Cost to Paint Merry Go Round: $2,880 Cost to Paint Rails on Merry Go Round only: $552 (The rails are galvanized and the purple base are in good shape, you may choose just to leave the Merry Go Round alone.) wrwiaa WWI Offb ", na &PM rd"iiz.23 x2rc7 ..fi4rrt F iFW0C.8'ali`0 RI�.Alii � 511012 rr �1411 Belt Seat 3 Belt Swings �q x Expression Swing` #5128 3.5" Toprail $1.376 #5145 5" Toprail $1.376 Ages: Adult. 24 -48 months 2 Expressions swings Cost of Wrinkle Wall Orb: $15,045 plus $4,720 for install, Total: $19,765 (Grey walls — no other options, spring green metal pieces, green handrails) Other options instead of Wrinkle Wall Orb: Less expensive equipment or see if we can add some additional distance on the existing track ride and paint it to match. Climber Replacement The playground representative told me that the quote for the replacement includes one change. I did not previously catch the change. The climber on the north side is no longer safety compliant due to one of the deck's height (four feet instead of three). Consequently, he added two new climbers (one to each part of the structure with two steppers between. This option was cheaper than changing the deck height. Substituted equipment shown below. 9 Toad Stools Compatibility: PowerScape, PrimeTime Existing climber Spiral Climber Compatibility: PowerScape, PrimeTime Availability: 4' to 8' decks C Fat Pipe Climbers Compatibility: PowerScape Availability: Curved for 3' to 5' decks Straight for 2' to 3' decks RESOLUTION NO. 19 -030 CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE QUOTE FROM MINNESOTA WISCONSIN PLAYGROUND FOR EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FOR FREEMAN PARK SOUTH PLAYGROUND WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood ( "City ") authorizes the replacement and purchase of playground equipment for Freeman South Playground; and WHEREAS, the cost to the City would be $71,669.13 for the playground project without new edge control; and NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby accepts the quotes from Minnesota - Wisconsin Playground to replace the existing playground and add new play equipment at Freeman Park south playground and authorizes staff to execute the bid. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk #6C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Title / Subject: Accept Plans and Specifications and Authorize Advertisement for Bids for the Site Improvements at Badger Park Update on Shelter and Restroom Building Design Location: Badger Park Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Site Plans Recommended Building Plans Park Commission Memo from March 12, 2019 Resolution Background on Site Work: The City estimated about $167,000 for this work in the 2017 grant application and this figure was also used within the CIP estimate for the project. Loucks has prepared plans and specifications for the project, which includes grading, utility extension, grading and improvements to the pond to provide treatment for the entire site, erosion control, seed, sidewalk /trail installation and concrete curbs around the playground and a slab for the shelter building, etc. Unexpected stormwater treatment will add to the cost for this project. The entire project for the Badger Park rehab has exceeded the disturbance threshold allowed without servicing the entire site and consequently, the site has to be treated. This cost was not included in the previous estimates for the project and maybe as much as $50,000 to enhance the current treatment pond. Loucks continues to work with the watershed to reduce the impact, but at present the pond improvements shown on the plans would be required. Loucks has estimated the construction costs, with the additional treatment, would be about $206,000. Attached are the plans for the park. At their March 12, 2019 meeting, the Commission recommended altering the landscaping plan to soften the appearance of the restroom building with a couple more trees. Staff would increase the order of either thornless cockspur hawthorn (used behind the practice wall) or magnolias (used elsewhere on the site). As staff is acquiring trees from the City's tree sale and the PW staff would be installing the trees and shrubs, the City can add landscaping without the need to amend the official plans or affect the bids. S: �Parks�Council Staff reports�2019�190325�CAF Badger Park. docx RECOMMENDATION on site work: Staff recommends the following actions approving the resolution accepting the plans and authorizing advertisement for bids for the Badger Park playground area site work. As a bid alternate, staff also requests authorization for installing concrete curbs around the south playground at Freeman Park and installing a memorial bench. NEXT STEPS on site work: The enclosed resolution approves the project plans and authorizes the advertisement for bids. The bid opening is scheduled for April 22, 2019. Background on Buildings: At their March 5, 2019 meeting, staff presented two options for the park buildings and the Park Commission selected Option 1 for the shelter as they thought that the lower amount of stone on the pillars was more consistent with the restroom building and better views through the structure. The plans for both buildings are also attached. RECOMMENDATION on buildings: Comments on the building plans would be helpful at this time so that if necessary, the plans may be modified prior to a required public hearing at the Planning Commission (see below). NEXT STEPS on buildings: Park buildings require a conditional use permit and the Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to review both buildings at its April 2, 2019 meeting. The CUP for the buildings would be scheduled for Council review at its April 22, 2019 meeting. Staff has lined up a few contractors to give us quotes and estimates while that process is moving forward. SURVEY LEGEND - EXISTING CONDITIONS 0 M CATCH —P --P', SEWER a S.EL, —POLE 0 —RM —.0. — --R,,W, WATER MPH— —UNDERGROUND MIM0 PAR M RATE VALVE —LN.—RO= 711-EPH.P1 TE —HONE PEDESTAL —a— OVERHEAD J11— o POWER POLE —N LINK 11— YA UGHT POLE ..IEIE 11113 111N OCOPOEELE _T OONTOUR F c. 'IT 20 40 AWL SCALE IN IIIIIIIIEET OW/Y ',\,, almilsom LOUCKS CIN OR NG '3 .AND SUR—ING 1-1111.E 11111TEITPIE 111111OTA, P-1- -, -� '. ' } � } }' } } } } \S\.} � } \ \,30 4 YA RS{H U I AL P. L- Ol-1.6ay .1 SURVEY LEGEND - EXISTING CONDITIONS �® CARGH BA9N �aSNRM SEtViR (� STORM MANHOLE — >— SANRARV SEWER T O SANRARY MANHOLE —i — WATER -Ft I, ® WAi£R MANHOLE — aE— UNDEflGRCUND EIECTiIC /�� Q FttoRNii — us— UNDERCROUNO OAS G / N GiiE WLYF —m— UNDERGROUND TE —FTEIE 0 T—ONE PEOEETAL —a— OVERHEAD UTiIM r �` 2� 0 PCWER POLE —CHfJN IJNR FENCE fLV / q Lcln POLE - - coecreElE cures l/` r' \' ' -= SCN ��1CONCREtE � � f � � 1 1 REMOVE EIRTING TRF.F$ REMOVE 4 SF OF BITUMINOUS / t M' REMOVE ABr NDON ED UNDFRG ROUND fl RICAL LINE f / v' ! b J --r REMOVE 260 TUT OF WOOD PLAY EAGER REMOVE EXIS 'J' NG PLAYGROUND EUIYMENf M I`REn V"E.R.N�1RFFS I I 1 A I I I ( I I l� I III I Iil�l III I II I II; (II I�r I1 II I I1' III' IIII � l v I I \ I I I I 1 1 -- - 20 40 � SCALE IN FEET N� r� 7T f BITUMINOl15 TRAIL -BASE BID ADDETAILNUi -1 =CONCRETE PAVING SEE DETAIL f -7 n 1. L2 LB i s,> t_ . \. i RIS CONCRrlLYCURR"W L ITH . TiAI DL' SEE DETAIL 2 /L6-1 SEE DEIAI`4%CG1� �� a1 I CONTRACTOR ISTO SURFACE MOUNT RENCH PROM DED BY OWNER TO PAD. 11 ♦ ' NOTE: AN ADDITIONAL 4'xB'BPNCH PAD WITH SURFACE MOUNTED PAD IS TO BE _ INSTALLED AT NEARBY FRFFMAN PARK BY THE CONTRACTOR. COORDINATE WITH THL OWNER ON ITS fiXAGi LOCATION. 7T ,C> Cj C3 R< Ra rI ff 111 p - TROOM BUILDING BY OTHERS NED ED E N aRUE l S.N�'-- — A -i� e, 24'x26 PICNIC SHELTER e l O L�7 V WALK WITH URAINTILE ( ( }It'+ (R By OTHERS $EE DFI'All3/Lfi -7 BY HER SHINGs Br CO oCRETE SEEDET rEPAVwc T�, sEe DErnit zAs i uroms E u1PMENT l y.� R1166ER SDRFA 1 CONCRETE C BWITH DRAINTILE \\ SEE DETAI L4fL6 -1 81TlIMINOIJI TRAII SFF DETAIL 11161 ,o SWALE /q"fLFANOUT � T �' —INV ,6,4 11LLUVERIFY) POW 66 !UN4 ry 0 6 94'-,L SDR 265EWER PIPE ®2% / I / 93' 2 "TYPEKCOPPER / N� '0i.. , t ]'MIN. DEPTH J INV PLUG L9 o f o ap, gar 0 I 6z , � 6o 4 DR INnIFgz �O 0���r�� 663E SEE IIEFAIL R(163i�,.O�`Qi�i!. 41' m ,vucr{�6roanlNnLe s„ n ,,. �� o �. ..::•z'z tl vas MAXIMUM 2.0% SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION AT PAVEMENT INTERSECUONS UFMCAL) HDPE CULVERT W ITFI APRONS P 2% OUTLETS ADJUS FN C a� __— — vu...� -- C vEi= �--• -. - - -Cm3 ___cx -cn.p .,.}mom. - fi5.4_ ,::- ___::13 - _ o�n_ vA�_.• —.. rtn ___ '----- ______--- �_____�_�." ___tin_ __t3., v � Vt•r n =__ _`L- .v„ _, I it I i I f EXTEND EXISTING ORAINTILE OUTEETAS NECESSARYTO WORKWITN NEW GRADES SWPPP N0TI Swv I rvoTLS. SWPPP LEGEND ® ucus Luc In�,wKn ® �D PROTECTION (TYP.7 o PROTECTION � 5'•,' � ROCK # /� SILT FENCE ("P,) COrySTRUCTION S° f �` I ywn i °S \S S SRO 4i. C 2Un SILT FENCE (TTP) ��— .001 / SILTFENCE(TYIP ) \\ \ \ \� \ ® LoT✓v"iS �// UL�ypG" \ \ \ \� CIVIL ENGINEERING NV: \\ \\ IAN SURlEVI RE E t t (/ ANY Y5 \ \\ \`\ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE i r t \ .hk NMENTAL lomlock «e Wte 300 / i / /VA \ worn °Pias,o.e NNSa =s� AA \\�\ f t I 'CLFANOvi \ \ \ \\ \` \` \ \\ \\ .i, W A ERSH E. I E111— `. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 /%iii i'i " I i - / F 723 FF5 2 F— dD vNA \ 1 RI J62 / L! XISIN N rt 1 `INVt�'TSa �S I ` 4Z2 DF OLI 10 PADS o S7 e I, vaPnlN�nNP UIINrc —N RIM: 962.25 1 // is�2 ILS. INY[[ 95!j},6 J p�NV.9pa ]�SU 1 C . FT 15 w�IR eje / ti L4 i / f / NoT ROTECTION J ,F CIYC.J ALNPL /// zo 4o SW PPP NOTES M. LNTINU.O jE LHt NGEi I ONIRUC tNACEAILS E AVE IENL AN. L U. +Pi CT TER AMNAGEMENTSYSTEAN INSTALL ti LTES FMErvLANG ItALANCE INSTALL PAVFi+IENTS AND WALKS S IENCLA D tSE[U AN RA 1D1 SNRBEDBYI It RFI: vAL B.IL[D ft[MOVLSiti 3. III IDATA: ARE OF DISTURBANCE LS AC CLUERAL SOIL IY! E; ELIDECTUCHNICAL DJEORT. i SIGNS, SILT FENCE, ETC, CUEFORE CONSTRUCTION FICINSBE II. N IIH Viii. \. \STAKIS, 5, All DLRL,RBED GROUND LEFT INA TIYE IOB IOURT£EN EST OR MORE DAYS IT BE ETIMN hit I CIF NL ORCYn ERIN[ OR OHER AVABALL 51 OR BY R CAN NOTBE GRETER �IEIFEEEAS ADD MERRAIII FROANUrOB IIIIIBS .111 LENCFHS ®DEN TES SLODESTTFAT ARE B' 1, ALL 3:1 SLOPES TO BE MELIFTEDWITTEN EROSION CUUANELt WE IIARGE ARESTABtiifli ST BE PROT[CFF➢UNT LATE SOURCES OF POTFNtIAL B BEEACEOINl FSE I') FOR NYkvAI ST YE tm UR�ARy OTRE D CLEW ACISIX- E- 1R11EF DMOiT1ON CON I ITOMOT11, SAND 'IF, TX ILIS 9. N WALL U U C CA { tF ON HFNVFR FE. Y F OT PON UST TR I I iE P r iL BMPS III IUEFD WASItMtS BE OIS— IF)OIPROPERLY AND. MUST COMITY WE IN MPCA INSPOSAT OOUIREnIENTS. IB (C FIEBIII ORI WIIO i5 B,LE REQUIRUMENIS IOUNO TN APPFNDI %A, PART L OAF IIIE NPDES i FRE TANGS POI IIS Rt5PON5RLEWNH THEOWNUR FORCDD INNCEWHITTHOSE PORTIONS OF (HEDNEME, II D10 A I TIEN IWn wNA 3.T AYSr TI IT01408 MORE OE NFL FOLLOWING COREFFENON HAVE BEEN MET O A - S.p. TH 1 R HE. E. AA II I6 ti BtEI ON ALT. IS B. TRA SEER OF OW N, LEE I" AS HE ITEBRO)IN I11E URMI 1. A TION FOLLOWING SILT FENCE INSTALETION BY CITY REPRE5EMATIVEe REQt11RE �PEC B. /DAYSANUWFIBN USE ),IOWINOA 45° R EBA N IVI.NT. FS71MATFD OI)ANTITIFS DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE FA I PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA 0 SILT FENCE (STANDARD) IF m,000 EROSION CONTROL BI VAKEI BY NA INLET PROTECTION OF S STAGE 2 SILT LINK (STANDARD) LF NA 1310 -ROLL IF NA UNFVERRITY OP 4i1NNA5GTA Valentina Anderson ESAY oC.oI—NIO WPPP BERE, BT2 M D. FROZENCROOND ASSOONAI FBINCIFFOCCURS OR PRIOR TO RESUMING F FOR EPSAREIT FUNC OF PYR h'E) ";'11' N. PftW +uiE HORIC'ESCILE, 11 I.iIERiVAN O.� INDIES IN A 21 HOUR PERIOD. _ welt FDWHFN NO E. UKNAI,OR III FULA� WRHIN 2rIFHOUPSED, . I, B. SC I ASOU AND PURAI t R T USiORACF L1111 AL11HII t=VIII N O RRTV CSTDATNTLOTO . CONSIKULT) EO FRiM SURECEWATERS N015FVEN DAYS K S N ON\R A I N CII f5 OCIY FNGN R OR L. ENi9 1. ,BET Yt'nm H. ures OPERATIONAL COI+I IS OF IHl SITL. ION A( ev Tit PARABLE H5)Wli6 1-1 ION IUANSNC i P THUNA [ IUSA 'A EMLNIS, ANDFREO T S R ANI—DE WDAAG,IF 1 5 ShIU iBf ftFTA nE EYERSA (ER TILLNG NPDES NOTICE OF TERMINAT ON. A THLkt ISACIANCtIN DLS N OPLRAIRCIE MNIMLNANCN, WFATHHE OR SEASONAL T -ASA FCANTEFHTCT CHARGE B. WATER WPPP19N0 _TINEANUV _SFXC[EDING WATERP' IN STANDARDS. C DISCI GIRGES OR I9 NOT CONSI I Ni WITH tHE II'. N>CONO FIO SOE THE PERMIT: 19. 1 WASIIOLFTABfA RIt AIEDCO LWSS OUT NTANERWUH RAIN B. IDENTIFIED WITH SIGNAGE STATING CONCREEE WASHOUT ASIA DO NOT__Itj^ e WAl[ IIOUT AREA INt N .H i SLANU NG BIEN A - :. RI IRACTOft CES -O U M1 'YEN Ll WiHN24EtS SI BiFR GONN[(TONIIHASUREACEWPAIER�NENi ENLR YDISSIPATION 21 1 ANIL EC A NR.j R: \ I RIND - F I. TR DY I..E D BYA D H ]OYo.11FIN ECtED FINAL DENS tt, AND iHATAiIPER\NNFNTP 1UTZEB FBFEN SHFlI.BE RE >PBOM PTN.N - LED N( Ell h1FN EA BN NS IN OeUHi TO RFIURN II IE POND TO DISION OWAOTY_ A TUEFF CINNFLE MOST IDENTIFY A PERSON WHO WE L FMFDAM ION AND HE PERSON P t-FOR NNAFETR NAN. INTENAM.' "I'D,-, ITNEIRACCULREANUILL DABOANY IND- B. PERU NA AND M, NTFNAN HE PULLON.NT STOkNWAT.R B WA.C.NENT tM 1OLUAII 11.1. R COMIA. ,2960]912 xl L CWONSTR j S e EC JNS OR AS LURE BVfR EYING R tC OF YI B' MI5. TFRII YLL „% m+teec HIT / 4, •+� iv LOUCKS HFAV(U BILT _N CC �w LOVCKS sILI FENCE �31xrop �MRar _ oxra.rx. 'Au 03 BETEREACRAII vmxu areas ss. c nLTn,v.m S. r. nvmnoe+ Y°�� 8" .. wp.N,.aLeE +w t oz uxsxtnxm � Runa,o n0.tn ® vncnrtn ... nrroRZ. mxa. FEE Flr++n wTPrrx.. Nsw.nTromcsm lc a`r` O oarm, c ,moo. <,>cx�uFn� ew LOUCKS ROCK ENTRANCE. TO CONSTRUCTION SRE wr�x 3WA ua LOUCK S I N BO FIBER AG _ N �30i5 CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER SPECIAL WATERS SEARCH MAP EE tA� viltE RADIUS B U 20 a0 SCALE IN ®n LouCKS LANNING CENT UDENGINEERING LAA CULTVEYING IANDSCAPF ARCHITECTURE ENVIRON11ENihl LAC MB.I n Aa01e­'=M .mw.io�cksinccom ETC­ CIA. .a.,a+mr.rE F3 U tout %Pmje<t NO. ROB, Eeed IBBRBAa vm By SIA Ce k d y 9 IT 1 DESTNGCONDFONS T1 DI;M .F.0 N LYI G ADIYGAV RU nN ""ROM, .................... ............................... l6t - DETAILEAKET DETAL .._......._............� ............SEE ....... tG 2 SHRUB SCHEDULE - BY OWN ER SHRVBS — COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME ONC-1 MINS11F. SPACING FIREOANCE00GW000 'BailadeL'ne lgl 2A— 1II'o, TREE ED -B NER OECID000STREE1 Ott COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME C.ONi FFM 2 FALLFIESTA -I'LE Acersattha�um'Radsu 10 oat 1 RIVER BIRCH Bawlanyra lO,d \` VE 13 I VALLEY FORGE EIM Ulmusamed<ana Valiey fofya 10 ya1 EVERGREEN TREK 1 O COMMONNAME eOLANIUlI NAME NS Itt NORWAY SPRUCE icea abies tO9al ORNAMEMALTREES ON 1OMM1tON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT TH 12 THORN— AWTEDRN RSM ROYlLLSiAB MAGNOLIA gnolia naliam'ROyal Stor' 10 en1 /�! /ITT �° sgallllnerrnlC 'd / f GROUN[)COVER LEGEND: I f,! J TIRFGRASS SEED MIX MNDOT SEED MIX # ZS -131. APPLY AT 22011,4— ® POND SEED MIX \ / MNDOT SEED MIX 1134 -261. APPLY AT 35U/ar. �t \ ` � y J a \ r 1 i j\ \ ,.w�;v vv ��;vvv��vvvy.vvvvvvvvv, I,v ;vv; vv vvv�°.�"vVvvvvvt01�B�E0.MI�vvvvv \ \\ � s / I \\ ALL TREES ARETO RESUPPLIED AND INSTALLED BY THE OW NER \ \ \ 1 )Q' RIVER ROCK MULCH - V" MIN. HE Tit OVER FILTER FABRIC cry - -L�y METAL EDGER SHRUBS ARE TO BF. SUPPLIED AND i INSLALLED BY I HE OWNER E'`"'_, —\ �DRf SEED. . —R EA SLOPE AT Iwo (MIN) - Z %IMAXI TO DOWNHILL EDGE. MINIMUM BASE OF TL COMPACTED AGGREGATE BEVEL AND COMPACT ALL EDGES AT 45 DEGREES. COMPACTED OR UNDSTURBED STENGEL, PRIOR TO MANG, COMPLETE TEST ROLL USING FULLY LOADED 10 YARD MINIMUM DUMP TRUCK. OVEREXGAVATEAND BACKFILL WITH SELECT DEAN (LEARTHOSE AREAS FAILING THE TEST ROLL CLOTEh -FILE FABRIC SHAH. BE USED AT THE DIRECTION Of THE LANDS(APEARCHITRI. PLACE 3' WI11H (IF STRAW FR0510N' BLANKET (111 FIT II SI DEAF EN'HRF I INCH OF TRAIL STAKE AS NECESSARY ON ALL SLOPES 3:1 OR GREATER. 5EFD ALL DISTURBED AREAS r 6'WIDE ASPHALT TRAIL PROFILE L6 -r PALL &, I-0 111' EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL CUT BACK MATERIAL 1R' BELOW FINISH SURFACE _ I EXPANSION& CONSTRUCTION JOINT 4x IPSMOOTH DOWEL ---- -iERrW GRFASEQ'HEENI} ENLARGEMENT'&' 31W TOOLED CONTROL JOINT SEE PI AN FOR IAYOUT T UPICKCON'CRETEWALK FXP JOINT A' O.0 MAX. OR AS SHOWN f, A,NTR LINDA, AND AT ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS RAMPS, WALLSANDOTHER -rum- T VDSTICAL OBSTRUCTIONS, I GRANULAR FILL ASE UNDI URBE40RCOMIPACT ED m CL5GRAVE Nit: FINISH IS 10 BE MEDIUM BROOM FINISH PERPENDICULAR TO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC r2, CONCRETE PAVING PROFILE L6 -1 ° °- GRANULAR FILL 508BME -BY OTHERS POURED N PIACE RUBBER- THICKNESS BASED ON FALL HEIGHT -BY OTHERS. CONONTE.CURB 4'TFIICKCONCREEEWALK REINFORCED R4 CONT. kEBAR DRAINALF ROCK riI LI6 NIAx1A W.WM. G' GRANULAR FILL SUBBASE GEOTEXTRE FABRIC I a, Al Sa _O 44 SPEAK 12- DEC- EXTEND 36 " INTO CONCRETE PAVEMENT all —H III —III -" UNDISTURBEDORCOMPACTF ..DSUBGRADE (' GRANULAR FILL SUBBASE R4 CONT. TOOK LMAINAGE WEK GE TEXTILE FABRIC 4'P[RFORATED DRAIN TILESLOHDTODRAIN UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE NOTE. FINISH IS 10 BE ESTRUM BROOM IIN1511 PERPENDICULAR TO PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC r1 CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROFILE WITH INTEGRAL PLAY EDGER Ly -1 -- — GRANULAR FILL SL WALL -BY OTHERS POURED IN PLACE RUBBER- THICKNESS BASED ON FALL GULF IT -BY OTHERS. CONONTE.CURB R4 CONT. kEBAR DRAINALF ROCK G' GRANULAR FILL SUBBASE GEOTEXTRE FABRIC 4- PERPETRATED DRAIN HLESLOPED TO DRAIN all —H III —III -" UNDISTURBEDORCOMPACTF ..DSUBGRADE NOTE CONCRETE FINISH IS TO BEMEDIUM BROOM FINISH RETR TO STAN SHRUBS TO BE PLACED SO THAT 1 &'MIN. IOPOFCONTAI.NERSHS FLUSH WERIPROPOSEDGRADE. PEAMING SOIL - SEE NOTESCR SPEC. MULCH 3- DEPTH- SEENOTOORSPEC. S - LONDSCAPEFABRIG SEENOTHORSPEC EDGING MATERIAL -SEE NOTES OR SPEC. VARIES- RETERTOPLN " LOOSEN DO QLS OF AT HEWCAPAIN ED PLANS. V _ SCARIFY PAT TOM AND SIDES OF l� HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING L! � BUILDING WA(L(T YH 5 SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING All REFS INA PLUMB POSHION J IROUGil THE AGRANY PERIOD. STAKINGIS SUGGESTED BUT NOT REQUIRED. ANY STAKING MUST CONFORM WIFE PRO ICES AS DEFINED IN ALA, DEATH INES FOR STANDARD PRAC. N IN PRUNE DAMAGED AND CROSSING BRANCIIRS ALTER PLSH ING IS COMPLETE CUT BACK WIRE BASKET VISA IN TREE THOROUGHLY DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLACE BACKIN1 IN AIR' I ETSAN T SATUILATESOILWITH WATER, DONOTCO,MPACT MORE THAN NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN PLUMB. I OSEP AN YPROFM SIT OR PER YFTHYLFNESTOP TREE WRAP TO FIRST BRANCH SATLTY HAJUEH G -ONE PERWIRE ROOT TARE NTN WETH OR K;STABOVE GRADE MULCH -4 -DEEP. NOMULCHINCONACT WHH TRUNK SEE NOTES OR SPECS. TNAHLL WITH IN SITU TOPSOIL WOOD STAKE(OPTIONAI) EDGEVARIES- SEEPLAN SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOIE PRIOR TO PLANTING SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL CONTRACTOR IS RESPON5161F FOR TESTING PERCOIATIONNADSPRIORTO PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPEARCHITECTIMSTH VORYiF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. L 6 l DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL I (E-r XllH VE AEU' a,>a I. Anc, THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING ALLTREES IN &PLUMB PORTION THROUGH THE WARRANTY PERIOD. STAKINGIS SUGGESTED, BUT NOT REQUIRED. ANYSTAKING MUST CONFORM WITH PEACE ICE AS DINNED IN ANA, CUIDRIMA FOR STANDARD PRACTICES. PRUNE ANY DAMAGED BRANCHES AFTER PLANTING IS COMPLETE. WATER TREETHOROUGHtYDURING PIANTWG OPERATIO \'S. PLACEBACKHMAN81TIRTSAND EATURATESOILWITH WATER. UONOTCOMPACT MORETHAN NECESSARY'TOMYTHUFAINPLUMB, 16'x1' POLYPROPYLENEOR POLYEEHYLENE STRAP SAFETY RAGGING -ONE PER WIRE MULCH 4'DEEP- 5EENOTESORSPRES. MULCH MUST NOT BE IN CONTACT WITH TRUNK. SAC KHLLLAIIH INNNTOPWRIC WODD STAKHOPTIONALI EDGE VARIES -SEE PLAN SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLAMIN'G ROONAIL SFTON UNDISTURBED) SUBGRADE CONTRACTOR IS RESTORES E FOR TESTING PERCOLATION RATES PRIOR TO PIANTING NO TIFYLANDSCAPEAR CHITECt IMMEDIATELY IF POOR DRAINAGE EXISTS. rq, CONCRETE PLAY EDGER , t , CONIFEROUS TREE PLAN LING DETAIL L61 1T_11 L61 smour_EI _,c r u , DRAIN TILE CLEANOUT L6-1 `GALA' °11 HE ROUND PIASTIC VALVE BOA WITH COVER HIGHED GRADE CAP DRAIN LINE TV IN SOLID CAP 4° DEPTH MINIMUM PEA CRAVPL AT BOTTOMOF VALVE BOX. 4` PERFORATED DRAIN TILE AS SNOWDON PLANS. COMPACTEDSUBGRADE ANY i S v A L c u P, ,"IlU'DA3 W IHLPE E WITHOUT PRUNNG PLAN IAKFS PER ET UT A A (AVFA PI ANT SCHISHIA F IF DIFER1 RANCIN 5 Q K T IRRICSTIUNAVATTMNG 'OMR+N \ SLNLL TV, Tliorvs RE G HENAT FUi RK 'f. A V AN RINGIF INN H nW MPRGIRM SUN TO IHEP OIIC s IC ANO T. S RECOMPA A A N)R[L UTAS10N5 GO\ ARMING It IL — WORR ORG Uk nNiIAIAL55UPPI1EO�S A MW \CTOR SW \LL 1-1fCt ALL DRYING ROADS, CURBS/ IL ITE11, TRAILS, TIRE FS, IAW NS AND .511E NUIDP ES DURING PI AN) ING OPERATIONS. ANY INMAGEI'O SAME SHALL III APAIRED AT NU CPST LET TOTH, OW -UNMf W AND LOCATION OF ALL NDANDAOOVEGRADE11 SHITANDPROVIDE THE UTEC110N IORSAME HETYJRE CONSTRUCTION ITTANRIAL INSTAtIATiON BEGINS (M1IINIMUM ld -o" CLISADID. OUND UHLITIts51ALL of LAID SUTENT TRENCHES DO NOT CUTTHRUUGH ROUTSYGAIS UP ANY (USING; IRIS TO RFMAIN. CONTOURS, TRAITS, VEGETAHUN, CURB/C.UiTERAND OTHER E FMFN BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED 10 NN GW C FYANY ANND AI LSC A _ R -. 1C THFAUGETENONTANOGRADESOF ED WALKS TRA L5 ANO,OR ROADWAYSARFSUHIFRIO FIELD ADIUSTMFNi ftfgUlRfn1D CUNWRMTU LDCAUZED TCHICH— PHICGONDIHONS ANDIO SOLD Ill NANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST HI "LL .NPRCW LD by IANIISCAN[ M1RCfBi[CT. N NAL PLANTING RENSUCI H H M LCHAIHIIIS MA F DDED IARDWOOD AT I TO IU RFC rvE 4 D[EP SHREDDED HARDWOOD hfL LC i WITN N0 MDUCIII'TIS N..ITT CONTACT nil. ARIA TRUNK. GRANULAR PRE UM RIGN1 L UIR IDEIPRE .OR EQUAU PEA AIANUT AG TNEIR 5 PAINPV. ODAIIUNS UNDER All MULCTED ARtAi \- IR I. _. C CUVLSANY oft ANC 61N lE EP GNS, SOILCUND tOINST ANY CUNDITIUN WH CH NT GH(N TI NLYAHECTOADI A NEY L F 9L F �. N FRIHEN SFAPEARCHTUCrPROR TO PROCUREMENT ANDOR IN- 11.ION. R MATT SUBN IF A WRITTEN RN AC ANCf TAFTSU FAT_ ANISG SHE MPR— TENT,. A l 1A IA N N M1 ASLI EQUH Tom. 9NT A H TRA 'NA. UGHONE UANUS(AVE COMRI(TO P R HE OIUN OEAST AND/OR MTHp A A QUOTATION CA MY(N LL S A I 551& SHOWN O t fl < 1 0 ADVI N TAT A Ic A SCAPE U >CAPF ARE Ii T[+TNIUSi ENOi fI U. F 'EgIH nN GALS NO PART\ AC PTANC[VA L ONATAIAD D N O SPE-IMITAIL DATA NI A MA 'F A LOW II GR. . DW \S A A ( ROM THE 1111 EU TOIUNL�. uRANDFALLN IPA' nONOFGRANU( R FIT SFF R i[YACI ITAILE' ER N i SPRING .Wj IGH AN LCA U.J3 iTHE ..W GS # TRFFINITI t A Pp N N SI I n AM,N ER IY AGAG G LN NANOOKV IN ':C A E MIENOEUA OPS lSi Pt ROVED IN WRITING BY THE AN­ ARCEH FECU ITATIORIANIO 11 A tPART P S1RUb5ANOl OHL BACKFI LU D TIVEST A11 MANTIM1CS01, HUMAANN AID IANFIS FROM PLANTS, U PLEURIVEFUL WRAPPIPF MATIONN MrAl I BE CORRUCKTH) MIC NPING LATER IN IF AN I E 11 T 111 TRUIG PET11111 E 111 OR QLAI I T1,H1AYL, A" ID HINEF RORTUIIIANDRDMOVE All A'RAPPINGAF(ER5 -1. TR TALL S _ : F YMANNEFE,ABOVEORBITCAV R A P(AFTER WOUNDING. AKS A BE PRIANUR, STAREYVED OR TRANSPIANAD BE Et AP l I NO \ DSU\PEARC IF THFSL DA ARI UNAYODABLE LY SC DC T R O \ -DUN IIP 50 E DFQUATT' TO At I.NW OUR Mt PROPER DRAINAGE Al ANN AROTIND [HE BUILDING SIZE ®® LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING IANUSURVEYING IANDSC.4PE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL ]zoo Hemlock L.. , SliB, MIN FN"..ro,, MN 55311 63.42P 5,A, �mw.ioucA ,c w TV-. EH 4E.e.i Daro roim. P�idcL NO IaTAK Y CF k D By IN ZING FTC .. o.EMOtmoN.P.: S LIU PLAN t i GRADING AND HIPUTY WN AS 1 G R ..... S rt 15 S 1, 1, DET II SNEFT A2 TALENT 5114C "Ll I-- 1. 11111"', O"PT'SHROD'S",", "O""'A", IT IR A'. HERCII FEE ss A R IS LYNTVPI,R�40 A IF "IES; SECTION B-13 it PCH, 1111 D-N, ORI 11 1 7 F` &III" NNEA i A"'TA" HENC., R IT AT A AT S EFTA HIERS—Y1 INT1111TF11"Ll4TO_ WEIR A A LAI __T_ 4 L F1111.11 1) _TN"'ll _— E IRCYI PLAN L 8 N- 11IRLIO, 1.111ACTER F-111 ­EN Flo, i— — — — — — -D011 'A 111REE111 'IENRIFFLADDIF D� OCREFFEII.A.111INVALI ALL T-F SIEFORAFAIDT DRIA-1 11. FRAPIE111INTO IDOE 1245 ND 1211 SPECS, 'ID A _IN11 A-A w ­R­1111L —l—FANNIIIER CONCRETE PIPE END OF LINE CLEANOUT IN LINE CLEANOUT SE'A,'PARSLAR .1OLAILEIRTISIANCTER1, PEARTENSELAIII-11111 _A SECTION , �-A PLE FILTRATION BENCH ira Lou CKS CLOTURE CONTROL STRUCTURE- .......... — sl RANDOM I HAND I ­­ DILARITILE I I WEIRIORIFICE PLACED RIPRAP CLEAN-OUT STRUCTURE "Ll I-- 1. R.AIIIHFE I. C-11TIENT-1 I-CRINCATIC.—I R IT AT A AT S EFTA HIERS—Y1 FERICI III I—ACTITO 'C"PAN, 11 PRECRAIAERE-1 CLASS IT BEEDDIEN — — — — — — — — — — — — IRELD, -E, IFYL IQI 1.111ACTER F-111 Flo, i— — — — — — -D011 'A 111REE111 'IENRIFFLADDIF D� OCREFFEII.A.111INVALI — 11. FRAPIE111INTO IDOE 1245 ND 1211 SPECS, 'ID A El L,�,, CONCRETE PIPE CKS FILTRATION BENCH BEDDING GRADING NOTES L SPOI LUMERAND RIP RISEN T HNISTPOSOFFACE GRADES, OFFELESIORRE DRE, FWOF A 11 BA NS i SHE ­­TFORV, I'D, DIER-111 NFID D. All CA IT LILLc SIT 3. ALL11 TFULT)LIETANVIDARFASACTOIDT11 IN1111 11 A1111111 Pl� S,IE�I,E�Rll FAA $OIL OPSEEDYNOLDTIONSON.IHIPILAREAS OTYDD .D,A E'EP VAR. N. A S 'D CCRATTIA-1— "Y" OF � IT BOTTOYORBIRIFID F�IFRHTESSK�IIIRT ECLEANEDAND�EPfWHEI�IKIWKIN-IFILDIML�,�OLCt)�SAN�I FOR I I All OF I '.I I I OF -111 A111 ANN DOI.— IIIAI DIESPOIRRY — I 6 II)STBEAVEQIJMFINMNTROLLED. 7, —SEAPPE POSAILPHOMI, EROSION CONTROL EVEIRSAND FELF)LA-015. 11 PHIL I 11QUIIBIED AL'A"IFELS, FEEL BETIRS—ANDIHS11 .,ME BIDDER H H. 1OADDIRTAYS.—ANTAFT—ALAYERA. 14, F — CHADEN6 TOR HANCTSIR / OR FEET TO FINISH G E114HISH. IOR UTILITY NOTES 1. AILM TART SF. WER, 5TQREA SHIFIRAND —HENIAN IfEgTR��LSDAFJ BE RIENESTIED AND INSTILLEF PER [HE ILLOUIRENIFITTS OF [HE R}CL CO""ELDINPINIT, AND THE STANDARD CHAIR S SIT Pit PAIRON OF IDECITY N.OINTRIATE. RTICA,CV N.LSOLS—ROH, D.EPCNF I 1 —1 CTED 1 11CORRIAIAD-11111CLACLAILE—EIR- All CDA I.—HARE LIAILTICIREFF-FIRTHEREQUERIEVENTS CP! " D�EC_ CLCATU PER D III11,H)TICHNICAl IRPORT. 1 ONNULTIONITO IXIITDAID B ='CIEHI DI 1.11ISDARLD ALET III', D—DIVILDR—LIESIIECHIA DO, N,_ BE NAETIIOAI LOVE AB (OURS _'CR"ORkT=A­F1TRl , �L CTRII, 4 ALL STORYSIDARES, SANCENLYRFACRAND YE7,7ER SERVICES 1-1 L FELP-H I'L SITY, 1111 TRIP ILDRE III CPP­111 NOTIN, A INIMLI Of 1. PAHES Of VIDETRAl SH-10TY AID IF IN f (IF HORIZONTAL SIPARENTIOD 13 ALONE— PORAI t HEITES DIATESS OTHERWISE N.D., A11DOC-1 IFIEF-CAVER THARITTI I, H1 I DAE.X I DL.-7— EROSION JINFARTARNANCIDIA(Ai 3 VFITI(I\IS�PAMTI)NTOMN'IWYORSTO��iSLWL — FEDDIRACTOR SILVATTERINENTOAVOIDCONFLICT-41T TANEET_ 11SV: "NESBERS FEALCHIANDETTKATTY-El 7 ALL FIRE HYDRANTS STREET L BE IOCAUD 5 11 RE ITTIVID FIR OF (NIR OR II)CL Of EV,FYIf IT IN[ ISS MERWISE NOTED, S. PERT11111HIIIIANTI-1 IA)PPTVTYDFK 1 1: SAN11=11 N1 ITER 11 =111 REACT- P ITH-1-IT, FOYN. BRIDLID I IOATIRVAILT, ALLIPOLLECRISOR ILLSONNI-1— INCLIDENONNE SASENS, LOCRHAWITHIN 10 FEETFOF THE BUDDING IRIVOIR NIVE,F NINE IvINE E, ITS TFI)A��RI)ANCfA'ITHNIINNF�(�k�li�,�ART4715 _B I0.ATLjNRN==)NS,ENTNlSTOE I ROVER SYSTENI SDALL AL OAR ­111 OR VAN PER PLAT f PY NIINNESOTA FOR IS, PART 4715.07RIE). APPROVED LABLID US III OIL D III RAFTI —DETTO. CONCT-1-1 TO ITNI FOE I S. 11111PASEN1, ANN III F HE I IF. 11110,11. H AL Rd W Y [It' ­ IAIIIIII, PAS1411E, 1:1 DID IRTECT N ". 1121 1. INCH IN ", 'N"�, All IFIRTNES.Ill CTNAI ALL RALEN-1— CODIN- ICOSPANNE F—DRES. A PAR SfORRI NFALTS CATCH EARN CALTINCTIVIFITHE, YEDAREASITIR I ILI OR THE LITYPIAO "I"ll ET D�SIQ IFIRINSIO1 IIE(AR1 All, HORIA 111FIRCE ITALIFFILROVIDIII.Y III C0 AA TO RA IF 1. 11TA EY 10 1., DIVECIII-11,CD) NI)THF��Y.fHL55HA�IJN�(JI)�Atl.�l(�N FRA R-DETS, r-I SEAT AND r—LE, AS NN a._ I NEXT C SPEPT I5 SELL 1 REAL IC Ai H11.1—FROAD-1111.11-1 Nll [ED WI]IIOtITTHFIXPRNSFD,��HQR�OFO111ILCIF� P IF INITY51HALLF)PERADALL—L VADID, 11 ICNCEIN N1 I.—INOILINNEIN111TAII B111111 FIBILEGROSED INVERT TLIVIIONSAND INSTAILOCA TIDEARELF", ORECD—ITIFFLACHAND ANEDIR III NOR H R DDY "" NL 16. LIFE IN-H-HOWSON IFILPLANIFT-LIHINETITAPRONSLICIEN IC'NATE SLID PIPE 511ALL BE DID CLASS 52, HISIALILLY eVfffl IS FEET OC COVIR IQ HIP PIPE, N FIT— SNAIJ, BE 1-1— IYPL PPLAND I HIL- SAIJERFAIIHILB IIHILASTEHII-HERO-PATIL LouCKS "DON" OBVIL11DERE-REFE IN. SURVEYING ",_ LANDARECHIETECONRE, FLABLECIFFERENTAL 1200 A-1-A Maple Grove, MN 55x9 7634245505 D;F­D" D R� ­1 110A I FRI. "FIN, oJect Lead O"IR A, VMA Revlew Dace 0105/2019 11-T1 EXILITING DI IONS (SIR FE—ON-OLAN E?-,I . , ­PJANJ FC-1, CERARNFNCNIOED PENCE 11H OT I . - C, Cz. FE IS To: From: Meeting Date: Re: Attachments: SC CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us Park Commission Marie Darling, Planning Director March 12, 2019 Badger Park Updates — Shelter and Site Plan Shelter design with two options Restroom Building Site Plan Staff is proceeding through the design phase of the park shelter and site plan. To the right is a photo of the park shelter design that the Commission selected and staff was directed that the size be large enough for six tables to fit underneath. As we've neared completion of the design phase, staff has continued moved the design from a prefabricated structure to a custom design to accommodate the existing soils and foundation design. The design has had to be altered to include steel columns to work with the pier footings and the anticipated wind loads. Wood would be wrapped around the steel supports, which is similar to the design of the supports used on the City Hall entrance. The attached drawings show two options for the shelter, one with eight columns showing stone about �/z way up the column and the other both with six columns with stone almost all the way up the columns. The cost of the additional stonework is offset by the fewer columns and pier footings and would be relatively similar for either option. Staff requests your direction on preference. Cost would be around $65,000, without the concrete base. Original budget was $52,000, without the concrete base. The bathroom building is designed with two identical, unisex restrooms, a water fountain (with a bottle filler), and a storage room. Please provide staff with any recommendations that you have on the design. The estimates are about $100,000 with foundation, where $140,000 was original budgeted. The 90 percent complete site plans are attached for your review as well. The only thing that may be different is the sidewalk was pulled away from the restroom building and the pond would have to be enlarged and modified to treat run -off for the entire site. No additional rain gardens or other features would be required. 1ICE ELEVATION i • ERR T FLEVATION ASPHALT SHINGLES "Pi ,i— � a i I I [ [ l I I °0 I l I WI FI �I R/ I I I I I 21 -011.1 1-011 I 1 (S)I Wl 75* FI Lij �I �I I UF-LJtHPC I-IULV NI N ' � I I (2) 2"X Gil i i I I R/I ml rn m l 81_011 I 121_011 �1_t11I X-0 t 51DE ELEVATION F ! 9 0 ff RONT ELEVATION LEA R,PNN L-)- ,SPHALT SHINGLES Option 2 I I I I 21-oll-I 81-011 1 81-011 1 81-011 121-011 I UX L- I ry LU LU cz LU LU - LU 21-oll-I 81-011 1 81-011 1 81-011 121-011 FLU'-,4 PIW'1 SGAI_- 1/III of/ 2 I --t�ti RESOLUTION NO. 19 -031 CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR BADGER PARK PLAYGROUND SITE WORK CITY PROJECT 19 -01 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood ( "City ") authorized the preparation of plans for the project on August 13, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City has directed Loucks, Inc. to prepare plans and designated $167,000 for this portion of the project; and WHEREAS, Loucks, Inc. has prepared plans for the 2019 Badger Park Playground Site Work Project, City Project 19 -01. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota- 1 . The Plans were prepared by Loucks, Inc. for such improvements. Said plans are hereby approved and shall be filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official paper and according to Minnesota State Law an advertisement for bids, upon the making of such improvement under such approved plans. The advertisement shall be published not less than 10 days before the date set for opening bids, shall specify the work to be done, shall state that bids will be opened on Monday, April 22, 2019 at 10:00 o'clock a.m. at the Shorewood City Hall in said City, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Shorewood for five percent of the amount of each bid. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Gault, Eggenberger, Gorham and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Riedel moved, Gault seconded, approving the agenda for March 5, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • February 5, 2019 Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 5, 2019, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. Setback Variances for an Inground Swimming Pool and Patio (Referred back from City Council at their January 14, 2019 meeting) Applicant: Tim and Sally Butler Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court Planning Director Darling explained that this item is back before the Planning Commission because the Council had reviewed the request but wanted to know if the recommendation from the Commission would have been different in light of new information that was not available the first time it was presented to the Commission. She gave an overview of the variance requests from the applicants and noted the new information includes: • a seventy foot drainage and utility easement along the rear if the adjacent property to the north • the property owner to the north (Lennar Homes) is not willing to sell the applicant land in order to meet the setbacks • Lennar Homes submitted a letter indicating that they have no objection to the approval of the variances • a letter from the pool contractor indicating that a four -foot concrete apron is needed for the automatic pool cover CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Commissioner Riedel confirmed with Planning Director Darling that there had been no changes to the application and this was being brought back to the Commission because of the new information. Planning Director Darling noted that the applicants had submitted a PowerPoint presentation that included information indicating support from their neighbors for this variance request. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the location of the Aharts' home at 6090 Spruce Hill Ct. The applicant pointed out the home from the aerial photographs. Commissioner Gorham asked about the discussion at the Council meeting about the definitions from the League of Minnesota Cities. He noted that the City Attorney had weighed in at the Council meeting and asked if there was additional information the Commission should consider surrounding the definitions. Planning Director Darling suggested that the Commission walk through each of the criteria again. Commissioner Riedel asked if the differing definitions were between "practical difficulties" and "hardship ". Planning Director Darling stated that is correct, but noted that the definition has not changed since the first time the Commission reviewed this application. She outlined the conditions for allowing a variance. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, apologized for the excessive amount of data he provided in the PowerPoint, but he had done a lot of research and wanted to include it. He stated that the term "reasonable use" may need some realignment from the Planning Commission. He noted that included in the previous recommendation was that they felt the property owner already has made reasonable use of the property so it did not meet that condition. He stated that based on his research with the League of Minnesota Cities that is not the correct application of the reasonable use factor. He stated that his interpretation is that it should not consider the current use of the property but whether the request would be considered an unreasonable use. Commissioner Riedel stated that he thinks what will be pivotal to this discussion is whether the practical difficulty is unique to the property. Mr. Butler stated that having a seventy -foot drainage and utility easement behind his property makes it unique because of the shape of the lot, the house location and the fact that it is fully wooded and will not be visible for six or seven months out of the year. Commissioner Riedel stated that those, to him, are justifications as to why the variance may have less of an impact. Mr. Butler stated that he does not recall the discussion of "uniqueness" for the original reasons the Planning Commission recommended denial and asked if someone could point it out in the staff report. Commissioner Riedel read aloud a portion of the section on practical difficulties and the three factors to be met. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Mr. Butler stated that he would need a minute to respond because the recommendation that was sent to the Council did not include that language. Planning Director Darling reviewed the long version of the conditions of practical difficulties that are included in the code. She noted that there is some subjectivity included in the criteria and gave examples of how it can be used. Commissioner Gault asked about the site of the pool and noted that the contractor says a four - foot apron is needed around the pool but also there is an eight -foot apron on the house side of the pool. He asked if both the four- and eight -foot aprons are necessary for the enjoyment of the pool. Mr. Butler stated that the contractor is not present tonight, but his understanding is that the four - foot apron will be necessary for the automatic pool cover. He explained the reason for the eight - foot apron near the house is for safety reasons and is primarily to prevent small children from jumping from the deck into the pool. Commissioner Gault stated that if the aprons could be reduced, that makes the variance asked for smaller which may make it easier for the Commission to consider. He stated that the enjoyment of a pool is not driven by an automatic cover rather than a manual cover. Mr. Butler stated that he realizes it is subjective, but he feels that he would enjoy the pool more with an automatic cover especially for the safety of his children when no adult is present. Commissioner Riedel asked what type of patio was being asked for. Mr. Butler stated that they are proposing five feet on the north side, ten feet on the east side, but he was not sure of the patio sized on the other side. Chair Maddy stated that the drawings the Commission has show five feet to the north, eight feet to the south and twelve feet on the east and west sides. Mr. Butler stated that he feels it is reasonable to want to put patio furniture on the patio near the pool. He noted that there was research included in the PowerPoint presentation regarding the amount of space needed to safely walk around patio furniture. Commissioner Riedel asked why moving the well would not be an option. Mr. Butler stated that even if the well would be moved, there would still need to be a variance for the setback for the patio. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would like to know why a smaller pool could not fit within the setback requirements in the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Butler stated that he and his wife have four children and putting in a smaller pool or swim spa would not work for their sized family. Commissioner Gault stated that putting a pool in the northeast corner looks like it may have more impact on the neighbor, as well. Mr. Butler stated that, visibility -wise, it would have much more of an impact in that location. He stated that their proposed location makes it the least visible to their neighbors. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 4 of 8 Chair Maddy reviewed the criteria for considering a variance. The Commission discussed the ordinance and the required amount of concrete around the pool Planning Director Darling read aloud from the ordinance about pool construction and decking and patio. She stated that the zoning ordinance also prohibits a pool apron in the setback, but noted that is a conflict between the zoning ordinance and the building code and some apron is required for safe egress. Chair Maddy confirmed that the required three -foot concrete apron is not considered part of the patio. He asked whether the Commission felt that the practical difficulties and the variance request is unique to the property and not created by the property owner. Commissioner Gault stated that there is no place on the property that a similar pool could be placed without running into setback issues. He stated that he is willing to consider this because of the easement on the back of the property. Chair Maddy noted that there is essentially an eighty -foot drainage easement behind this property that nobody will build on, so the proposed pool may meet the essential character condition. Commissioner Riedel stated that the code does not say a variance can be granted because the property is unique, it states that it can be granted if the practical difficulty is unique. He stated that a drainage and utility buffer on the backside of a property is not a practical difficulty but is a feature that mitigates the impact of the variance. He noted that he understands that this is all subjective. Commissioner Gorham agreed that the new information does not shed any new light on the situation, but does lessen the impact. He stated that to him, this is an amenity and he essentially agrees with Commissioner Riedel. Commissioner Riedel stated that he wanted to counter his own argument and agrees that the lot is a funky shape. He stated that the strongest argument for practical difficulty is because of the irregularly shaped lot that has the long strip of unusable land. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that the applicants are proposing a pool in a secluded area behind the house, the property behind it has no problems with it, and it is heavily wooded. He stated that he does not see a problem with granting the variance. Commissioner Gault noted that the lot behind Mr. Butler's property has been sold and wondered if that negated Lennar's support for the variance. Planning Commissioner Darling noted that Lennar Homes will be the property owner until the house is built and the new owners close on it, so the support letter was submitted appropriately from the property owner. Chair Maddy stated that building a smaller pool in the front or side yard would alter the character of the neighborhood and would not require a variance. He stated that to look at this another way, their proposed plan that requires a variance, is actually keeping the essential character of the neighborhood. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 5 of 8 Eggenberger moved, Gault seconded, to recommend the City Council approve the request for Setback Variances for an Inground Swimming Pool and Patio for Tim and Sally Butler located 6035 Spruce Hill Court, with conditions A, B and to modify C to limit the north side apron to 36 inches as outlined by staff and approve the variance for the 12 -foot patio and apron on the east and west sides of the pool, as proposed by the applicant. Motion passed 3/2 (Riedel and Gorham). B. Lot Line Rearrangement and Lot Area Variance Applicant: David Boike and Chadd Schurr Location: 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road Planning Director Darling explained that the property owners are requesting a property exchange to correct property line encroachments and title issues. She stated that the two property owners decided to correct the situation by exchanging some land. She explained that a variance would be required for the Valleywood property because it would be reduced in size and currently does not meet the requirements for lot area. She stated that the variance criteria are a bit different because the application is reviewed under the subdivision ordinance. She briefly reviewed the criteria for granting the variance in a subdivision ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment and to grant the variance to lot area. Tasha Francis and Chadd Schurr, 5550 Meadowview Road, noted that they had explored trying to resolve this through their title insurance, but the title company basically told them to resolve it on their own. She stated that they have just been trying to work with the Boikes to resolve this because their sport court and their deck encroaches on the property line. She stated that they have no problem with the variance request for the property. Planning Director Darling noted that if the City approves this, the deck will be conforming and the sport court would be less non - conforming than it currently is. Commissioner Riedel commended the homeowners for working together amicably and coming up with a solution. Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, to recommend the City Council approve the request for David Boike and Chadd Schurr located at 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road to adjust the lot lines, and grant the variance to lot area for the property at 25875 Valleywood Lane, subject to applicant's submission of executed 10 -foot drainage and utility easements. Mr. Schurr asked for an explanation of the 10 -foot drainage and utility easement and how that effects their newly constructed home. Planning Director Darling gave a brief explanation of the City requirements for the perimeter of both lots to have a 10 -foot drainage and utility easement and what its purpose would be. Motion passed 5/0. C. Minor Subdivision Applicant: Melanie Hermann Location: 24775 Glen Road Planning Director Darling explained that the property was originally created as two separate lots and at some point, were consolidated. She stated that the property owner recently demolished CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 6 of 8 the existing home and pool and received a building permit to construct one new home on the west side of the lot. She stated that the applicant is requesting a subdivision of the property into the original two lots. She reviewed some of the wetland delineation and wetland buffer conditions and noted that the drainage pattern will change which may require a rain garden to manage the change. Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as outlined in the staff report. Melanie Hermann, 24775 Glen Road, stated that she wants to preserve as many of the trees as possible to preserve the beauty of the lot. She stated that there are options for a rain garden or drain tile to mitigate the impact of the run off. Bruce Gamich, 2361 Crescent Avenue, Mendota Heights, stated that he was a friend of Ms. Hermann's and pointed out the elevation on the lot. Ms. Hermann stated that she is currently using the existing driveways for the new homes, but is fine with the conditions staff has outlined. Gorham moved, Eggenberger seconded, to recommend the City Council approve the Minor Subdivision for Melanie Hermann at 24775 Glen Road, subject to conditions listed in the staff report. Motion passed 5/0. D. Discuss Potential Amendments to Lighting Ordinance Planning Director Darling noted that at the January 15, 2019 meeting, a resident spoke during the "Matters from the Floor" portion of the meeting regarding concerns about lighting on property adjacent to their own property. She noted that this property owner had submitted some ideas for potential code amendments for the City to consider with regard to lighting. Darling noted that she had summarized the research from other community ordinances in the staff report. She stated that she recommends at least updating the nuisance lighting portion of the ordinance, and limiting the lighting that can be used to illuminate a sign, but does not recommend making a restriction on holiday lighting because of First Amendment concerns. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would like to table this discussion until the May meeting to allow for time to study the information she had gathered. Planning Director Darling noted that she is not looking for a particular code amendment at this time but would like some comments and opinions from the Commission as to whether the Lighting Ordinance needs updating. She explained that she would just like feedback on areas where the Commission would like to see her improve the code. Cindy Marr, 6015 Chaska Road, stated that what she would like to see is a timing element added to the code for the extra lights that Shorewood Landing at 6000 Chaska Road has and gave the example of them having to be turned off at 11:00 p.m. She stated that there are 28 balconies from this building facing toward her yard that could all have Christmas lights. She noted that she has no problem with Christmas lighting, but is concerned about the timing and the duration. She said there is also a problem with their sign lighting blocking her vision when she is in her driveway. Commissioner Gorham stated that hooded spotlights should be included in the ordinance. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would like to see the code be made so it is simple, clear, and more objective rather than subjective. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Chair Maddy stated that he would like to see light and glare not spill beyond property boundaries and stay within their own site. Ms. Marr stated that the Shorewood Landing has put lighting along the top of their building and that she doesn't see it as Christmas lighting. Chair Maddy explained that the Commission is talking about the lighting ordinance as a whole and not just looking at Shorewood Landing. Commissioner Gault stated that he feels holiday lighting could have some regulations in order to help people respect their neighbor, similar to the noise ordinance that has certain levels of decibels allowed overnight. Planning Director Darling stated that the City would have to be very careful how the language was crafted in order not to infringe on First Amendment rights. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he would like to see language that requires hooded lighting. Commissioner Riedel stated that he was uncomfortable restricting timing of lights. The Commission discussed areas of the code that they would like to see addressed such as: backlight, up- light, glare, intensity, max lumens, and at commercial lighting levels. E. 2019 Planning Commission Schedule and Work Program Eggenberger moved, Gorham seconded, to nominate Dustin Maddy to serve as Chair and Mark Riedel to serve as Vice - Chair. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Maddy asked if there was anything anybody would like to change on the 2019 Schedule and Work Program. Commissioner Gault stated he could present the Council update in June and Commissioner Eggenberger stated he could present the Council update in in July. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 6. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Labadie reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council's February 25, 2019, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). She stated that there was also a Mayor's Forum held recently at the Shorewood Event and Community Center with the local mayors. She stated that it was well attended and she stepped in because Mayor Zerby could not attend. She highlighted a few of the questions that were asked by the residents and some of the discussion from the event. She noted that LMCC filmed the event and it will be available to be watched at a later date. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 5, 2019 Page 8 of 8 Planning Director Darling stated that at the next meeting there will be a variance, PUD amendment, and a special home occupation permit requested. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that he will not be able to attend the April 2, 2019 Commission Meeting. • Census 2020 Planning Director Darling stated that this is an informational item and noted the census will likely be sending out postcards as soon as March 12, 2019. She stated that it is important that as many people as possible complete the census form because it determines government funding and congressional representation. She noted that there are now on -line submission options to fill out the census forms. • Osprey Nest at 24283 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling noted that there is maintenance that has to occur on the tower separate from the recent application to collocate an array on the existing monopole. She stated that they have received a permit from the DNR to remove the osprey nest if it is unoccupied. She stated that this did not mean that it is a permanent removal and thinks it is likely to be rebuilt. Planning Director Darling stated that if anyone on the Commission no longer wants to receive a paper packet for meetings, to let her know and she will only send the electronic version of the packet to them. Chair Maddy suggested that when there is a meeting that has a large packet that Planning Director Darling e-mail the Commission and ask if they would like to just receive it as an electronic packet. Commissioner Riedel suggested that it be up to Planning Director Darling's discretion to include links to pertinent information rather than hard copies of all documents. 7. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Gorham seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 5, 2019, at 9:03 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. MEETING TYPE: City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Variances to pool and patio setbacks Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court Applicant: Sally and Tim Butler Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner Review Deadline: March 28, 2019 Attachments: Planning Staff Memorandum Draft Resolution for Denial Resolution for Approval Background: See the attached Planning Staff memorandum for detailed background on this item. At their March 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission voted three in favor, two opposed to recommend approval of variances to allow a pool to be constructed at 20 feet from the north property line and a patio to be 14 feet from the norrth property line. Those voting against the motion found that the applicant had not adequately met the criteria for practical difficulty; specifically that the applicant had not shown unique circumstances that were not of their own creation. In addition to recommending approval of the variance application, the Planning Commission examined one of the conditions of approval that staff originally suggested. They found that the required reduction on the patio on the east and west sides of the patio were not necessary to ensure the application is the minimum action necessary to eliminate the practical difficulty. However, the Commissioners did recommended the apron on the north side be reduced to three feet for that purpose. The minutes from the meeting are included in the Council's packet. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Recommendation /Options: As a majority of Planning Commissioners recommended approval, a resolution of approval is attached. Because the review deadline is rapidly approaching staff also included a draft resolution denying the request based on the discussion at the March 5, 2019 meeting. The Council may adopt or modify either resolution. Either resolution requires a simple majority to adopt. 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. S: �Plaaning�Planning Files �Applicarions�2019 Cases �Burler VAR Spruce Hill Cr�CAF 190325.d- MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityha11 @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Sally and Tim Butler LOCATION: 6035 Spruce Hill Court REVIEW DEADLINE: March 28, 2019 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -1 A FILE NUMBER: 18.20 ORIGINAL REQUEST The applicants request a variance to place a pool and patio on the north side of their home. They propose to construct the pool 20 feet and the patio about 14 feet from the north property line where 30 feet is required for the pool and 50 feet is required for the patio. This item was originally heard for the November l `" ra 20, 2018 application (memo and minutes attached) and the Planning Commission unanimously �.. recommended denial of the application. The City Council heard the request at their December 10, 2018 and January 14, 2019 meetings (CAF reports ; and minutes attached). At the January 14, 2019 meeting, the City Council reviewed the request and sent the item back to the Planning Commission in order to ask if their recommendation to deny the variance would be different with the following supplemental information: 1. There is a 70 -foot drainage and utility easement that lies across the rear of the adjacent property to the north that would prevent any structures from being constructed, and increases the likelihood that the Page 2 trees would be preserved as a buffer between the two properties. This reduces the chances that the pool and the associated noise would be a nuisance to the adjacent neighbors. 2. The owners of the lot to the north ( Lennar Homes) are not willing to sell the applicants land to meet the setbacks. 3. Lennar Homes has submitted a letter indicating that they have no objection to the approval of variances to allow a pool to be constructed. 4. The pool contractor has submitted a letter indicating that they need a four -foot concrete apron around the pool to install the automatic pool cover. Notice of the application, including both the initial public meeting and this meeting, was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property. FINDINGS The City Council requests the Commission re- review the variance criteria considering the new information provided above and provide a recommendation especially considering the criteria for practical difficulty. The variance criteria (from section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations) are listed below. • Would the proposal be consistent with the intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? • Has the applicant proven practical difficulties? Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. • Does the property owner propose to use the property in a reasonable manner? • Is the practical difficulty unique to the property and not created by the property owner? • Would the variance alter the essential character of the locality? • Would the variance be based on economic considerations? • Would the variance impair adjacent properties in terms of impacting the supply of light or air, traffic congestion, fire or otherwise endanger public safety? • Would the variance be detrimental to public welfare, injurious to other lands or improvements in the neighborhood? • Would the variance be the minimum to alleviate the difficulty? If the Planning Commission finds the variance criteria are met, staff had originally proposed three conditions. The Council would like to know specifically if condition c. is necessary based on the information provided from the pool contractor. a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. b. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their northerly corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. Page 3 c. The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. Item c. Additional Information: The pool contractor has indicated that a four -foot concrete apron is necessary around the pool for proper installation of an automatic pool cover. While not required, many homeowners believe the cover provides additional safety for the owners where the fence provides safety for non - residents. Whether or not a cover is installed, a four -foot fence is required around the rear yard or pool area. Staff originally recommended condition c. to reduce the patio down to a pool apron at a minimum size for safe egress to ensure the variance action was the minimum action needed to alleviate the practical difficulty. In reviewing the above new information (particularly the additional easement on the adjacent property), if the Commission finds the applicants' request for patio variance meets the variance criteria, the Commission may amend or remove the condition. ATTACHMENTS Location map Email from Lennar representative Email from Pool Contractor Correspondence Received Applicants' narrative and plans Applicant's Powerpoint Presentation Submitted January 14, 2019 Minutes and CAF report from January 14, 2019 Minutes and CAF report from December 10, 2018 Minutes and Planning Memorandum from November 20, 2018 SAPIa iug\Pla iug Files \Applicatious\2018 Cmes\Butle VAR Spruce Hill CAPC memo 03 05 19.d- VNelsmeljr Sunnyvale La _0),, IWi i10 e�s HOPE , m Subject Cir l J^^ J+ %1 Minnetonka Country Club property N �I 0 300 600 1,200 O, Feet U, j� State Hi way 7 �gh ello_w. __stop O I RidgdgerPoint Cir Ana � 3 M�l Y i 1 Rampart_ C°co Ct `, > mood pr i s � m Marie Darling -14 From: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:47 AM To: Tim - 220 Photography; Marie Darling Subject: RE: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question - Tim Butler Variance Request Marie, As we discussed this morning, Lennar would not be able to accommodate a lot line adjustment to meeting typical pool setbacks as request by Tim Butler. However, Lennar would not object to a variance reducing the needed pool and patio setbacks to our common lot line. Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation marl<.sonstegard @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 16305 36 Ave. N Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 11612n 19TW1N,C1T1ES.#1 BUI ah Tas�ea� YfLISFIOMEBUILDER'' This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Mark Sonstegard Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 11:20 AM To: 'Tim - 220 Photography' <tim @studio220photography.com> Subject: RE: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question Hi Tim, After review, the option of purchasing a portion of one or two of Lennar's lot to accommodate a set back for your proposed pool would not be a "go" on our end. However, Lennar would not object to a variance reducing the needed setback to our common lot line. Sorry we were not able to accommodate your initial request. Let me Know if you need anything in writing on Lennar not objecting to your requested variance. f Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation marlc.sonstegard @ lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 16305 36 Ave. N Suite 600 Plymouth, MN 55446 BUIL was H i ERUILDER "` L This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Tim - 220 Photography <tim @studio220photography.com> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2019 10:15 PM To: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Subject: Re: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question ** External email from: tim @studio220photography.com. If suspicious, forward to: NotifySecurity @lennar.com ** Hi Mark, I was confused on the date of the meeting. It is Monday the 14th (today, assuming you aren't reading this until the morning) Have you heard anything back on our request? thanks! - Tim (612) 978 -1714 On Jan 8, 2019, at 9:33 AM, Tim Butler <tim @studio220photography.com> wrote: Hi Mark, Have you heard anything on this? Our council meeting is on Thursday this week. Thanks! Tim Butler 612 - 978 -1714 On Dec 31, 2018, at 1:50 PM, Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard@lennar.com> wrote: Tim, Thanks for the additional info. I'll run it up the ladder and see how it goes. 2 <image001.jpg> Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation mark.sonstegard @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 <i m age002.j pg > <i m age003.j pg > <image004.png> This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Tim Butler <tim @studio220photography.com> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2018 12:09 PM To: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Subject: Re: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question ** External email from: tim @studio220photography.com. If suspicious, forward to: NotifySecurity @lennar.com ** Hi Mark, Thanks for the reply. Yes I'm working with Marie. She and one of the council members were the ones that recommended i explore this land purchase before the council makes a decision on the variance (which wouldn't be needed if i owned some of the easement). The setback is 30 feet for the pool and 50 for a patio. So in my specific case, I'd need to purchase about 35 feet back from my current property line. Any help or advice or options you can offer would be great. Thanks! Tim Butler Mobile: 612 - 978 -1714 Sent from my Whone... On Dec 31, 2018, at 10:40 AM, Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> wrote: Hi Tim Just a little more back ground, what was the reduced set back you were looking for in your variance? And were you working with Marie Darling? 3 <image001.jpg> Mark Sonstegard Director of Land Development Lennar Corporation mark.sonstegard @lennar.com www.lennar.com Office: 952.229.6007 7599 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 <i mage002. jpg ><image003.jpg > <image004.png> This e -mail is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is addressed and contains information which maybe confidential or privileged, If you are not the person to whom this e -mail is addressed, or an agent authorized by such person to receive this e -mail, you are hereby notified that any examination, copying, distribution or other unauthorized use of this e -mail is prohibited. If you received this e -mail in error, please notify me immediately at the e -mail address referenced above. From: Tim - 220 Photography <tim @studio220photography.com> Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2018 10:34 AM To: Mark Sonstegard <mark.sonstegard @lennar.com> Subject: Minnetonka Country Club Land /Lot Question ** External email from: tim @studio220photography.com. If suspicious, forward to: NotifySecurity @lennar.com ** Hi Mark, I was directed to you by Rick Packer with Gonyea, who I was directed to by Patrick Johnson on the Shorewood City Council. I live in a home that backs up to the former MTKA CC, which is now as you know being developed by Lennar and Gonyea. I applied for a variance to the setback ordinance in order to put a pool in my backyard. The council recommended I first contact the landowner behind my property & ask about a potential purchase of a portion of the land. I'm at 6035 Spruce Hill Ct, & the land directly to the north is a 70 ft non - conservation easement that's unusable. While it's unusable, I believe some of that easement (or maybe all of it) is part of one of the Lennar lots. Can you help me identify who to talk to about possibly purchasing some of that easement? Thanks! - Tim (612) 978 -1714 <image005 Jpg> 8960 Excelsior Boulevard Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 Phone: 952 933 2255 Toll: 800 893 7771 Fox: 952 933 2259 February 11, 2019 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE: Deck around Auto cover Custom Pools 14184 Norlhdale Boulevard Rogers, Minnesota 55374 Phone: 763 515 6305 Toll: 800 893 7771 Fox: 763 515 6306 Recessed Automatic Cover Boxes require a concrete deck surrounding the box in order to support the mechanism and the roll up tube when the cover is in the box. Custom Pools has found, especially in Minnesota with the frost, 4 feet of unencumbered deck behind ,and around the box for structure and for safety of the occupants using the pool. There are also several cities that require 4 feet of decking for access around the pool. Custom Pools recommends 4 feet of concrete decking around the auto cover box for the reasons stated. / I /Ll Thank, o- u. Virginia Mulvaney Custom Pools Inc. Web: CustomPoolslnc.com CURT AND LUANN AHART 6090 SPRUCE JANUARY 13, 2019 •. �•rr wl •" amamel M WE ARE NEIGHBORS OF TIM AND SALLY BUTLER WHO RESIDE AT 6035 SPRUCE HILL CT. WE ARE AWARE OF THEIR DESIRE TO INSTALL AN INGROUND POOL ON THEIR PROPERTY. WE FULLY SUPPORT THEM IN THIS ENDEAVOR. THEY ARE RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORS WHO POSSESS A STRONG COMMITMENT TO COMMUNITY AND FAMILY VALUES. WE CONSIDER THIS POOL A POSITIVE ENHANCEMENT AND A WELCOME ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD! Point 1 To Whom it May Concern, The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home" to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well, I am sure that it is not needed but we did go ahead and look at local set back policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we think Shorewood should consider changing it's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' set back policies, we don't believe our request is outrageous or egregious. Thank you for your consideration. Chanhassen - Rear Yard = 10 Feet !' ; /tvr� � .ci.ci� nha e . tin. €sl c�catr� sitCenter/ View' 1806 r' Resdents- (3tticie- to-- Accessoi-_y 5trLi tg c, ?buld-- Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet !ittps% /w �x�,�r.c`s. victor ia,trari.tisi,'DOCcliiieyitCe €miter /View /844 Excelsior - Rear Yard = 10 Feet htt ,/ /►i.brar ictiiieocie c;oiii,l MN /exc:e!sior, /codetilcocle of oi-ditiances`lrtc)deld P'I'1lC OOR APXEZO f R`I21 E Greenwood - Rear Yard = 15 Feet l tt} :ti'F =reenNvoodmi- .con1;A�ettical, site; s /' %7BC3 f? 400- �iOB8- 4799— A'77A- t ffi `, o /(S YI Variance Application Request Tim and Sally Butler 6035 Spruce Hill Court r I ' `' I 10 f "'A" � Excelsior, MN 55331 612 - 978 -1714 or 612-834-9906 Point 1 To Whom it May Concern, The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home" to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well, I am sure that it is not needed but we did go ahead and look at local set back policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we think Shorewood should consider changing it's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' set back policies, we don't believe our request is outrageous or egregious. Thank you for your consideration. Chanhassen - Rear Yard = 10 Feet !' ; /tvr� � .ci.ci� nha e . tin. €sl c�catr� sitCenter/ View' 1806 r' Resdents- (3tticie- to-- Accessoi-_y 5trLi tg c, ?buld-- Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet !ittps% /w �x�,�r.c`s. victor ia,trari.tisi,'DOCcliiieyitCe €miter /View /844 Excelsior - Rear Yard = 10 Feet htt ,/ /►i.brar ictiiieocie c;oiii,l MN /exc:e!sior, /codetilcocle of oi-ditiances`lrtc)deld P'I'1lC OOR APXEZO f R`I21 E Greenwood - Rear Yard = 15 Feet l tt} :ti'F =reenNvoodmi- .con1;A�ettical, site; s /' %7BC3 f? 400- �iOB8- 4799— A'77A- Mound - Rear Yard = 15 Feet i ttv!rr' v v v.c tvc�1110Lmcwcom ye tical /kites /'N)7B2E4C 2OC - A79 -4517-A724-- QCB4 8r�t_Q�tl 3,j 1°i %7I / �dc � l5!` winl,lnil t' F'cr€�I�,Hot I'LlEy��dr — - -- Wayzata - Rear Yard = 10 Feet lit Cps //�vyvw.�va ztiw iew iti -Pool In fonn ation-PDF Tonka Bay - Rear Yard = 8 Feet l tt �.itw�,vIv.citvoftonkabay, net' vet -tic,)./;Sites / °/'07B4ACtB59 -6s C4 EE 4132 -8OD2- 7FQ9E6 l OBC;i31' °i 71),/Li kxs i s /SAKI_1V1It4;LNG POOLS Elr"oNDOUT 9- ,161p(t Deephaven - (If I understand correctly for a lot si nilar to our lot size) Rear Yard = 15 Feet i s:i,1 w .ci gL _(?havens rg� vet°ticai /sites /(r� -, RA E %LE,29 FEA2- 477B -97C I - 913C`;7955 C'E41° i;�t lE acfs," et�gk 1 =ortn. cUt Point 2 - A - We believe the our intended use of the property is very reasonable, and the only nonconformity of our proposed use is a variance on the rear setback distance. Approving the variance would not have any negative impact on neighbors or a significant impact to the amount of publicly visible green space on the property. B - We did not build the house, thus the circumstances were not created by us. Due to the location of the house being set deep on the lot, the deck and the location of the well, the proposed location of the pool is the only location that will work. C - The variance if approved would not negatively alter the essential character of the locality. Actually we believe if approved the variance would enhance the character of the property and due to the proposed location of the pool would do so while minimizing visibility of the structure from the street and to the neighboring homes. Point 3 — This is not based on economic considerations. Point 4 — This variance approval will not have any impact on sunlight to other properties, congestion on public streets, or increase the danger of fire or public safety. Point 5 — This variance approval and resulting construction will not have any impact on the public welfare or other lands in the neighborhood. Point 6 — This variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties for the proposed pool /construction project in the proposed location on the property. — / \~ 1p LF =988.4 EXISTING HOUSE '-+ 20.3 00 EXISTING ` . BENCHMARK - -- — `Q L�- HARDCOVER EXISTING = MVU3[ 3150 3F DECK = 590 ' DRIVE = 174O SF FPAT03Tp = 450 3F TOTAL = 5930 3F / 1*.8% LEGAL DESCRIPTION: U � LOT 6, BLOCK 1, 0zRVC[ / HILL. HENNEP|N CO, MN. 0 20 40 80 ADDRESS, 8035 SPRUCE HILL COURT sHonEWOo[\ MN SCALE IN FEET P0# 33-117-23-34-0025 *w, ~ EXISTING epoT ELEVATION. LOT AREA = 40065 SF/ 0.92 AC *998u) = pmupnnso apur sLsvAnow - o/nccr/ow SURFACE mnmw^os cox = oxmnLsysnco ovsn*Awo n*L = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE ~- oFs = oAnAoc rLone susvATmw Tpc = TOP or FOUNDATION ELEVATION SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANCE PER � \ Lrs = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION \ | (111101, SHOREWOOD Shorewood City Leadership: "The City of Shorewood boasts the greatest Planning Commission, City Council and Mayor in the known world. These groups are comprised of highly capable, smart, good looking, funny, and very reasonable residents of Shorewood. They are a pillarof our community.' - Tim Butler Shorewood Resident City Council Advocate Planning Comrr>ission Fan `; f Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variance to allow the Butler Family at 5035 Spruce Hill Ct to construct a pool in their back yard? Butler Family Perspective: Yes Spruce Hill Ct Neighbors Perspective: Yes City Council Perspective: Hopefully... Yes Submitted by the Applicant for the City Council meeting on 1/14/2019. 1 — Overview 2 — Homeowner Application Letter 3 — Policy Consideration & Background Summary 4 — Homeowner Summarized Response 5 — Policy Consideration — Findings of the Planning Commission — Variance Approval 6 — Summary of Planning Commission Findings / Reason for Denial 7 — Homeowner Response to the Planning Commission Findings — Variance Approval 8 — Homeowner Response to Planning Commission Recommended Conditions 9 — Homeowner Conclusion 10 —Thank You and Q &A 11 —Appendix & Attachments - Neighborhood Support - League of MN Cities Reference Information - Property Photos & Diagrams - Patio Sizing Expert Recommendations - Neighboring City Setback Requirements for reference 2 Letter Provided as supplement... Here is the text written by Sally Butler: The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home" to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well. 3 Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? Background Summary: See attached memorandum for detailed background on this item The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. Specifically, they found that although a pool is a reasonable use of residential property, the request is not unique to this property, the property owner has other options to put the pool into the side yard (although that would require capping and installation of a new well), and that the request is not the minimum action necessary to alleviate the difficulty. One of the issues discussed is whether or not the reduced setback would affect the lot to the north when the home is constructed. During the meeting, staff provided a copy of the grading plan, (upper right), but did not have access to the recorded plat (lower right). Due to the presence of a larger than typical drainage and utility easement (70 feet), the future property owners would not be able to place structures in close proximity to the property line and hence would have a buffer to a pool with reduced setbacks. The trees that currently exist in the area are not protected by conservation easements. Options: Approve, deny or modify the resolution. if the Council determine that the variance criteria are met, staff recommend thatthe conditions included in the Planning Commission staff report should be included as conditions of approval. They include the following: • Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. • At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. • The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. 0 There are 2 positions of the Planning Commission that we do not agree with. 15t - Policy Consideration: Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance request, and we do not agree. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. We do not agree that the denial is the appropriate recommendation, and have prepared a written justification in defense of our position. It is our perspective is that our position is justified and we should be granted the variance_ 2nd — Options (should the Council decide to approve the variance request): The planning commission has made 3 recommendations should the council decide to grant the variance request. And we do not agree with 1 of the 3 recommendations being required as a condition of approval. The 31d recommended condition of approval - The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. We do not agree that this condition of approval should be placed on the homeowner in the case that the council approves the variance. It is our position that reducing the patio to this size places a restrictive limitation on using the patio space and is an unreasonable condition of approval. The city allows up to 33% of Impervious Surface coverage, and currently we have 14.8% Coverage. If the variance is approved as is, based on the plans provided by the landscape architect, our Impervious Surface coverage would only increase to 20.45 %, which is still well below the city's allowed coverage area. Thus, we believe the requested patio size is very reasonable, and any reduction in the proposed size would have no significant impact on the Impervious Surface coverage on the property. Variance Analysis: Should the City grant a variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets for criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria as follows: 1. Intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: Planning Commission Perspective: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. 2. Practical Difficulties: Practical difficulties include there factors, all three of which must be met. Staff Finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. A — REASONABLE: Planning Commission Perspective: While a pool is reasonable use on a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree (explanation to follow). B — SELF CREATED: Planning Commission Perspective: The property owners did not create the difficulty, which is related to the irregular shape of the lot. There is no conforming location for a pool on the property. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. C — ESSENTIAL CHARACTER: Planning Commission Perspective: The pool is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors, as the homes on both sides of the property are located well away from the proposed pool. However, the City has used setbacks to keep active uses towards the center of the property to reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. A 3_ Economic Considerations: - Planning Commission Perspective: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. The pool is proposed to make the home more usable for their family. Butler Family Perspective: We agree. d. Impact on Area: - Planning Commission Perspective: The property owners are not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. - Butler Family Perspective: We agree. 5. Impact to Public Welfare and Other Improvements: - Planning Commission Perspective: The applicants' proposal is unlikely to impact or impair adjacent property values or the public welfare. - Butler Family Perspective: We agree. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty: - Planning Commission Perspective: Because the property owners have reasonable use of the property without a pool, staff finds the action is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. - Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree (explanation to follow), In Summary, there are two areas of disagreement with the Findings of the Planning Commission as related to the denial of the variance application... 2. Practical Difficulties: Practical difficulties include there factors, all three of which must be met. Staff Finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. A — REASONABLE: Planning Commission Perspective: While a pool is reasonable use on a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree. 6. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty: Planning Commission Perspective: Because the property owners have reasonable use of the property without a pool, staff finds the action is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. Butler Family Perspective: We do NOT agree. Findings /Recommendation: Staff finds the applicants have not met all three tests for Practical Difficulties nor have they shown the request is the minimum action necessary as they have reasonable use of the property without a pool. Consequently, staff recommends denial of the variance. - Do we agree that the stated justification in this statement that we do not meetthe "Minimum Action Necessary 1 Minimum to Alleviate" consideration because we "have reasonable use of the property without a pool "? In other words, based on the written statement of the Staff, the Staff relies on their assessment that we do not meet the Reasonable Use consideration to assert that we do not meet the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration, as their stated justification for stating we do not meet the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration is solely based on their finding that we already have Reasonable Use of the property without a pool. - Do we agree that the staff's finding related to not meeting the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration is based on their finding that we do not meet the Reasonable Use consideration? IF we agree that the Staff has based their justification for finding we do not meet the Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty consideration on their assessment that we do not meet the Reasonable Use consideration, then we contend that the 'Reasonable Use" factor is the only basis for which the the Staff has recommended the denial of our variance request- - Do we agree? On the assumption that following a logical path, we do agree to this point... Consequently, the entire basis of the proposal to deny the variance request is based on the Planning Commission assessment that we do not meet the 3 Factor test for Practical Difficulties, and this is based on the Planning Commission assessment that while we meet 2 of the factors, that we do not meet the Reasonable Use factor. However.... We do NOT agree that we fail to meet the Reasonable Use factor. 9 Our Perspective: - We believe we DO indeed meet the Reasonable Use factor, and contend that the Planning Commission assessment that we do not meet this factor, is based on an interpretation of the Reasonable Use test that is not in harmony with The League of Minnesota Cities application of this particular standard. From the League of Minnesota Cities— Information Memo - Land Use Variances - 11/15/17 hftps: / /www, Imc.orgfniedia /docu ment/1 !la nd useva riances.pdf ?in li ne =true The 1St factor in the 3- Factor Test under the "Practical Difficulties" Standard is the Reasonable Use Factor — 1. Reasonableness - The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. it does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. CONCLUSION: Based on the information we have provided, we believe there is a logical path of reasoning that concludes that we have met all the standards for the approval of the variance, including having passed or met all 3 factors of the 3 factor test for Practical Difficulties, and therefore we do not believe that the Planning Commission or City Council has provided sufficient justification to make a decision to deny our variance request. 10 The Planning Commission recommended 3 conditions for consideration should the City Council decide to approve the variance. We do not agree that one of the recommended conditions was a reasonable condition to impose as a condition of approval. The 31d recommended condition of approval - e The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. We do not agree that this condition of approval should be placed on the homeowner in the case that the council approves the variance. It is our position that reducing the patio to this size places a restrictive limitation on using the patio space and is an unreasonable condition of approval. The city allows up to 33% of Impervious Surface coverage, and currently we have 14.8% Coverage. If the variance is approved as is, based on the plans provided by the landscape architect, our Impervious Surface coverage would only increase to 20.45 %, which is still well below the city's allowed coverage area. Thus, we believe the requested patio size is very reasonable, and any reduction in the proposed size would have no significant impact on the Impervious Surface coverage on the property. 11 12 13 Dear Council, We are writing a letter in full support of the request the Butler's have made regarding their planned pool and accompanying landscaping on their property at Spruce Hill Ct. Over the past 2 years, we have gotten to know the Butler family extremely well. Throughout the years, our entire street has gathered at the Butler home. We have the utmost respect for rules and regulations regarding safe building in our community as well as sympathy for the position that the council is in when striking a balance when evaluating requests for variances. Ideally, building codes are intended to allow all members of our community to safely enjoy their property. The slight departure from the literal requirement of a pool deck ending so many feet of the property line, though well intended, should be allowed in this instance. This proposed professionally constructed project within a reasonable distance of the property line, doesn't abut directly another occupied lot, impact any neighbor's enjoyment of their property, or disrupt the investment we have all made in Shorewood in any way. In fact, it is more likely to be a community gathering place and allow the entire neighborhood to better enjoy the community. The very fabric of an excellent and desired neighborhood is the ability to form connections, build community, and enjoy and improve on our property. Not allowing a reasonable variance which allows the Butler's to improve and enjoy their small slice of Shorewood would be a mistake which may impact the whole neighborhood. With this in mind, we respectfully submit that the proper course of action is to allow the variance. Respectfully, Michael and Charity Dunn 6100 Spruce Hill Ct. Shorewood 14 To the Shorewood City Council, We are two of Sally and Tim Butler's neighbors on Spruce Hill Court. We live directly across the street. Our neighborhood is a place focused on family. You can often find some or all of the neighbors enjoying a bbq in the summer months or bonfire when it is chilly. We area community that helps each other out; together we will clean up after storms, watch each other's kids, and be a helping hand. The children in this neighborhood are being raised to be kind to each other. They love playing together. We want to continue to keep the kids playing in our,cul -du -sac and in our yards as long as possible for many years to come. When Sally and Tim shared their idea of digging a pool, Clint and I were in full support. We continue to supporttheir dream of creating their ideal home here on Spruce Hill Ct. Their large lot with the dense tree border lends itself to plenty of green space even while adding a private pool in back. The steep creek -bed (and surrounding woods) along the back of their yard also provide a natural barrier of privacy. We hope that they will receive your approval to move ahead with creating that dream spot in our Shorewood neighborhood. Thank you for your time, Melissa Talmo Melissatalmo - gmail.com 6060 Spruce Hill Ct Shorewood, Mn 55331 952 -239 -1363 15 No issue from me.., just keep the cooler full. TIMOTHY HAUGEN "Tim -As a neighbor that directly faces your home, I have no concerns and am definitely in favor of you being allowed to put a pool in if you desire to. In my opinion, a variance is a very reasonable request due to two factors: the large size of your property overall (- 1 acre) and the significant separation (via ravine and woods) between the north end of your property line and nearest allowable spot to build on the lot north of you. Let me know if you need anything else. Regards, Clint Talmo 6060 Spruce Hill Court I'm all in- literallylr2 Luann Ahart "I support. Can't make it, men's bible study fellowship tonight." CURTAHART 16 From the League of Minnesota Cities— Information Memo - Land Use Variances - 11/15/17 htips : / /www.Imc.org /media /documenUl /la ndusevariances.pdf ?inline =true Per this information memo, in 2011 the State of Minnesota changed it's 3- Factor test from "Undue Hardship" to "Practical Difficulties ". "Undue hardship" was the Standard of the three - factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law. After a long and contentious session working to restore city variance authority, the final version of HF 52 supported by the League and allies was passed unanimously by the Legislature. The 3- Factor Test under the "Practical Difficulties" Standard are — 1. Reasonableness -The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. 2. Uniqueness - The second factor is that the landowner's problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. 3. Essential character The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. 17 From the League of Minnesota Cities — Information Memo -Land Use Ordinance Mistakes —5/2/18 httos : / /www.imc.ora /media/document/1 / landuseordinancemistakes .pdf ?inline =true Per this Information Memo, the League of Minnesota Cities asserts that... Many zoning ordinances were drafted with provisions for granting variances that may differ from the standard provided in the Municipal Planning Act. Under the Act, variances are permitted departures from strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property if the enforcement would cause the owner "practical difficulties." 'Practical difficulties" is the legal standard set forth in state law. (in 2011, the legislature changed the name of the state standard from undue hardship to practical difficulties.) Minnesota cities must apply the state statutory practical difficulties standard when considering applications for variances. The state statute specifically defines practical difficulties to mean all of the following: • the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance, • the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner, and • the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. In Summary, the city of Shorewood, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, have a legal obligation to apply the state statutory practical difficulties standard. And that standard as it relates to Reasonable Use is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, NOT that the property owner already has reasonable use of the property without approval of the variance. Thus, the planning commission & city council do not have the liberty of redefining the Reasonable Use standard and relying on that as a reason to deny the variance application. Per the last Council meeting when this variance request was discussed, there was a recurring commentary from the council regarding the concept of a pool being an "amenity" as opposed to a "structure ". The insinuation was that because some of the council perceived the pool to be an "amenity" and not a "structure ", it was not as important and perhaps didn't warrant the same consideration as if the variance request was to build a structure. It was my contention at the time, and it remains today, that there is no distinction between an "amenity" and a "structure" in the city code of ordinances or the comprehensive plan. Because of this, the council does not have any legitimate basis on which to draw the distinction between a structure and an amenity, as neither the Code of City Ordinances or the Comprehensive plan draw this distinction. Thus, the argument in this context that the variance should not be approved on the basis that a pool is perceived to be an "amenity" is not a valid justification for the denial. Shorewood, MN —City Code of Ordinances hftp://Iibra!y.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Minnesota/shorewood mn/ cityofshorewoodminnesotacodeofordina nces ?f= templates$fn= default .htm$3.0$vid= amlegal:shorewood mn - The words "amenity" or "amenities" appears only 3 times in the entire document, all in Chapter 1201 Zoning Regulations, and none of them in relation to Variances Shorewood, MN - 2040 Comprehensive Plan — Draft November 2018 http• / /ci shorewood.mn.us/ Shorewood %20Comp %20PIan %20Nov %202018 %20Revision.pdf - The words "amenity" or "amenities" appears only 10 times in the entire 649 page document, none of them in relation to Variances 19 /�� ��� v Ak4 � � �•. � Lek v'k r`� � -i — �. y i 20 21 70 Foot Easement If I owned the property in this box, we would not require a variance to construct a pool in the proposed location Proposed location of Pool 22 The property is mostly surrounded by trees Northwest Corner East Side Yard 23 Again referencing the League of MN Cities — Information Memo — Land Use Variances — 11/15/17... The `Conditions` — A city may impose a condition when it grants a variance so long as the condition is directly related and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed an otherwise applicable height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of excess height. We acknowledge that `a condition' of a reduced patio size is directly related to the variance request, and bears a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. However, we do not agree that `the condition' proposed in this case is appropriate. The example provided in the Land Use Variance memo by the league of MN cities highlights an example of granting a variance to exceed an applicable height limit, and the conditions attached should relate to 'mitigating the effect of excess' height. To apply that same standard to our proposed variance, the proposed conditions should `mitigate the effect of excess' patio area. Our position is that the proposed patio area is not `excess', rather it is reasonable_ And because what we have proposed is reasonable, then there should be no condition of approval related to a reduced patio size. Our position in regards to the condition to `reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request`, is that we are proposing reasonable patio sizes on each side, as follows- 1 — North Side: 5 feet is a reasonable patio size on the north side of the pool. 36 inches is the minimum size allowed by code, but that size does not even provide enough space for 2 people to safely walk side by side next to the pool. If 36 inches is the minimum size required, it is our assertion that 60 inches would not constitute 'excess'. 2 — East & West Sides: Our intention on these sides is to use one or both for patio tables. A reasonable use of a pool and patio in the backyard includes a reasonable use of patio furniture. We have proposed 12 feet, which is not in excess, but rather a very reasonable proposal. Expert patio sizing recommendations validate our assertion. Landscaping Network — Recommends 2 to 3 feet of walkaround space on each side of patio furniture. Common patio table for 6 is at least 3 or 4 feet. - https:// www.l andscaRingnehvork .com/patios /size.html Better Homes & Gardens — Recommends a patio size of 12x12 for a dining area for 6 to 8 people. We have a family of 6. - https: / /tivvvw.bhg.com/home- improvement !patio /designsfhow4o- choose- patio -size/ Concrete Network — A 48" round table can seat 6 -8 people. The minimum patio size to accommodate a 48" round table is 10 feet 6 inches. This allows enough space to pull out chairs, but not much walk around space. Use 12 -14 feet as a minimum patio size allotment for each 48" round table you intend to accommodate. - Patio Size — https: / /myAv,concretgnet work .com /concrete - patio /size.htmi 24 We reviewed other local setback policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we propose Shorewood consider changing It's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' setback policies, we don't believe our request is excessive. Chanhassen -Rear Yard= 10 Feet mss: /Av nnv. ci.c hanhassen. m n_ us /DocumentCenterN!etiv/1806 /Residents- Guide -to- Accessory -Struc tures?bidld= Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet https: /Avmv.ci.victoria_mn. us /DocumentCenterMew /844 Excelsior -Rear Yard = 10 Feet https: / /Iibrary.niunicode.com)MN /excelsior /codes /code of ordinances ?nodeld= PTiICOOR APXEZO ART21FE Greenwood - Rear Yard = 15 Feet http: / /areenwoodmn.com/ vertical / sitesl% 7BC372340D- AOB8- 479D- A77A- 7A2C96A5C421 %7D /uploads /Chapter 11 Zonino.odf Mound - Rear Yard = 15 Feet https : /Avww.cilyofmound.comtvertical /sites / ° /a7B2E4C20C8 -5A79- 4517- A724- CB4891DAF341 ° /a7D /uploads /Swimming Pools Hot Tubs.pdf Wayzata - RearYard = 10 Feet https: /Avww.way7ata.org/Doc umentCenterNiew /257 /Swimming -Pool- information -PDF Tonka Bay - Rear Yard = 8 Feet https : /Avww.cityoffonkabay, net /verticauSites / %7B4AOB5943 -C4EE- 4132- 80D2- 7FDgE610BCBF %7D /uploads /SWIMMING POOLS HANDOUT 9- 16(1).pdf Deephaven - (if I understand correctly for a lot similar to our lot size) - Rear Yard = 15 Feet https: /Avww.cityofdeephaven.org/ vertical / sites/°/ a78AIF4EA29- FEA2- 477B- 97Cl- 913C7955ACF4 %7D /uploads/getback Form.pdf 25 A. Variances to Pool Setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Sally and Tim Butler Planning Director Darling gave an overview of past discussions by the Planning Commission and the Council regarding the variances to pool setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. She stated that the Planning Commission had recommended denial of the request. She noted that this item had been discussed at the December 10, 2018 Council meeting where it was continued to allow the applicant time to inquire about purchasing additional land to the north. She stated that Lennar, who owns the land to the north has indicated that they are not able to sell a portion of the property, but have no objection to the variance for the pool on the property. She stated that she has written up resolutions for both approval and denial based on the Council's previous discussion. She reviewed the recommended conditions if the Council chooses to approve the variance. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, asked if the Council had a chance to review the twenty -five- page presentation that he had prepared for the meeting. He read aloud a letter from his wife explaining their request for a variance in order to have a pool at their home. He stated that the decision by the Planning Commission to deny the variance was before there was knowledge that the seventy -foot easement behind their property is a non - conservation drainage and utility easement. He stated that they also did not know that Lennar would not sell the property to them. He stated that they do not agree with the recommendation by the Planning Commission to deny the variance nor do they agree with the third condition if the Council approves the request, for a three - foot -wide patio space. He explained their reasons for not agreeing with the Planning Commission recommendation. He reviewed the language from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding practical difficulties and reasonable use. He stated that the proposed three -foot patio space is not reasonable and noted that they plan to only increase the impervious surface from 14.6 percent to 20.45 percent. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the adjoining neighbors were all in support of the variance. Mr. Butler stated that he has letters from all of them expressing their support. Mayor Zerby noted that the new information is that Lennar is also in support of the variance. Luann Ahart 6090 Spruce Hill Court, stated her support of both the variance for the pool and the patio. Councilmember Labadie stated that even though the neighbors support the variance request, this is not a small variance request. Sally Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, expressed her frustration with this process because the point of a variance is to ask for an exception to the rule, which is what they are doing. She stated that they have the complete support of their neighbors. She stated that they are simply asking for an exception to put their pool in a location where nobody will see it. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she was just about to ask the same question because she thought variances were exceptions to the rules and do not set precedents. Planning Director Darling agreed that this was correct. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2019 Page 7 of 15 Councilmember Sundberg stated that based on that information, she feels the Council should consider granting the variance and factor in all the information. She stated that because all of the neighbors, including Lennar Homes approves of the request and there is a pretty significant buffer with the trees, she explained that she is inclined to approve the request. Mayor Zerby confirmed that the dense tree coverage to the north was on Lennar Homes property. He asked if there was anything that would prevent them from cutting the trees down. Planning Director Darling replied no but noted that this was in a drainage easement so it is unlikely the trees will be removed, since a structure cannot be placed in this area. Councilmember Labadie stated that she puts a lot of faith in the findings of the Planning Commission and their recommendation was unanimous to deny the request. She stated that staff had also recommended denial of the request. Councilmember Siakel stated that her understanding of a variance is that there needs to be a demonstration of a hardship and to her, being unable to put in a pool is not a hardship. She stated that she feels this is a bit about setting a precedent. Mr. Butler read a portion of a memo from the League of Minnesota Cities dated May 2, 2018 titled Land Use Ordinance Mistakes that calls for "practical difficulties ", not "undue hardship" and explained that hardship is no longer the test of whether to grant a variance or not. He stated that he believes that the City is misapplying the standard and he is asking that they apply it according to the League of Minnesota Cities standards and State laws. Councilmember Siakel asked for City Attorney to Keane to weigh in with his opinion. City Attorney Keane stated that the test that the City applies to variance requests is highly subjective and there is latitude and discretion in determining the reasonableness of the use as well as the reasonableness of departure from the standard. Mr. Butler noted that the Planning Commission has stated that the use of a pool is a reasonable use of the property. Councilmember Johnson asked whether the Planning Commission was aware of the seventy -foot drainage and utility easement directly behind the property. Planning Director Darling stated that the Planning Commission did not know that there was a drainage and utility easement behind the property. Councilmember Johnson stated that, in his opinion, that piece of information is a pretty big deal and suggested that perhaps it should go back to the Planning Commission. Mayor Zerby noted that he feels it is in the Council's court now and should move forward. He stated that he is in favor of approving the variance because of the easement, the support of the neighbors, and the letter from Ms. Butler that included the setback information from other cities. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agrees with Councilmember Johnson that the fact that the Planning Commission was not aware of the drainage and utility easement behind the property is huge. Mayor Zerby noted that the Planning Commission also did not know that the Lennar Homes was in support of it because they will eventually have to sell the lot behind the Butlers. Councilmember Labadie agrees that the Council should deal with this request tonight and not kick it back to the Planning Commission. Sundberg moved, Zerby seconded to approve the Variance Requests to Pool Setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Sally and Tim Butler subject to the conditions in the staff report. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2019 Page 8 of 15 Aaron Lutz, explained that he lives in Tonka Bay and is the pool contractor working with the applicants. He noted that the Butlers would like to have an automatic pool cover which needs more than three feet of patio cover for this to be secure and if they decide to put in a diving board, that will also need to be mounted in more than three feet of concrete. He stated that the minimum would be about four feet to have the automatic cover box secure. He stated that on the north side, the concrete could be brought down to three feet. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed that a pool cover is a safety issue, but does not think a diving board falls into that category. Councilmember Johnson stated that he believes the width of the walking surface next to the pool can also cause a safety issue if it is too narrow. Mr. Lutz explained that both Edina and Minneapolis require a minimum of four feet of concrete around pools for safety purposes. Councilmember Labadie asked why both staff and the Planning Commission had recommended thirty -six inches. Planning Director Darling explained that thirty - six inches is the minimum requirement in the building code for safe egress and was recommended to minimize the variance. She noted that staff was not aware of the pool cover issue at the time of the request. Councilmember Siakel thanked the Butlers for coming into the City with all the information. She stated that she understands that they have put in an incredible amount of work gathering information, however, she will stick with the Planning Commission recommendation. Councilmember Labadie confirmed that the thirty- six -inch recommendation came from staff and asked if that opinion would change based on the information provided tonight by Mr. Lutz. Planning Director Darling stated that she did not have enough information on pool cover requirements to make a recommendation. Sundberg amended her motion, Zerby amended his second, to recommend that there be a minimum of four feet of concrete along the north side of the pool. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she does not like going against Planning Commission recommendations but has questioned some of their recommendations with regard to variance requests. Councilmember Johnson stated that he was present for the very thorough discussion at the Planning Commission meeting which is why he would like to know if knowing about the seventy - foot drainage and utility easement behind the property would make any difference in their recommendation to the Council. Councilmember Labadie stated that she feels the letter from the developer in support of the pool and the fact that there is a seventy -foot drainage and utility easement behind the property are key pieces of information that the Planning Commission did not have when they made their initial recommendation. Motion failed 213 (Johnson, Labadie, and Siakel) Siakel moved, to Deny the Variance Request for Pool Setbacks by Tim and Sally Butler at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. Motion died for the lack of a second. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2019 Page 9 of 15 Planning Director Darling reminded the Council that this request is at the end of the one - hundred twenty -day review period. She noted that the Council could request that the applicant grant additional time to send it back to the Planning Commission to reconsider the request with the additional information. City Attorney Keane confirmed that the Council would ask the applicant to waive the one - hundred twenty -day review period. Planning Director Darling stated that she could take this item back to the Planning Commission for the February 5, 2019 meeting and back to the Council on the February 11, 2019 meeting. Mayor Zerby asked the applicants if they are willing to allow a forty - five -day extension to allow the Planning Commission to discuss it with the new information. Mr. Butler stated that they are willing to grant the extension but he is unable to attend any of the meetings in February because he will be out of town. He stated that if the Council would like additional time, he is willing to grant a sixty -day extension and then he would be able to attend the meetings in March. Planning Director Darling asked Mr. Butler to sign a statement that they are granting the City the sixty -day extension before they leave this evening. She noted that the Planning Commission will meet on March 5, 2019 and the Council will meet on March 11, 2019. Mayor Zerby clarified that this item would be brought back to the Planning Commission in March in order for them to consider the request in light of the letter from Lennar Homes in support of the pool location, the seventy -foot drainage and utility easement behind the property, and the pool cover safety requirements. VA MEETING TYPE: City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Variances to pool setbacks for Sally and Tim Butler at 6035 Spruce Hill Court Meeting Date: January 14, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner Review Deadline: January 27, 2019 Attachments: Council Action Form from December 10, 2018 Planning Staff Memorandum Resolution for Approval Resolution for Denial Policy Consideration: Should the City grant variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? Background: See attached CAF and Planning Staff memorandum for detailed background on this item. At the December 10, 2018 meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to continue the request to the January 14th meeting in order to give the applicant time to discuss acquiring more property from the owner of the lot to the north ( Lennar). After the meeting, staff contacted the applicants and found that they had contacted Lennar, the owner of the property to the north, after the last meeting. However, at the time this report was completed, Lennar's staff had not given him any indication that they are interested in selling some of the lot to the the applicants. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Options: Because the review deadline is rapidly approaching and some members of the City Council indicated support for the variance application at the last meeting, staff has attached two resolutions one each for approving or denying the request based on the information discussed at the last meeting. The resolution approving the request includes the conditions from the Planning Commission staff report. The options moving forward include adopting a resolution to approve or deny the request or modifying either resolution. Either resolution requires a simple majority to adopt. Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution (denying, approving) variances for Sally and Tim Butler for property located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court, based on the findings in the attached resolution. 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. SaPlonningjft-ing Fil .Vpplic.tlons12018CosesOutler VAR Spruce Hill CttCAF190114.doa CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2018 Page 5 of 10 7. PLANNING —Continued C. Variances to Pool Setbacks at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Sally and Tim Butler — Continued Planning Director Darling explained that this request is for a setback variance to place a pool and a patio on the north side of the home located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. She gave an overview of the current setback requirements in the City for this zoning district. She stated that at the November 20, 2018 Planning Commission meeting it was found that although there are some limitations on the property based on its configurations, it was felt that the property owners still have reasonable use of the lot without a pool and voted four to zero to deny the variance request. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, stated that there is a seventy -foot easement behind their lot that is not buildable. He stated that feels the location of the pool they are proposing is reasonable because of the easement behind their property and is wooded on two- thirds of the perimeter which will block the view of the pool by their neighbors. He noted that he has gotten six letters of support from his neighbors for the pool and the location in the back yard. He stated that if they were to put in a pool in the sideyard, it would have to be smaller and would require the well to be moved. He noted that it would also be visible to three of the neighboring homes. Councilmember Johnson asked if Mr. Butler had contacted the developer of the Minnetonka Country Club development to inquire about purchasing the easement. Mr. Butler stated that he had made a call to Lennar Homes, but had not heard back from them yet. He stated that if they were open to selling the easement to him, he is open to purchasing it. He stated that he questions the assessment of reasonableness made by the City. He read aloud some information from the League of Minnesota Cities land use variances document that is dated November 15, 2017 relating to reasonable use. Councilmember Sundberg asked if Mr. Butler had taken a look at the options that the staff and Planning Commission had suggested. Mr. Butler stated that he had looked at them and noted that he does not see a big difference between three feet and a five feet width for the patio. He stated that the other items are things that they intend to do, but he would like to have more usable space surrounding the pool. Aaron Lutz, 30 Northup Avenue, Tonka Bay, stated that they have contacted the original surveyor who did the survey with regard to the rain gardens. He explained that the surveyor had contacted City Engineer Fauske and another engineer at WSB that worked with the City on the hardcover regulations. He stated that the surveyor is willing to do the work to create the ran gardens as soon as approval is given. Councilmember Labadie stated that it feels like there are still some moving parts that need to be solidified before the Council can make a decision. She stated that she would support granting an extension in order to give the applicant some time on those items and have it brought back to the Council later. Councilmember Sundberg asked Planning Director Darling for clarification on the options outlined in the packet. She asked if it meant that if the applicant was willing to agree to the options outlined, then approval would be granted. Planning Director Darling stated that the conditions included in the packet were meant for the circumstance of either the Planning Commission or the Council approving the variance, then those conditions would CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES DECEMBER 10, 2018 Page 6 of 10 apply. She explained that it was not meant to imply approval to the applicant if they agreed to those conditions. Councilmember Siakel stated that there still appears to be a question of whether there is a hardship in this situation and a reason to approve a variance. She noted that Mr. Butler had cited some text from the League of Minnesota Cities and asked City Attorney Keane if he had a comment on that document and language. She stated that in her opinion that document refers more to a building and not an amenity, such as a pool. City Attorney Keane stated that there is a distinction between the reasonable use of one's property to have the essential necessities to use the property, such as a home and a garage, and an amenity such as a pool. He noted that he is not sure the same standard would apply. Mr. Butler stated that the term "undue hardship" is no longer the standard and the term "practical difficulty" is now used. He provided a copy of the document to the Council. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the neighbors supported his proposed location. Mr. Butler stated that all of the neighbors that he has been able to contact support the location behind his home. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would support Councilmember Labadie's suggestion to give Mr. Butler time to talk to Lennar Homes about acquiring the easement behind his property. She reiterated that she feels a pool is an amenity and not an essential use of the property. Councilmember Sundberg stated that there are a lot of things on a property that are considered amenities and she is not sure that term is a fair term to use for a pool. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agrees with Councilmember Siakel that in this case, a pool is an amenity. Mr. Butler stated that in his research of the Comprehensive Plan and the League of Minnesota Cities, he has not seen anything that calls out the distinction of a pool being any different than a building or a shed as being an amenity. He stated that he believes calling a pool an amenity is simply an opinion. City Attorney Keane asked if there was a sixty -day review deadline approaching. Planning Director Darling stated that the review deadline is January 27, 2019 so this item could be continued to the January 14, 2019 meeting without any issues. Labadie moved, Johnson seconded to Continue the Discussion Relating to Pool Setbacks and Variance at 6035 Spruce Hill Court for Tom and Sally Butler to the January 14, 2010 Council meeting. Motion passed 5/0. #8C MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Variances to pool setbacks for Sally and Tim Butler at 6035 Spruce Hill Court Meeting Date: December 10, 2018 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Reviewed by: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner Review Deadline: January 27, 2019 Attachments: Planning Staff Memorandum Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City grant a variances to allow a pool in a rear yard? Background: See attached memorandum for detailed background on this item. At the November 20, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. The applicant was present at the meeting. Specifically, the Planning Commission found that although a pool is a reasonable use of residential property, the request is not unique to this property, the property owner has other options to put the pool into the side yard (although that would require capping and installation of a new well), and that the request is not the minimum action necessary to alleviate the difficulty. The Planning Commission discussed the impact of the reduced setback on the lot to the north (after the home would be constructed). During the meeting, staff provided a copy of the grading plan, (upper right) which indicates undisturbed trees on an existing berm. Ultimately, the Planning Commission decided that the request for the variances did not meet the criteria, mentioning that not all lots are suitable for a pool. After the meeting, staff looked at the recorded plat (lower right) for the Minnetonka Country Club and found that the drainage and utility easement across the south end of the property is 70 feet wide (north to south). The trees that currently exist in the area are not protected by conservation easements, but are less likely to be disturbed in the future. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees cover the cost of processing the request. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. S:l PlanninglPlanning FilestApplicationsX2018 CasesjButler VAR Spruce Hill CtkCAF 181210.doa Options: Approve, deny or modify the resolution. If the Council determine that the variance criteria are met, staff recommend that the conditions included in the Planning Commission staff report should be included as conditions of approval. They include the following: Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating the applicants proposal to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request based on the findings that the criteria for a variance were not met. Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution denying variances for Sally and Tim Butler for property located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court, based on the findings in the attached resolution and as recommended by the Planning Commission. The resolution requires a simple majority to adopt. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2015 Page 4 of 7 B. SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL Applicant: Tim and Sally Butler Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court Director Darling explained that this request is for a fourteen -foot setback for a patio and a twenty -foot setback for a pool. She reviewed the zoning criteria for granting a variance and noted that staff finds they have not met the tests for practical difficulty and are recommending denial of the variance request. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, noted that they had moved to the City about a year and a half ago and he did not think to read all the zoning rules and policies before they purchased the home. He stated that his family would really like to have a pool and the location they are proposing makes it not visible to anyone from the street because it is directly behind the house and noted that there is also a lot of tree cover. He noted that he didn't think that the pool would have a negative impact on the aesthetics or the property value of the nearby properties and thinks having a pool in his backyard is a reasonable request. Commissioner Reidel clarified that Mr. Butler was asking for a 20 x 44 -foot swimming pool and asked whether he had considered a smaller pool. Mr. Butler stated that he had briefly considered a small swim spa type pool but they have a lot of kids and ultimately decided a pool that size would not be the best fit. Aaron Lutz, stated that he is a resident but also a pool contractor and noted that the well is in the side yard, so that location would also not be possible. Commissioner Davis asked if the green space buffer Mr. Butler referred to as part of the Minnetonka Country Club was secure and no one would ever develop in that area. Director Darling noted that it is not secure, there is a drainage and utility easement in place. She showed lots that could have homes built on them as part of the Minnetonka Country Club development. Commissioner Reidel stated that there is nothing unreasonable about wanting a pool, he just is not sure it fits on this lot and this variance request is significant. Reidel moved, Davis seconded to recommend denial of the setback variance request for a pool at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. Motion passed 4/0. Director Darling noted that this will be on the Council agenda for December 10, 2018. Mr. Lutz asked for clarification that the denial was because of the size of the pool. Commissioner Reidel clarified that it was not necessarily the size, just that a pool doesn't fit this lot. Ms. Butler stated that their lot is almost an acre and doesn't have a home in site and the setback requirements in the City are much more than surrounding cities. Commissioner Reidel suggested they consider moving their well and locating the pool in the side yard. Ms. Butler stated that their original proposal has the pool behind the house so nobody driving by can see it and putting in the side yard allows everyone to see it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Chair Maddy noted that the Planning Commission has to treat everyone the same and noted that they are just a recommending body and the Council will make the ultimate decision. MEMORANDUM 5755 Country Club Road a Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 ® 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952 -474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mmus ® cityhall @dshorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director REVIEWED BY: Patti Helgesen, Assistant Planner DATE: November 20, 2018 RE: Sally and Tim Butler LOCATION: 6035 Spruce Hill Court REVIEW DEADLINE: January 27, 2018 LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: Low Density Residential ZONING: R -lA FILE NUMBER: 18.20 REQUEST The applicants request a variance to place a pool and patio on the north side of their home. They propose to construct the pool 20 feet and the patio about 14 feet from the north property line where 30 feet is required for the pool and 50 feet is required for the patio. Notice of this application was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Page 2 Context: The lot was created as part of the Spruce Hill subdivision in 1993. The home was constructed in 1998. The properties to the north (within the Minnetonka Country Club) are currently vacant. The R -1A zoning district requires all structures to be setback 50 feet from the rear property line. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3 c. (6) allows a swimming pool to be constructed at 60 percent of that which is required for the zoning district in which the pool is located. That section also states that decking and patios shall not encroach into the required rear yard setback area. As a result, the required setbacks in the R -IA district is 30 feet for pools and 50 feet for patios. Impervious Surface Coverage The applicants have proposed to construct two rain gardens, one shown conceptually on each side of the pool to slow the rate of the additional storm water runoff from the increased impervious surface coverage. Should the variance be approved, the applicants would need to provide additional design detail to show the raingardens function in the manner proposed. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: 1. Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. 2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. a. Reasonable: While a pool is a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. b. Self- Created: The property owners did not create the difficulty, which is related to the irregular shape of the lot. There is no conforming location for a pool on the property. C. Essential Character: The pool is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors, as the homes on both sides of this property are located well away from the proposed pool. However, the City has used setbacks to keep active uses towards the center of the property to reduce their impact on adjacent properties. 3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. The pool is proposed to make the home more useable for their family. Required Existing Proposed Impervious Surface Coverage 1 33 % (max.) 14.8 % 20.45% The applicants have proposed to construct two rain gardens, one shown conceptually on each side of the pool to slow the rate of the additional storm water runoff from the increased impervious surface coverage. Should the variance be approved, the applicants would need to provide additional design detail to show the raingardens function in the manner proposed. VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2. b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: 1. Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district's allowed uses. 2. Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. a. Reasonable: While a pool is a reasonable use on a residential property, staff finds that the applicants already have a reasonable use of the property without a pool. b. Self- Created: The property owners did not create the difficulty, which is related to the irregular shape of the lot. There is no conforming location for a pool on the property. C. Essential Character: The pool is not likely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors, as the homes on both sides of this property are located well away from the proposed pool. However, the City has used setbacks to keep active uses towards the center of the property to reduce their impact on adjacent properties. 3. Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations. The pool is proposed to make the home more useable for their family. Page 3 4. Impact on Area: The property owners are not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. 5. Impact to Public Welfare and Other Improvements. The applicants' proposal is unlikely to impact or impair adjacent property values or the public welfare. Minimum to Alleviate Difficulty. Because the property owners have reasonable use of the property without a pool, staff finds the action is not the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the applicants have not met all three tests for practical difficulties nor have they shown the request is the minimum action necessary as they have reasonable use of the property without a pool. Consequently, staff recommends denial of the variance. As the standards are open to interpretation, staff acknowledges that the Planning Commission may find the variance criteria are met. Should the Commission recommend approval of the variance, they could consider the following conditions of approval (to be met prior to issuance of a building permit): a. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. b. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. c. The applicant could reduce the patio on the north, east and west sides of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. ATTACHMENTS Location map Applicants' narrative and plans SMImmingTlarming FilesUpplications\2018 CaseslBmler VAR Spence Hill COPC memo 1120 18.docx RESOLUTION NO. 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FOR POOL AND PATIO SETBACKS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6035 SPRUCE HILL COURT WHEREAS, Sally and Tim Butler, (the "Applicant ") requested a variance for pool setbacks on property located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court, legally described as: Lot 6, Block 1, Spruce Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to allow a patio to be 14 feet and a pool to be 20 feet to the rear property line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation is included in a memorandum for the November 20, 2018 meeting of the Planning Commission, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application at public meetings on November 20, 2018 and March 5, 2019, the minutes of the meetings are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on December 10, 2018 and January 14 and March 25, 2019 at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant and staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS OF FACT The subject property is located in the R -1A zoning district. 2. Residential patios and pools in the R -1A zoning district are required to be set back 50 feet and 30 feet from the rear property line respectively. 3. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a variance is to allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations. 4. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above determination, the City may consider the circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 5. The applicant's proposal is identified on the application materials and plans submitted on September 28, 2018. CONCLUSIONS A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby denies the Applicant's request to install a pool at 20 feet and a patio at 14 feet from the rear property line. B. The City Council concludes that the variance and its resulting construction and use is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning regulations. C. The City Council concludes the Applicant's request for the variances does not meet the criteria for practical difficulties based on the finding that the property owners have not presented unique circumstances that are not of their creation. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 25th day of March, 2019. Attest: Sandie Thone, City Clerk -2- Scott Zerby, Mayor RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR TIM AND SALLY BUTLER FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6035 SPRUCE HILL COURT WHEREAS, Tim and Sally Butler, (the "Applicant ") are the owners of real property located at 6035 Spruce Hill Court, legally described as: Lot 6, Block 1, Spruce Hill, Hennepin County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to allow a patio to be 14 feet and a pool to be 20 feet to the rear property line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the planning staff, whose recommendation is included in a memorandum for the November 20, 2018 meeting of the Planning Commission, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public meetings on November 20, 2018 and March 5, 2019 to review the application, the minutes of the meetings are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on December 10, 2018 and January 14 and March 25, 2019, at which time the planning staff memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant and staff. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS OF FACT The subject property is located in the R -1A zoning district. 2. Residential patios and pools in the R -1A zoning district are required to be set back 50 feet and 30 feet from the rear property line respectively. 3. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that the purpose of a variance is to allow a process to deviate from the strict provision of the zoning regulations. 4. Section 1201.05 of the zoning regulations provides that in making the above determination, the City may consider the circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. 5. The applicant's proposal is identified on the application materials and plans submitted on September 28, 2018. CONCLUSIONS A. Based upon the foregoing, and the records referenced herein, the City Council hereby approves the Applicant's request to install a pool at 20 feet and a patio at 14 feet from the rear property line. B. The City Council specifically finds that the applicant's request for the variances demonstrates practical difficulty and conformance with the other variance criteria as follows- 1) A pool is a reasonable use of residential property. 2) The lot is irregularly shaped which reduces opportunities for a conforming pool and is located next to a property with a 70 -foot easement along the shared property line which limits the ability of future homeowners to propose structures or uses on the adjacent property. 3) The pool is unlikely to alter the essential character of the locality for the existing neighbors. 4) The request would not alter the impact on the public welfare or impair adjacent properties as they propose to mitigate any additional impervious surface with rain gardens to provide rate control for storm water run -off. 5) The City Council further finds the request is the minimum action necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty, subject to the following: I. Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant should submit the final rain garden design indicating how the applicants propose to capture the run -off from the increase in impervious surface coverage (shown as 2,264 square feet); provide volume calculations; and ensure that the depth of the rain gardens does not exceed 1.2 feet for Type B soils, 0.8 feet for Type C soils, or .25 feet for Type D soils. II. At the footings inspections, the applicants shall expose their lots corner monuments, stake and string the property line for verification that the construction would be consistent with any approved variance. III. The applicant reduce the patio on the north side of the pool to the minimum size apron allowed by code (36 inches) to reduce the variance request. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: Sandie Thone, City Clerk MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Lot Line Adjustment (Lot Division /Consolidation) and Variance Location: 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road Applicant: David Boike and Chad Schurr Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Review Deadline: May 17, 2019 Attachments: Planning Staff Memorandum Resolution Background: See the planning staff memorandum for detailed background on this item. At the March 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request for the lot line rearrangement and variance. No one from the public requested to speak, but one letter was received. Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee paid by the applicant covers the cost of processing the application. Recommendation / Action Requested: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for the lot line adjustment and variance based on the findings that the subdivision regulations and criteria for a subdivision variance have been met, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Action on this item requires a simple majority. Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the resolution could be recorded at Hennepin County after the conditions of approval are satisfied. 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. S: �Plaaning�Planning Files �Applications�2019 Cases�Valleywood Mead —view MS Boike�CAF.d- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 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: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Lot Line Adjustment (Lot Division/Consolidation) and Variance LOCATION: 25875 Valleywood Lane and 5550 Meadowview Road APPLICANTS: David Boike and Chad Schurr REVIEW DEADLINE: May 17, 2019 ZONING: R- IA FILE NO.: 19.04 REQUEST The property owners request a lot line adjustment to exchange property. Last year, the Schurrs' constructed a new home at 5550 Meadowview Road and found that improvements for 25875 Valleywood Lane had been constructed on their property. The property owners have come to an agreement to exchange property and propose the adjustment to resolve the issue. A variance is necessary for 25875 Valleywood Lane as the property currently contains less property than required in the R -1 A zoning district and the exchange would result in a reduction in lot area. Notice of this application was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the meeting. Page 2 BACKGROUND Context: The subject properties are currently developed with a single - family home on each lot. Under the plan, the existing homes would remain. The existing home at 25875 Valleywood Lane was constructed in 1976, with a variance reducing the front yard setback to 35 feet from 50 feet. The lot was created as part of the Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition plat in 1964. The property at 5550 Meadowview Road is unplatted. The properties contains mature trees, but no development is proposed at this time. No portion of the property is within a 100 -year floodplain or shoreland overlay district. The adjacent properties are all developed with single family homes. ANALYSIS A. Lot Division/Consolidation. Lot Width/Area: The current and proposed lot areas and widths are shown below. In researching the lot line adjustment, the surveyor found that the property descriptions overlapped, with both lots counting the same land towards their total area. As a result, the application is also clearing up a title question that would otherwise have gone unnoticed until a dispute occurred. As a result, the lot size for both properties would decrease. ADDRESS I EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED IN R -1A Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width* Lot Area (lineal ft.) (sq. ft.) Lot Width* (lineal ft.) Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width* (lineal ft.) 25875 Valleywood Ln 28,002 ±119 27,801 ** ±133 40,000 120 feet 5550 Meadowview Rd 49,469 ±256 49,269 ±240 *As measured at the front setback * *Variance discussed below Because 25875 Valleywood Lane does not meet the requirements for lot area and would decrease as a result of this proposal, the applicants requested a variance, discussed below. Easements: Section 1202.05 Subd. 6 requires 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicants be required to provide easements consistent with city code requirements. B. Lot Area Variance for 25875 Valleywood Lane. The zoning regulations allow for subdivision variances upon showing that unusual hardship exists and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1202.08 Subd. I of the Shorewood Subdivision Regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: Are the proposed uses compatible with the existing uses in the vicinity? The subject property and all the surrounding properties are currently zoned and guided for residential purposes. No change in use is proposed and consequently the uses would remain compatible. Page 3 2. Are there special and unique circumstances or conditions affecting the property that are not common to other properties in the city and the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant of the reasonable and minimum use of its land? The special and unique circumstance is that both property owners' legal descriptions included the same strip of land and the owners' had no idea the deck and hard - surface area encroached over the property line. Denying the variance and the lot line adjustment would not permit the property owners the opportunity to clear their titles and come to an amicable solution to the situation. 3. Would the variance cause detrimental impact to public welfare /adjacent properties? Approval of the variance would create an invisible correction to the existing situation. 4. Would the variance correct the inequity resulting from the hardship related to the title problem? Approval of the variance would correct the inequity. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the lot line adjustment affecting both properties and the variance to lot area for the property addressed as 25875 Valleywood Lane, subject to the applicants' submission of executed 10 -foot drainage and utility easements. ATTACHMENTS Location Map Applicants' narrative Survey of properties Engineer's Memo Correspondence Received SAPlaming\Pla ing Files \Applicalions\2019 Cases \Valleywood Meadowview MS Boike\PC M —d- CD i,mi&lo 11 Val 00 Subject P loperti k � N ISi S nn v le La u a` W it to n it L � i i i ithto n L N � b 0 250 500 1,000 M Feet s . allk E 3 11 I Reason for Variance Request and minor subdivision: Dave Boike currently has a hard scape bituminous area that extends onto Chadd Schurr and Tasha Francis's northern property line. In lieu of Dave having to remove the infringing bituminous area, the parties have been working together exchange equal amounts of property so that the bituminous area can remain in place, but no longer infringe Chadd and Tasha's property. To meet this goal, the parties have agreed to an exchange of land (which will be legally changed pending approval from the city). We would like to city to grant Dave a 5.5 ft set back variance off our Northern boundary line as outlined in the provided survey. This will allow the parties to swap equal amounts of property, such that the bituminous area may remain in place, while not infringing Tasha and Chadd's property. Resulting: 1) Extending the Schurr / Francis Property line from our current Western boundary line 15.92ft west to the city's boundary 2) Extend the Boike's property current property line 5.5 ft south from edge of bituminous Valle -wo o d Lane ` - Centerline - Curb N89 31 '44 "E 189.87 3� N L6 I Proposed Tract A 27,801 sq. ft. 0 Existing PlD No. 3211723110028 ^e 28,002 sq. ft. tl Existinc House 2 ----------- - - - - -- 116.9 ----------- - - - - -- 9� 3j N _ IN I Q) Gravel - U En tran ce. r - -S'ly, line of Outlot 1, SHOREWOOD ACRES 2nd ADDN. 44:t� -- 33.9 - -- „`�� 401 Sq Ft --�_� N `� (overlap portion) \1 \ Bituminous 194.00 y <r \� -- -2,805 Sq Ft - -" N8925'21 "E 209.96 L ` L6 � N. line of Existing P1D No. 3211723110002 (per deed)-- - / I I I ` - -N. line of S 486.47 !ft.! o W %2 of NE %4 of NE %4 I I I I I I I I I I � I I I I N I � i I LrS ° Proposed Tract B 49,269 sq. ft. 9 •� \p 1'GJb9� Co 0 Z 00 - - - - -- 75.4 -- - - - - -- I - -- 91.4 — ------ - -J- I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing PlD No. 3211723110002 i. ft. - - - -- 74.5 --- - - - - -- cc O O Z 1 °o N N V. Co O O 2 b O Q: I O �S I I I I I I I I I I I Cc 121- I I ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i I/ 00 Gravel`:'+" O P I I In A` W 4W I I I N I l � _ - h 9 •� \p 1'GJb9� Co 0 Z 00 - - - - -- 75.4 -- - - - - -- I - -- 91.4 — ------ - -J- I I I I I I I I I I I I I Existing PlD No. 3211723110002 i. ft. - - - -- 74.5 --- - - - - -- cc O O Z 1 °o N N V. Co O O 2 b O Q: I O �S 0 0 F � r 0 � o 0 >; c� J1 • O a v I U AA�++ W 121- I ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i I/ W Z Gravel`:'+" O Entrance- • `• A` W 4W . (0 Z v SE con of W %2 o f NE %4 a f NE !14 N 0 S. An line of W %2 a f NE 14 of NE 1/ 0 m Bearings based on assumed datum. l hereby certify -that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job Number. 8751 Book/Page: LL SC ®BO l7C7 or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Survey Date: 9112118 0 0 F � r 0 � o 0 >; c� J1 • O a v I AA�++ W 121- ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i W m O I O A` W 4W i ° (0 _rz) a /� 25.00 - 121- ! S89-25'21"W 194.00 �\ i P.O.B. -- L I I t � v SE con of W %2 o f NE %4 a f NE !14 N S. An line of W %2 a f NE 14 of NE 1/ Bearings based on assumed datum. l hereby certify -that this certificate of survey was prepared by me Job Number. 8751 Book/Page: LL SC ®BO l7C7 or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Survey Date: 9112118 Land Surveyor under e /aws of the State of Minnesota. Drawing Name: boike.dw 1 p L SERVICES Drawn by: DMS INC. - - - - - -- Revisions: - Paul B. Schoborg 12 -31 -18 move proposed boundar line 1 -04 -19 (move proposed boundary line) 763 - 972 -3221 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE Date: Z ®l Sheet 1 of 2 www.SchoborgLand.com Delano, MN 55328 ��L = •9 Registration No. 14700 -- -- -- - - �--- - - - - -- 0 U 0 z w CO rn 0 LO LOM r V u) z 75 0 a Q w z z 0 M w F- D w Z) z w a a z w x 0 WS% To: Marie Darling, Planning Director From: Alyson Fauske, PE, City of Shorewood Date: January 30, 2019 Re: .25875 Valleywood Lane Subdivision City of Shorewood, MN WSB Project No. 013510 -000 Based on the application including the Certificate of Survey prepared by Schoborg Land Services, Inc. I offer the following comments: 1. Perimeter drainage and utility easements were not included in the Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition plat. 2. According to the plat a drainage and utility easement extended from the northeast corner to the southwest corner of the main portion of Outlot A (25875 Valleywood Lane). City records do not indicate that a public utility exists in this location. Based on the contours this area does not appear to convey drainage to the wetland to the west. The easement appears to have been vacated as it is not depicted on the Certificate of Survey. 3 5110REW000 ACM Zed ADOMP Ten -foot wide perimeter drainage and utility easements should be dedicated, consistent with the Shorewood City Code Section 1202.05 Subd. 6a. C: \Users \mdarling\AppDatalLocal \Microsoft\ Windows\ INetCache \Content.Outlook\WG5RBXNC\25875 Valleywood Lane 20190130.docx Marie Darling ,.�„ x w,...,�, a -sr <Px , %:u -;✓ ,i, .n�:,u, ,rs.,r. ., �,x u;: .�,,... s.,, r, ��.y� �_ „�„ �. s�,.�w ., .ia,; ,� rcur .rr „r�s.;M,ra,,. .i. a� ,rr, ,,��: �.,.., ,r From: Pete Davis <smartypete @earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:31 PM To: Planning Subject: Boike and Schurr Lot Area Variance Shorewood Planning Commission Re: The Boike and Shurr lot line adjustment having a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 5 2019. 25875 Valleywood Lane 5550 Meadowvies I own and live in the property at 5495 Valleywood Circle, Shorewood, which is immediately north of the properties requesting adjustment across Valleywood Lane. I support the lot line adjustment worked out by my neighbors and feel the circumstances justify a lot area variance. Peter Davis 5495 Valleywood Circle Shorewood 612- 581 -6751 RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT (LOT DIVISION /CONSOLIDATION) AND VARIANCE FOR PROPERTIES AT 25875 VALLEYWOOD LANE AND 5550 MEADOWVIEW ROAD WHEREAS, David Boike and Chad Schurr (Applicant) are the owners of certain real property in the City of Shorewood (City), legally described as: David Boike Property at 25875 Valleywood Lane: Outlot 1, Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota Chad Schurr/Tasha Francis Property at 5550 Meadowview Lane: All that part of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point 248 feet north and 25 feet west of the southeast corner of said west half and measured parallel with the east line and the south line of said west half respectively; thence northerly and parallel with said east line a distance of 255 feet; thence westerly and parallel with said south line a distance of 194 feet; thence southerly and parallel with said east line a distance of 255 feet; thence easterly and parallel with said south line a distance of 194 feet to the point of beginning; together with an easement for the purpose of ingress and egress from said property over the easterly 25 feet of said west half and extending northerly along said east line of said west half a distance of 503 feet from the southeast corner thereof WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a lot line adjustment (lot division /consolidation) of said real property into two parcels legally described and illustrated in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof and for a variance to lot size for Parcel A; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has agreed to grant to the City ten -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot; and -1- WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on March 5, 2019, the minutes are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on March 25, 2019, at which time the Planning Director's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The real property legally described above is hereby approved for division into two parcels, legally described and illustrated in Exhibit A. 2. A variance to lot size is hereby approved for the northerly parcel (Parcel A) to contain 27,801 square feet where 40,000 square feet would otherwise be required, based on the finding that the applicable standards have been met. 3. Prior to release of this resolution, the applicant shall submit ten -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot. 4. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes when the above conditions are satisfied. 5. The Applicant shall record this resolution and the easements with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of March, 2019. ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk -2- Scott Zerby, Mayor Exhibit A: Proposed Tract A: That part of Outlot 1, Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and that part of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point 248 feet north and 25 feet west of the southeast corner of said west half and measured parallel with the east line and the south line of said west half respectively; thence northerly and parallel with said east line a distance of 255 feet; thence westerly and parallel with said south line a distance of 194 feet; thence southerly and parallel with said east line a distance of 255 feet; thence easterly and parallel with said south line a distance of 194 feet to the point of beginning. Lying north of the north line of the south 486.47 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Proposed Tract B: That part of Outlot 1, Shorewood Acres 2nd Addition, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota and that part of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point 248 feet north and 25 feet west of the southeast corner of said west half and measured parallel with the east line and the south line of said west half respectively; thence northerly and parallel with said east line a distance of 255 feet; thence westerly and parallel with said south line a distance of 194 feet; thence southerly and parallel with said east line a distance of 255 feet; thence easterly and parallel with said south line a distance of 194 feet to the point of beginning. Lying south of the north line of the south 486.47 feet of the west half of the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 32, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota -3- CAI "aWjOmNmW4 f X nil Y ;""0 I , spot W Yra.d gq, k"OVEMIMP AN S 2"r WW "% 5 K' V i�:Yi,', f E iV ;7)1" Y „10 7 uq ............ 20R W5 Y CAI iho cvfNl�nqe f .04, WI✓ M)P 4A4 "aWjOmNmW4 I W Yra.d gq, 5 K' V i�:Yi,', f E iV ;7)1" Y „10 7 uq Y I sf m a W p W W iho cvfNl�nqe f .04, WI✓ M)P 4A4 #7D MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Minor Subdivision Location: 24775 Glen Road Applicant: Melanie Hermann Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Review Deadline: June 6, 2019 Attachments: Planning Staff Memorandum Resolution Background: See the planning staff memorandum for detailed background on this item. At the March 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the request for minor subdivision. No one from the public requested to speak. Financial or Budget Considerations: The fee paid by the applicant covers the cost of processing the application. The division will generate $6,500 in park dedication fees and $1,200 in LSSAC. Recommendation / Action Requested: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request for minor subdivision based on the findings that the subdivision regulations have been met. Action on this item requires a simple majority. Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the subdivision could be recorded at Hennepin County after the conditions of approval are met. After recording, the applicant could apply for a building permit to construct a home on the easterly lot. 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. S: �Plaaning�Planning Files �Applications�2019 Cases X24775 Glen Rd MS He(mann�CAF.d- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 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: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: APPLICANT: Minor subdivision Melanie Hermann LOCATION: 24775 Glen Road REVIEW DEADLINE: June 6, 2019 ZONING: R -1 C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: FILE NO.: 19.03 REQUEST Low to Medium Density Residential The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject property into two lots and construct two new homes. She recently demolished the existing home and received a building permit to construct one new house on the west side of the lot. BACKGROUND Context: In 1909, the property was created as two lots (Lots 14 and 15) in the Manitou Glen subdivision. At some point the two lots were consolidated. The previous home was constructed in 1963. The property contains mature trees and is subject to tree preservation. The site has no property within a floodplain overlay district or shoreland overlay district. A wetland lies to the east of the subject property and the proposal is subject to wetland buffer requirements. All of the adjacent properties are developed with single family homes. Page 2 ANALYSIS Lot Width/Area: Section 1202.05 Subd. 2. c. of the subdivision regulations requires that all lots have adequate frontage on a city approved street. Additionally, section 1201.12 of the zoning regulations has specific area and width requirements for newly created lots. The current and proposed lot areas and widths are shown below: ADDRESS EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED IN R -1C Lot Area Lot Width* Lot Area Lot Width* Lot Area Lot Width* Existing Property 79,856 sf 200 feet NA 20,000 sf 100 feet Lot 14 NA NA 39,913 sf 100 feet Lot 15 39,943 sf 100 feet *As measured at the front setback Easements: Section 1202.05 Subd. 4. h. requires a 50 -foot right -of -way width for all local streets. Glen Road was platted with 40 feet of right -of -way. Consequently, staff recommends the applicant submit an executed right -of -way easement for an additional 10 feet. Section 1202.05 Subd. 6. requires 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit executed, 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot prior to recording the subdivision with Hennepin County. Wetland: The property to the east contains a wetland. The applicant is required to delineate the wetland and create a wetland buffer for the portion of this property that lies within 35 feet from the wetland. The wetland cannot be delineated at this time of the year. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval that prior to recording the subdivision, the applicant: 1) delineate the wetland and 2) apply the required buffer and conservation easement if the wetland is within 35 feet of the subject property line. All structures must be setback 15 feet from the wetland buffer, but neither the wetland buffer nor setback are likely to impact the proposed building pads. Stormwater Run -Off. The applicant has shown that the previous level of impervious surface coverage exceeds that proposed for the two houses and driveways. Consequently, the proposal would not require any additional best management practices for rate or volume control due to the subdivision. However, the improvements proposed would alter the drainage pattern. Previously, all the storm water from the site flowed to the wetland to the east. As proposed, primarily the stormwater run -off from the driveways would flow north. The engineer's memo addresses this situation and staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant be required to provide information or revise the plans consistent with that memo. Utilities: The lots have access to municipal sewer. A right -of -way permit issued by the City of Shorewood would be required to install services. Water must be provided by private wells. Page 3 Tree Preservation: The applicant has identified 10 significant trees that would be removed to accommodate the improvements. Some additional tree loss may occur if a stormwater feature must be added into the front yards. Based on the size of the trees removed and the size of the property, 15 new trees would need to be planted on the lots. The applicant's plan indicates 14 trees and staff recommend adding one additional tree to the plan. There is adequate room for the additional tree on the two lots and the applicant has shown climate - tolerant species on the landscaping plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision based on the finding that the lots would be consistent with subdivision and zoning requirements with the following conditions: • Prior to recording the subdivision, the applicant complete the following: a. Submit a wetland delineation to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) indicating the extent of the wetland on the adjacent property and provide a copy of the Notice of Decision to the City. b. Revise the plans as needed to show a wetland buffer on the property pending the decision by the MCWD. c. Submit executed 10 -foot right -of -way easement(s) across both lots adjacent to Glen Road; 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot; and a conservation easement over the wetland buffer (pending the decision by the MCWD). d. Submit fees for park dedication ($6,500) and local sanitary sewer access charge ($1,200) for one additional lot. e. Revise the plans to provide one additional tree. f Revise the plans or submit the information required in the Engineers memo dated February 25, 2019. • Other conditions: a. With each building permit application, the applicant shall submit a tree preservation/landscaping plan signed by a licensed forester, arborist or landscape architect. b. Prior to installing services or conducting other work in the right -of -way, obtain a right - of -way permit. C. Prior to construction of improvements on either lot, the applicant must acquire the appropriate permits. All construction must be consistent with the requirements of City Code. ATTACHMENTS Location map Engineer's memo Applicant's narrative and plans SAPlaming\Plaming Files \Applications\2019 Cases\24775 Glen Rd MS Hems \PC memo.do 1 �.1G1 Tonka Bay I e f d •�o e Subjiect Property J O L L Cr U L S.► Y U) mt 0 c� � U N Ri int MUM La it 1-T "M 0 250 500 1,000 TT Feet �e 0 U Z W m 0 0 Z J 0 CL a W Z Z 0 M W U) W Z W a Z W X 0 Lam-. To: Marie Darling, AICP, City Planner From: Alyson Fauske, PE, City of Shorewood Date: February 25, 2019 Re: 24775 Glen Road City of Shorewood, MN WSB Project No. 013659 -000 Based on the plans prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering Co. dated January 4, 2019 1 offer the following comments: 1. Per the Manitou Glen plat, the existing right of way width of Glen Road is 40 feet at this location. The city's standard right of way width is 50 feet. Additional right of way dedication is required. 2. Ten foot wide perimeter drainage and utility easements are required on both lots. 3. Decks are not considered impervious surface and should be removed from the existing and proposed hard surface coverage calculations. 4. Based on the information provided, and considering comment #1, the proposed impervious surface will be less than the predevelopment condition. 5. Based on the topographic information provided by the applicant, the site currently drains to the low area to the southeast. The proposed grading alters the drainage pattern, with the driveways and possibly part of the homes draining to the street. The applicant must revise the grading plan to match the existing drainage pattern, or provide design features and the necessary calculations to illustrate that the post- construction discharge rates do not exceed the current rates. 6. On Lot 14, the applicant may want to reconsider the 10% driveway grade at the street connection; a 3% landing is typically preferred. 7. According to the city's sanitary sewer as -built for Glen Road, a sanitary sewer service exists on the east end of Lot 15. The applicant shall verify the location of the existing sanitary sewer service. If the existing service cannot be utilized, it must be properly abandoned. 8. The contractor installing a new sanitary sewer service must register with the city according to the Chapter 901, Ordinance No. 552 and obtain the necessary permit to perform the work. K: \013659 -000\Admin \Docs\20190225 review memo.docx Requesting a lot split for 24775 Glen Road, Shorewood Mn 55331 Owner: Melanie Margot Hermann Property Id Number: 33- 117-23-12-0023 Addition name: Manitou Glen Metes& Bounds: Lots 14 and 15 Torrens Type: Residential Summary: Request to split PIN 33- 117 -23 -12 -0023 as outlined in the Hennepin County property information, separating into the separate Lots outline 14 and 15. 100 100 100 100 11 144"1 236.18 S87 °58'23" L Each lot will be approximately 100 ft x 400 ft in accordance with the city lot size — no variances are being requested. (3) 6 (2) f (10) Q (9) 8 5 118.5 118.5 11II 5 772.5 100 100 100 100 1 Cl) 1`1 � 14 M 15 m 1G ur 0) (23) (24) 100 100 100 100 11 144"1 236.18 S87 °58'23" L Each lot will be approximately 100 ft x 400 ft in accordance with the city lot size — no variances are being requested. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14 and 15, NIANITOU GLEN, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF WES'T'ERLY PARCEL,: Lots 14, MANITOU GLEN, Hennepin Counq', Minnesota. Contains 39,909 Sq. Ft. Note: "Buildable" Area (area inside the building setbacks) = 25,927 Sq. Feet PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASTERLY PARCEL: Glen Ben chm ark:. , INSTALL -. Top oT manhole 964 I I,9490 (P r Ct Lots 15, MANITOU GLEN, Hennepin County, Minnesota. seer FENCE S A, -B,„li M/ j Contains 39,938 Sq. Ft. Edge I,cf bit. reed Note, "Buildable" Area (area inside the building setbacks) = 25,951 Sq. Peet INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTON ENTRANCE PER NOrES-- SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: - — — — 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include detemlining 1' 14L 1 w at 1ou o w n, which Is l e gal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel if necessary, make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2 Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary, for the survey. 8143 t 3. Setting Survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the comers of the property. 4. Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of Such governmental agencies that may have SILT EENCE a 44 jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. SANITARY SANITARY 5ER£R PER SANITARY SEN£R PER 5. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for CITY STANDARDS I - �/4 Your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that INSTALL ROCK benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when detennining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning EX/577NC 9' PVC W construction. 722JQ 6 6. While we have shown the trees as tagged by an arborist, the following tress were tagged but located off of the site: 168 -173, 174 -186, 193 -195- N 1 181 e v 7 We show a proposed division of the Property. Please review the ro proposal to see that it is what `ou intend and submit to those governmental agencies P P P P ) g ,. that ha v e Jun sd i ct i on to obtain their approvals, if ou can before making any decisions regarding the property. • t_ w 8. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that PROPOSED ELEVATIONS LOT 14 8173 4, ac -7 SILT EENCE .- CONNECT TO EXISPNC Road TO EX1571NC SANITARY SANITARY 5ER£R PER SANITARY SEN£R PER CITY STANDARDS CITY STANDARDS si_, lNV =94891 - 1NV =94791 INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION EX/577NC 9' PVC { ENTRANCE PER NOTES SANITARY SERER 722JQ S �- S •s- (PER CITY AS BUILT INFO.) I N 1 38.19" W l s -- oo.00 -- • t_ SF — SF SF - - - o - 100.00- -- - - - - -- ac -7 ,y1J4 -11131 .¢137 i'' of I N 11 9 n, ( 96F ,fr'JO7 p, 722JQ ,9102 - 0 C/+730 o O CLEAN INSTALL 2 q r 2 E `LIT 119 -�, Q-1' Y PE t '�12 Q Q o U >7 � S O5 2 hl 0 II -- _ SILT FENCE 9 _72 _ � G s 12! 0 -1- 966 h� W�.1' #106 Q 8 {094Win 979 C, y110 - PROPOSEDk Slj N£LL ''� I $JOB © PROPOSED �fEZL J 'INSTALL 4 "PVC CLEAN OUT 7 � 5� I I 96> O .9177, I I- MY,- - -;Q $ - 65 0 - --96501w 95 9.26w - -- PROPOSED would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the - as q - ,,, , 8128 0 _- 9G7 a RErAwwc waec 972 ones shown hereon. FIRST FLOOR (SUB - FLOOR) = 977.20 "A K 2s Q- 96s0rw 9. Note that all building imensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding nd or stucco of the building. TOP OF FOUNDATION = 975.30 -1 -4 .0B o 10.0 I1 4 96ZeA JO -0 2BST 959.26w -•.240 N "I g g g� BASEMENT FLOOR = 966.68 Z4 0 - -� 6�0 ^ ®�- - e � 60 ' GARAGE FLOOR = 975.00 1115 ° - q e 9szs-_ 6.0 � c 1 e 974.9-. 6.0 PROPOSED , PROrosED PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (LOT-15 ) STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: lll n o DTTFCUNCr ti Dif L m I„ ,91 9a7:1 a '- 0ZL Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. 24 -0 o I FIRST FLOOR (SUB - FLOOR) = 970.20 72 TOP OF FOUNDATION = 968.30 DECK 917 o o _= DECK 979 N1NDOfV qb rocs M n BASEMENT FLOOR = 959.68 II 9 GRADING &, EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 8J 12- 'psi 9 ?Z N£LL � ll 4776 � GARAGE FLOOR = 968.00 BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN PROPOSED -] © - 30.0 ll 11 Jo 0' _ • A dune sler shall be laced on the site for roe t disposal of constnicnon • Eesmn control measure shown on the erosion control Ian are the absolute r. • Install silt fence/bio roll around the erimeler aC the construclmn area. P P P P P P RETAINING WALL ___ q _ 9ss9 9613pw -- s . '' - INSTALL P debris. These dumpsters shill be sen'iced regularly to prevonl overtlosving and minimum. The contractor shall install tonporan earth dikes, sediment traps or _ - 815J TD ' -970 0tw ll 1963 Jbw II 959 J/• I y SILT FENCE • Sediment control measures must rmnin in place until final stabilization Ims blaming onto adjacent properties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in basins and additional sill fencing ax deemed necessan� to coiled erosion. 1 01 -- qn -?ss. Jbw ss gee 0fx " 958' 'I g been established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be accordance with N- finnesota Pollution Cantrell Agency requirements. d. 8155 '° SITE WORK COMPLETION: removed to accommodate short teen construction adis ih' but must be replaced 154 0 - q 969.0(x- qb I h h • A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hmardous waste. RRaen final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod at, "1 fp /Ib 966. Jbx before the nest min. helm of " 1 Ha >ardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA requirements. as built sun ex. be done per City of Sherwood requirements to insure p r.t 8 56�a, / U - -I-II I sf faro/ O • A tempomn' rock construction romance shall be established at each access Thal grading was properly done. � L p'157' -- _ _ • Concrete leek washout shall be in the plastic fired ditch and dispose of 1 g1�5B p point to Ise site and a (inch d, shall ll I l0 2 inch rock l pending at least 30 feet washings as solid waste. • When ms remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be ? C:;7 "': - - I 1 B 2 - h from the street into the site and shall be underlain with pcencable gcotevlile s - ;P'f60 - fabnc The entrance shall be maintained during onstruction by to dressing or • Sediment control devices shall be regularly ins ected and after ma or rainfall completed including am erosion carrel blankets for steep areas. I g61 ¢ 4 _, 7'' -. S P g P J Q� 8159 by ". ' -- PROPOSED washing to present tracking or [low of sediments onto public streets, walks or events mid shad[ be cleaned and repaired us necessan• to provide downstream • When turf is established, sill fence and inlet prateeian mid other erosion 61 \e. 0 _ 9g50 sF '( I RETAIN /NC WALL allccs. Potential entrances that arc not so protected shall be closed by fencing protection. control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alles s and walks shall , _ Q' " sr t // to prevent unprotected evil from th Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily aid iClitter or soils has e site. be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. 8183 © -.. -- .. \ k,C -_ __; INSTALL !8Q6j • P \\ 62 S° U SIT r FENCE 67' 8 204 • Contractor shall install inlet protection on all existing stoma sewer inlets in been deposited it shall promptly be removed. • Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a mininmm 2 %slope awn }� from 8 ¢`166 8 SF. I "c"-dance with the cu, standard details Inlet proleclion shall also be proposed building. © " "' provided on all proposed storm sewer inlets immediately following construction • If mcccssan', schidcs, that have mud an Iheinchcds, shall be cleaned before -- 1 , - .fill, ed of Inlet p exiting the site in the rock entrance areas 650 � - election must be installed in a manner That will not im and 8 of seater for extended periods of tunic or un a manner Ilmt presents a har rd to • Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. 81640 INSTALL raj xOj _ ,¢206 8218 s chicular or cdcstrian traffic. _ SILT FENCE © P • Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use bs workers mid shall be - -_ -. O = s DURING CONSTRUCTION. Properly n ninnined 2 '�OS • Rgmen dm stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be • [fit becomes necessan' to pump the evcacauon during construction, pwnp 8187 placed to prevent escape of seduuau laden runoaand if the piles or other dischar5e shall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around disturbed areas are to remain in place for more than 14 dais, they shall be these cocas can nitcr the water bcCor it leaves the sic. 1 8202 AP0 j ceded -th Minnesota Department ofTrmuponauon Seed Mixture 22 -111 at - - I n. lb /acre followed by covering with sprau nn lch. • Tonpomre erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 revs after tine sire is first disturbed and shall consist oCbroadcast seeding with Minnesota - -� Department of Transponation Secd Mixture 22-111 at 1011 lb /acre followed by 8188 0 covering with spras mulch. EXISTING HARDCOVER House 2,941 Sq. Ft. 1 - -- °#20l`�. X209 Decks 832 Sq. Ft. 8191 0- - .If 0 Gravel Driveway 2,434 Sq. Ft. 0 81 0 v _82,6. _ _ . -9�� (�)E Canc. (incl. pool 825 SF) 3,358 Sq. Ft. Pavers 543 Sq. Ft. V' ;y'2I1_, Ret. Walls 528 Sq. Ft. © f210 TOTAL E %ISTING HARDCOVER 10,636 Sq. Ft. _ -- -- - I 0. - 0 ? 11 - Lj56!E11T AREA OF LOT 79,856 Sq. Ft. ,gg _ p212 8713 PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 13.3°s -__ 0,9186 �0_ ' o! o� s _ E,f'ISTINC COrVTOUR - o, o ,g279� 1 087.97 08193 _ 22 y22/ EAJSTIA'O SPOT ELRIiITION - __700.00 o-! 221 6 0 x'2020 I -- - A - - - --100.00-- - PROPOSED CONTOUR 970 PROPOSED HARDCOVER - LOT 14 PROPOSED HARDCOVER - LOT 15 - —,9225 II - - - - House 2,196 Sq. Ft. House 2,196 Sq. Ft. -- 20000 -- - Deck 46 Sq. Ft. Deck 48 Sq. Ft. .Fm„ 25 M ant t �` r s N 8928'02 Iv PROPOSED SPOT ELEli1TlOrY Front Vlalk /Stoop 127 Sq. Ft. Front Vlalk /Stoop 127 Sq. Ft. 'STORMWATER MANAGEMENT NOTE 970.5 - Driveway 1,959 Sq. Ft. Driveway 1,959 Sq. Ft. NO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIRED FOR 9RI1iUI0E eIRROl1' - F1101r Rat. Malls 60 Sq. Ft. Ret. Walls 136 Sq. Ft. PROPOSED LOTS DUE TO AN OVERALL REDUCTION TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,390 Sq. Ft. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4,466 Sq. Ft. IN HARDCOVER FROM EXISTING CONDITIONS: SILT FENCE SF AREA OF LOT 39,913 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 39,943 Sq. Ft. EXISTING HARDCOVER = 10,636 S0. FT. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 11.0% PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 11.2 °s PROPOSED HARDCOVER = 8,856 SO. FT. TREE REIM01 ,6 0 DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION DRAWING ORIENTATION BSCALE CLIENT NAME /JOB ADDRESS 11111181111111 TPAT THIS PLAN, 1111111111111 OR SHEET TITLE SHEET SIZE REPORT WAS PREPARED R1 ME OR UNDER !.1'( DIRECT DATE SURVEYED: NOV. 14, 2018 ZZ X 34 1 -18 -19 RELIEASURE NORTH LINE AND ADJUSTED PER NEW MEASUREMENT. SlIERVLION 1111 MAT I ALI A DIL1 _11111111 MELANIE HERMANN P10111IN 1,A !1 IIJEER 111111 11E AJ,s D1 HE STATE SURVEYED BY Advanc e PROFES IC A PROPOSED SURVEY SHEET NO. ADVANCED SURVEYING 8 ENG., CO. - - Surveying &Engineering, Co. -- J�, 31, SCALE N 1 24 %%S GLEN ROAD 17917 Highway 7 JA52716 DRAWING NUMBER - - -- 1" = 30' SKOREWOOD, 1V11V Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 - - _ -- DATE DRAFTED. JANAUARY 4, 2018 0 ,D 60 181400 JR Phone (952) 474 -7964 RY 4, 2018 Web: wnrvv.advsur coe D, T, SHEET 10F2 RESOLUTION 19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY FOR MELANIE HERMANN AT 24775 GLEN ROAD WHEREAS, Melanie Hermann (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described as: Lots 14 and 15, Block 1, Manitou Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota; 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 A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request dated January 16, and February 6, 2019 was reviewed by the Planning Director, whose memo was forwarded to the Planning Commission for their meeting on March 5, 2019, a copy of the memo is on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the application was considered by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on March 5, 2019, the minutes are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on March 25, 2019, at which time the Planning Director'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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: The real property legally described above is hereby approved for division into two parcels, legally described and illustrated in Exhibit A. 2. The subdivision approval is subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to recording the subdivision, the applicant shall submit the following consistent with City Code- 1 ) A certified wetland delineation (submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) indicating the extent of the wetland on the adjacent property and provide a copy of the notice of decision to the City. 2) Executed 10 -foot drainage and utility easements around the periphery of each lot; a 10 -foot right -of -way easement across the northerly 10 feet of the -1- property; and a conservation easement over any portion of the 35 -foot wetland buffer on the subject properties. 3) A title report for the property. 4) Payment of the following fees: Park dedication: $6,500 and LSSAC: $1,200. 5) Revisions to the plans as follows: a) Indicate a wetland dbuffer on the property pending the decision by the MCWD on the delineation. b) Consistent with the Engineer's memo dated February 25, 2019. c) Provide one additional tree. d) Remove the portion of the driveway /turnaround closer than five feet to the side property line. b. No construction or demolition may occur without the applicable permits. c. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall complete the following- 1 ) Submit proof of recording for the lot division and all easements. 2) Request and acquire any right -of -way permits necessary to install services or conduct any other work in the right -of -way. 3) Submit plans in conformance with all city and state requirements. 4) Submit a construction management plan for construction on the easterly lot, detailing where workers will park, how deliveries will be made without blocking public streets, where storage of materials will occur, hours of construction and how often streets will be swept. 3. No variances are granted or implied. 4. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes when the above conditions are satisfied. 5. The Applicant shall record this resolution and the easements with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of March, 2019. ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk -2- Scott Zerby, Mayor Exhibit A: Legal description of the westerly parcel: Lot 14, Block 1, Manitou Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota Legal description of the easterly parcel: Lot 15, Block 1, Manitou Glen, Hennepin County, Minnesota -3- Meeting Date: Monday, March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Attachments: Planning Commission Report and Attachments Policy Consideration: Should the City Council direct staff to consider amendments to the lighting regulations Background: Please see the attached report for additional information. This item originated from a speaker (Cindy Marr, 6015 Chaska Road) during Matters from the Floor at the January 15, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, staff indicated they would review other cities' lighting ordinance and bring information back for discussion. At their March 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed the topic and recommended code amendments updating the city's lighting regulations. They specifically suggested adding more detail to the regulations concerning light sources detail like backlight, uplight and glare restrictions (especially for spotlights), additional hooding /shielding requirements, adding a maximum amount of lumens for signs /commercial sites, and commercial lighting levels. The original speaker had requested time limits for holiday lighting, as well, such as requiring lights be turned off at 11:00 p.m. One member of the Commission was interested in hourly restrictions, similar to decibel limits for nuisance noise, another expressed a lack of interest. Staff could research similar limits for holiday lights, as well. Financial Considerations: Staff time for research. Action Requested: Because this item was brought up during Matters from the Floor at the Planning Commission meeting, staff requests City Council provide direction prior to proceeding with any additional research or code language. Staff respectfully recommends the City Council either direct staff to continue researching the issue and begin preparation of draft ordinance amendments or to direct staff to enforce the current code without amendment. Direction on specific code language is not necessary at this time Providing direction to staff on this topic requires a simple majority vote. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Next Steps: Staff would forward any ordinance changes in draft format to the Planning Commission prior to forwarding them to the City Council. A public hearing would ultimately be required. r i4 Eli r 5755 Country Club Road ® Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 a 952- 960 -7900 Fax: 952- 474 -0128 ® www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhall &i.shorewood,mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director MEETING DATE: March 5, 2019 RE: Potential Zoning Regulations Text Amendments Concerning Lighting (Sections 1201.03 Subd. 2. i. and 1201.03 Subd. 11 b (2) (g) of City Code) On January 15, 2019, a resident spoke at "Matters from the Floor" regarding concerns about lighting on the property adjacent to her home and submitted some of her ideas for potential code amendments (minutes attached). The Commission indicated they would be willing to look at amendments and referred the matter to staff to begin researching potential code amendments. Staff indicated that we would collect ordinances from other communities in the area to research options for lighting regulations. Speakers Request: Staff has outlined the primary topics the speaker included in her proposed ordinance (attached). 1. All lighting for non - residential plans to be part of the pre -build approvals, including holiday lighting, other decorative lighting, site lighting and landscaping lighting. Staff note that this is already a requirement and what staff has based enforcement on to date. 2. Apply curfews to holiday lighting and restrict the amount of lights. The speaker indicated that lights bothering the resident the most were installed after the fact to celebrate the holidays. A curfew on residential lights would require a code amendment. 3. Define maximum lumens for all lights proposed on site. To date, this has not been part of the code for Shorewood and would require a code amendment. Most cities do not apply maximum lumens allowed on a site to holiday decorations. 4. Require motion sensors for existing, older buildings to shut off light when not needed. Page 2 The zoning ordinance does have curfew lighting restrictions for businesses in place now. Businesses that were in place prior to the adoption of the business hours regulations (Section 1201.03 Subd. 2 (t) (4) of the zoning regulations) are considered legally non - conforming and the new regulations may not be applied retroactively. The section applies to business uses, not residential and does not apply to the apartment building across the street from the speaker. To apply the business hours restrictions on residential uses would require a code amendment. 5. Prohibit lights directed at on- coming traffic. Staff notes that this is already a requirement in the City's code. 6. Provide limitations for spot lights. This would require a code amendment. Shorewood's Current Ordinances Regarding Lights: While other areas of the City Code also contain regulations for lighting, the bulk of the city's regulations are found in the sections copied below. The zoning regulations also include additional lighting standards specific to listed conditional uses (like drive - through service windows), development or uses in the L -R zoning district, and a curfew written into the business hours limitation. If changes are made to the sections below, other parts of code may also need revision. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2. i. (Glare): i. Glare. Any lighting used to illuminate an off - street parking area, sign or other structure shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or from the public streets. Direct or sky- reflected glare, where from floodlights or from high temperature processes such as combustion or welding shall not be directed into any adjoining property. The source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property. Bare incandescent light bulbs shall not be permitted in view of adjacent property or public right -of -way. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street shall not exceed one foot - candle (meter reading) as measured from the center line of the street. Any light or combination of lights which cast light on residential property shall not exceed four- tenths (A) foot - candles (meter reading) as measured from the adjoining residential property line. Staff Comments: The current regulations were drafted primarily to prevent nuisance light but need to be updated to reflect technological innovations. • The phrase "source of lights shall be hooded or controlled in some manner so as not to light adjacent property" conflicts with allowing 1 or .4 foot - candles to spill to adjacent properties. This sentence could be tweaked to indicate the hoods or shields must completely block the views of the light source from the adjacent property. This does not mean that a neighbor would not seethe light cast by the fixture, but they should not see the source. • The reference to "bare incandescent light bulbs" must be updated to refer to light sources to cover all the newer types of lighting. Page 3 1201.03 Subd. 11 b (2 ) (g) (Signs): (g) No sign shall be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated, except for time and temperature information. All displays shall be shielded to prevent any light to be directed at on- coming traffic in the brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. No light shall be directed onto a lake so as to interfere with navigation thereon. Staff Comments: The Commission may want to explore having a set amount of lighting per square foot of signage similar to that in the Plymouth or Bloomington code (See more discussion later in the report). In addition to the paragraph above, Shorewood also has limitations on digital signage lighting, which I did not include for this analysis as it is a recent amendment. Other Regulation Options: The table below indicates different types of lighting regulations. A review of other cites' ordinances are summarized briefly below with discussion of the lighting categories after. City Holiday Lighting Nuisance /Glare Output Fixture Signs Shorewood V V V Bloomington V V V V Chanhassen V V Excelsior V V V Plymouth V V V V V Minnetonka V V V Mound V V V Wayzata V V Holiday Lighting: Holiday lighting regulations are a challenge as they are universally unpopular and must be carefully drafted to avoid infringing on 1St Amendment constitutional protections. 1 st Amendment To the Constitution of the United States Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the d f h f th r r the Most cities rely instead on nuisance language to assess Al- om o speec , or o e p ess, o holiday lighting. right of the people peaceably to assemble, y g g and to petition the Government for a Plymouth has a curfew on most residential lighting, with redress of grievances. the exception of motion sensor security lighting and other listed types of lighting including holiday or seasonal lighting. Holiday lighting is specifically exempt as long as the individual lamps are not greater than 10 watts and 70 lumens. Plymouth also allows lower light spill onto adjacent properties than Shorewood does. Nuisance Lighting: In this category, staff included regulations such as maximum footcandles at property lines /center lines of public streets; preventing glare with hoods /shields; etc. All cities have at least some general language to use in nuisance enforcement. The following table summarizes the measurable footcandle limits. Page 4 City Nuisance Footcandles At Street/Property line Shorewood 1/.4 Bloomington NA/.5 Chanhassen 0 Excelsior 1/.4 Plymouth .1 -.8 Minnetonka NA/.5 Mound 1/.4 Wayzata NA Out ut: This category of regulation restricts the lumens produced by the lights used on the site. Bloomington and Plymouth both contain this type of regulation, but more for commercial sites. If the City were to apply output regulations to prevent holiday lighting from being used, the City's ordinance could face First Amendment challenges. Fixture Details: This category includes requirements for hooding /shields, cut -off, height, color rendering, source color. Most cities have some of these requirements (normally hooding /shields /cut - off/height) only Bloomington and Plymouth have regulations for all of them. Signs: Correlated Color Temperature defines color of a light source. A low CCT is in the amber end of the color spectrum and a high CCT is in the blue -white end. Color Rendering is a measure of the ability of a light to reveal the colors of various objects faithfully with a natural light source. Most cities surveyed have similar sign lighting regulations as Shorewood. Plymouth and Bloomington have both adopted output regulations to limit sign lighting in addition to nuisance prevention language, as indicated in the following table. City Sign Lighting Lumen Output per square foot Nuisance Prevention Language Only Shorewood NA Bloomington 100 -200 lumens Chanhassen NA Excelsior NA Plymouth Candela/square meter (LED) 12 watts /square foot (Other) Minnetonka NA Mound NA Wayzata NA Page 5 Bloomington has a second maximum limit for signs as well, measured in candela per square meter (nits). Signs in residential districts are limited to 125 nits maximum, with the exception of electronic signs. Architectural /Landscape Spot Lighting Most cities regulate lights using their nuisance lighting standards, except that Wayzata requires all lights to be directed straight up or straight down. Plymouth has standards for this type of lighting for apartments, businesses and non - residential uses. It is included in the total site lighting and the output intensity is limited based on the lighting zone of the property. Bloomington regulations limits spotlights to 3,000 lumens per fixture, uses nuisance lighting to regulate spill and has a maximum amount of decorative light on residential property of 350 nits. REQUEST: Review the information and provide recommendations to staff on what types of regulations to include into the ordinance. Once staff has your recommendations, staff would send the information to Council for direction on writing up any new regulations. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes from January 15, 2019 Request from Cindy Mair Other Cities' ordinances CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Cindy Marr 6015 Chaska Road, stated that she lives across from the Shorewood Landing sign. She asked if they had received her proposal. Chair Maddy explained that the Commission had all gotten a copy of the e-mail from Ms. Marr. Ms. Marr stated that she and her husband have been residents for 38 years and five of those years were spent without light pollution. She noted when the two -story office building was put in there was essentially a spot light shining on their property for years. She stated that she had complained to the City numerous times but nothing was done until there was a new owner who agreed to change the light on the south side of the building. She stated that about fifteen years ago their neighbors decided to put up spotlights in their trees and leave them on all night which completely flooded the southside of their property with light. She stated that they have dealt with that by purchasing window coverings that help block the light. She explained that when the senior facility was proposed, they came to the Planning Commission and explained that their biggest concern was the light pollution. She noted that at the time, two of the Commissioners agreed with their concerns. She stated that they are living in a very frustrating situation with both the building and the placement of the large white lights along the front of the building. She stated that she complained to the City three times and nothing happened even though she had suggested that they just agree to turn the lights off at 11:00 P.M. She stated that they have now added more lights in addition to lights on the pine trees along the berm that stay on all night long. She stated that even people across the highway have complained that the light was shining all the way over there. She stated that there are many other neighbors who have been adversely affected by the lights and explained that she had gotten signatures from twelve neighbors stating that they believe there is excessive lighting at this location. She asked the Planning Commission to go to the location with the lights fully turned on so they have a better idea of what the residents in this area have been dealing with. She stated that her request is for these lights to be turned off at 11:00 P.M. She stated that she would like the City to come up with a lighting ordinance to protect the residents, especially for the people that live in the "middle zoning" that has residential near commercial. Chair Maddy asked which lights are giving Ms. Marr the most problem and whether measurements had been taken of the sign lighting. Planning Director Darling noted that measurements had been taken last year and the lights were in compliance with the .-foot candles. She noted that holiday lights have nothing to block the glare and she had contacted Shorewood Landing and asked them to turn them off at 11:00 P.M. She explained that they were not crazy about the idea, but said that as soon as their maintenance man came back from vacation, they would have him put the lights on a timer. Ms. Marr stated that she is looking at the bigger picture in this situation. She stated that she feels the monument light is very dangerous and blinds them when they are in their driveway although it has improved with the adjustment of the fixture. She stated that because they have turned off the Christmas lights at Planning Director Darling's request, they are now able to see all the other lights such as the flag pole, the lights to the sides and even the windows Commissioner Riedel asked which of the lights were not currently handled by the code requirements. Ms. Marr gave examples of Christmas lights and the roof lighting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 15, 2019 Page 4 of 5 Commissioner Riedel stated that he would be in support of strong restrictions on commercial lighting as well as prohibiting spotlighting in a residential area. He stated that aesthetically, if people choose to light up their property in a way that does not exceed a brilliance standard crossing the property line, he does not think that is within the purview of the City to step in. Ms. Marr stated that this light is shining across Highway 7 into the houses across the highway. Commissioner Riedel asked whether that was in conflict with the code requirements. Ms. Marr stated that she had been told that there is no ordinance for this type of lighting. She reiterated that she feels this company has put up an excessive amount of lighting at this location. She stated that she has been trying to resolve this issue with Shorewood Landing for two years. The Commission stated that they would like to take some time to investigate what the current code addresses with regard to lighting and consider addressing some concerns. Planning Director Darling stated that she will compile some information on the current ordinance and research what other cities are doing with regard to lighting and bring it back to a future meeting. Commissioner Gorham noted that the City of Plymouth has some detailed language regarding lighting in their ordinance and suggested Director Darling contact them. f The City of Shorewood Outdoor Lighting Ordinance Proposal` January 15,2019 The City of Shorewood has a mixture of zones of business and residential in the City and are interactive mostly due to the location of Highways and lakes. I propose a City mandate to control the use of seasonal, commercial and landscape lighting. Commercial lighting Because the city has bumper zoning along with residential living with no City Center, the need to restrict amount of lighting and timing of lighting is needed to protect surrounding residential homes. 1]. Total lighting included in prebuild plat plans. Includes Parking lights, safety lighting for sidewalks \buildings, decoration lighting total for seasonal use, decoration lighting long term. a. Seasonal (Christmas, Chanukah, New Year exc.) The total of lumens would be included in the building plans. Care would be assessed to seek balance with the neighborhood. b. Limitation of use. All commercial buildings would be required to set timers on seasonal lighting limiting use to 11pm year round. This includes apartment/ multiple story deck decorations. c. Decorative Roof lighting With the surrounding cities using white lights outlining roofs, care needs to be used in including or not permitting long -term lighting. Because this kind of lighting is usually a larger bulb, lumens need to be assessed. If this form of lighting is already in place and is determined to exceed lumens. A time limit of 11pm is to be set to spare the surrounding neighborhood. d. Landscape lighting This includes land -based lighting that shines upward or downward to highlight trees or building structures. Care in planning should include positioning that does not interfere with surrounding property or roads. Choice of type lighting should be made at the planning stage. (Spot light, broad light, hooded lighting, LED, incandescent). e. Spot Lighting This includes lighting that is intended for property safety and protection. Most of this lighting is set up as a roof level or second floor level. This type of light is meant to cast a large amount of light. To restore the integrity of near by residential homes from excessive light pollution, flood lighting is to be assessed to changing the type of light used. Motion sensor lighting, hooded or better directed lighting would be considered in older buildings. Measured lumens and distant of light cast would be considered in new buildings and preplanning. 1. 2]. Compliance to use a. Lighting issues should be handled as noise disturbance is handled. Courtesy to surrounding properties is as the law of keeping the peace. b. A warning and informative letter would be sent. c. In case of argument between landowners, some kind of agreement would have to be worked out. The final result would be finalized by the city. d. Lighting presenting a danger to roadways and hindering sight for drivers. Including business signage. Observation and assessment of the problem would be needed to bring the obstructive light into correction. (Moving aim, type or removal). Residential Lighting 1). Excessive Decorative Lighting - Seasonal short term a. For the homeowner with high expectations setting out over 50 strings of lights, a time limit of 11pm would be mandated b. A permit would be issued only to inform resident of the City rules. c. Permit would include the homeowner responsibilities of time limits. 11pm light cut off time. In case of traffic congestion the owner would be responsible for all costs involving police controlling traffic. Safety cones, ropes and parking areas clearly marked and managed with sufficient workers to keep the public safe. d. Complaint management via the permit. The owner would be responsible to work out any complaints from surrounding neighbors. If unable to come to an agreement the City of Shorewood would be the final say in shutting down or resolving the problem. 2). Residential Landscape Lighting Existing Permit a. Additional Lighting added to existing home or landscape, consideration of volume against buildings or tree /plants connected to the building. The effect of overcast lighting on neighbor homes. Owner would be required to show plans and amount of lighting being requested. b. Restriction of beam or upward or downward lighting on landscape lighting on trees or other tall structures. All lights should be shielded so as to limit lower leaking of light and becoming a hazard to drivers and pedestrians. Position of lights should not affect visual sights for roads or other homes. 0 3). Landscape Lighting zoning pre build. a. Landscape lighting would be required to be included in the lay out plan. The consideration of light volume and position would be allowed input by the Public. Knowledgeable listing of types of lights and the amount of distance it casts would have to be included in the pre build. Submitted by Cindy Marr 6015 Chaska Rd Shorewood 952 - 474 -1466 witsgal5 @gmail.com 3. 8A MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Meeting Title / Subject: Approve Change Order 3 for the Boulder Bridge Well MCC Project, City Project 18 -01 Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Change Order Form and Resolution Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve Change Order 3 for the Boulder Bridge Motor Control Center (MCC) Project? Background: The Boulder Bridge Motor Control Center Project for the Boulder Bridge Well is nearing completion. Council may recall that the "Motor Control Center" is where the main electricity enters the building and gets distributed to the actual electro- mechanical and electronic controls. The new MCC has been installed and trial runs have been conducted to test the center's performance. Items remaining to be addressed are punch list items, installation of the backup generator socket, a revision to the chemical feed equipment and final program changes. Computer technicians have been busy programming how the various processes are run. This includes everything from pump startup and stops, to chemical feed equipment and alarm and monitoring systems. It is through the trial runs and testing of the systems that staff reviewed how the chemical pumps and chemical injection systems are controlled and monitored. Prior to this project, the chemical systems were called for and started simply by a mechanical flow switch. While this has worked in the past, it is a better scenario if the chemical pumps are controlled by the computer programmable logic controller (PLC) such that the chemical feed systems can be monitored. This is a change from what was originally in place. Staff has asked the contractor to provide pricing to modify how the system is controlled. Attachment 1 to this memorandum is Change Order Form 3 that documents the changes and pricing requested. The amount of Change Order 3 is $2,997.42. This amount provides for changes to the electrical control switch gear, wiring, programming and testing. This should be the final change order for the project. Finance: The proposed Change Order of $2,997.42 equates to a revised construction cost of $138,127.47, as compared to the programmed CIP project cost of $200,000. Recommendation: Staff is recommending approval of a resolution which accepts Change Order 3 for the Boulder Bridge MCC Replacement Project. 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. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 19 -035 A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3 FOR THE BOULDER BRIDGE MOTOR CONTROL CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT 18 -01 WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council awarded the contract for the Boulder Bridge Motor Control Project, City Project 18 -01, on July 23 d, 2018, to AE2S Construction, LLC DBA Electrical Installation and Maintenance (EIM); and WHEREAS, Change Order 3 is necessary to facilitate requested changes to the water system; and WHEREAS, Change Order 3will increase the project construction costs in the amount of $2,997.42 to a revised Contract amount of $138,127.47, as documented in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. Change Order 3 is hereby approved and as outlined in Exhibit A. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor Attest: Sandie Thone, City Clerk Change Order No. 003 Date of Issuance: 3/20/2019 Effective Date: 3/20/2019 Owner: City of Shorewood Owner's Contract No.: Contractor: AE2S Construction, LLC DBA Electrical Installation Contractor's Project No.:05481 Engineer: and Maintenance (EIM) Engineer's Project No.: 05481 - 2017 -000 Advanced Engineering and Environmental Services, INC Project: Shorewood Boulder Bridge MCC Contract Name: Shorewood Boulder Bridge MCC The Contract is modified as follows upon execution of this Change Order: Description: During start up it was identified that the following items were not included in the base scope of the contract but are needed: • Intercept the fluoride pump wiring at the LP and run the circuitry through a PLC control relay in the control panel. • Control wiring between the spare starter in the MCC (that will feed the chlorine booster pump) and the control panel for'called','running' and 'fault'. • A new nameplate on that spare starter indicating 'Chlorine Booster Pump'. • Adding a timing relay to the VFD circuit for Pre -lube on the vertical turbine. Attachments: Email is attached. CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE Original Contract Price: S 129,900.00 [Increase] [BeerePrse} from previously approved Change Orders No. 01 to No. 02 : $ 5230.25 Contract Price prior to this Change Order: S 135,130.05 CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES [note changes in Milestones if applicable] Original Contract Times: Substantial Completion: December 21, 2018 Ready for Final Payment: January 11, 2019 days or dates [Increase] [Beelcecsc] from previously approved Change Orders No. 01 to No. Substantial Completion: February 28, 2019 Ready for Final Payment: March 15, 2019 days ConirajZtTl imes prior to this Change Order: Substantia letion: Ready for Final Pay t: days or dates [Increase] 01111! _; of this Change Order: [Increase] [Decrease] of this Change er: Substantial Completion: $ 2997.42 Ready for Final Payment: days or dates Contract Price incorporating this Change Order: Contract Times with all approved Change Orders: $ 138,127.47 Substantial Completion: Ready for Final Payment: February 28, 2019 March 15, 2019 days or dates RECOMMENDED: ACCEPTED: ACCEPTED: By: Charles Haupert, PE By: By: Engineer (if required) Owner (Authorized Signature) Contractor (Authorized Signature) Title: Electrical Enginner Title Title Date: 3/20/2019 Date Date Approved by Funding Agency (if applicable) By: Date: Title: EJCDC® C -941, Change Order. Prepared and published 2013 by the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee. Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT A oLans" ON , City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title /Subject: Sale of 22000 Stratford Place Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: Copy of Soils Investigation Report, Revised Purchase Agreem Resolution 02113 MEETING TYPE REGULAR Background: On July 23, 2018, the City Council approved the sale of this city -owned parcel to a Buyer who planned to construct a single - family home on the property. The purchase agreement provided that the Buyer could conduct whatever investigation of the property he believed was necessary prior to closing. He conducted an extensive investigation of the soils and found the soil conditions were exceedingly poor. To construct a house on the property, according to his report, will require a great deal of soil corrections and foundation improvements that are not typically found. After receiving the report, the Buyer said he was still interested in pursuing the purchase but requested that the sale price be lowered $10,000 due to the poor soil conditions. Options: Approve the terms of the sale as presented by a motion and second to approve the attached Resolution; Add conditions on the sale of the property; Not approve the sale, and provide staff with direction. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approving the terms of the sale as presented in the purchase agreement amendment attached to the Resolution. Staff believes that given the poor soil conditions, a reduction in the sale price is warranted. The revised amount, $145,000, is still inside the price range presented at the July 23, 2018 meeting. Next Steps and Timeline: If the council approves the sale, staff will work with the Buyer to complete the sale as soon as possible. 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 NQRTHERN ' recxxa�oeies,u� REVISED GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND FACTUAL ENGINEERING REVIEW 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 Prepared For: Bill Coldwell 315 Oak Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 NTF NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC March 4, 2019 6160 Carmen Avenue East Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076 P:651.389.4191 F:651.369.4190 vvww.NTlgeo.com Bill Coldwell 315 Oak Street Chaska, Minnesota 55318 Attn: Bill Coldwell Subject: Revised Geotechnical Exploration and Factual Engineering Report 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 Dear Mr. Coldwell, Unearthing confidence- In accordance with your request and subsequent authorization, Northern Technologies, LLC (NTI) conducted a Geotechnical Exploration for the above referenced project. Our services included the advancement of exploration borings and preparation of a factual engineering report. Our work was performed in general accordance with our proposal dated November 6, 2018. Soil samples obtained at the site will be held for 60 days at which time they will be discarded. Please advise us in writing if you wish to have us retain them for a longer period. You will be assessed an additional fee if soil samples are retained beyond 60 days. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project. If there are any questions regarding the soils explored or our review and recommendations, please contact us at your convenience at (651) 389 -4191. Northern Technologies, LLC Robert R. Hawkins, G.I.T. Staff Geologist Steven D. Gerber, P.E. Senior Engineer Precision • Expertise - Geotechnical • Materials FARG❑• BISMARCK - GRANDF❑RKS • MIN ❑T • INVERGRCVEHEIGHTS • RAMSEY • RAPIDCITY , SICLIXFALLS 22000 Stratford Place f Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of Services The purpose of this factual report is to present a summary of our geotechnical exploration and provide the soil conditions encountered at the project area. Our "scope of services" was limited to the following: 1. Explore the project subsurface by means of 1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) borings extending to a depth of approximately 50 feet below existing grade. 2.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS 2.1 Exploration Scope The field exploration was completed on January 22, 2019, with the boring extending to a depth of approximately 38 feet below the existing ground surface. Practical auger refusal was encountered at depth due an apparent glacial erratic. On February 21, 2019 NTI remobilized to the site to extend the boring to a depth of approximately 60 feet below existing grade. A representative of the client marked the boring location prior to mobilization. The elevation of the boring was assumed to be 100.0 feet. The boring was performed by a two - person crew utilizing an All- Terrain Vehicle (ATV) mounted CME 750 drill rig. Samples were collected in general accordance with ASTM D 1586 "Standard Test Method for Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) and Split - Barrel Sampling of Soils." The borehole was backfilled with auger cuttings or were abandoned using high solids bentonite or neat cement grout as per appropriate local and state statutes. Minor settlement of the boreholes will occur. Owner is responsible for final closure of the boreholes. 2.2 Subsurface Conditions The soil profile generally consisted of undocumented fill on top of a layer of natively deposited organic material, overlaying native glacial deposits extending to the termination depth of the boring. The undocumented fill soils encountered extended to a depth of approximately 9 feet below existing grade. These soils generally consisted of clayey sand and clayey sand with gravel (SC). These undocumented fill materials had varying amounts of organic material within them. The layer of organic material encountered is assumed to be a native swamp deposit consisting of soft organic clay (OH). Glacial till deposits encountered consisted of brown to gray sandy lean clay (CL) Please refer to the boring logs within Appendix B. Page 1 of 2 'ago 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 2.3 Groundwater Conditions The drill crew observed the boring for groundwater during and at the completion of drilling activities. Groundwater was observed, at the time of drilling, at approximately 8.5 feet below existing grade. The site soils were conducive to movement of groundwater both laterally and vertically over time. The moisture content of such soils can vary annually and per recent precipitation. Such soils and other regional dependent conditions may produce groundwater entry of project excavations. 3.0 CLOSURE The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Bill Coldwell for specific application to the proposed 22000 Stratford Place project in Shorewood, Minnesota. Northern Technologies, LLC has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the local area. Northern Technologies, LLC makes no other warranty, expressed or implied. Northern Technologies, LLC Page 2 of 2 �l GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF RECOVERED SOIL SAMPLES FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES GENERAL NOTES WATER LEVEL SYMBOL DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY RELATIVE PROPORTIONS PARTICLE SIZES CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 APPENDIX A 22000 Stratford Place �� Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 L0e GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF RECOVERED SOIL SAMPLES We visually examined recovered soil samples to estimate distribution of grain sizes, plasticity, consistency, moisture condition, color, presence of lenses and seams, and apparent geologic origin. We then classified the soils according using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). A chart describing this classification system and general notes explaining soil sampling procedures are presented within appendices attachments. The stratification depth lines between soil types on the logs are estimated based on the available data. In -situ, the transition between type(s) may be distinct or gradual in either the horizontal or vertical directions. The soil conditions have been established at our specific boring locations only. Variations in the soil stratigraphy may occur between and around the borings, with the nature and extent of such change not readily evident until exposed by excavation. These variations must be properly assessed when utilizing information presented on the boring logs. We request that you, your design team or contractors contact NTI immediately if local conditions differ from those assumed by this report, as we would need to review how such changes impact our recommendations. Such contact would also allow us to revise our recommendations as necessary to account for the changed site conditions. FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Soil Sampling — Standard Penetration Boring: Soil sampling was performed according to the procedures described by ASTM D -1586. Using this procedure, a 2 inch O.D. split barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 -pound weight falling 30 inches. After an initial set of six inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches is recorded (known as the penetration resistance (i.e. "N- value ") of the soil at the point of sampling. The N -value is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and an approximation of the consistency of cohesive soils. Soil Sampling — Power Auger Boring: The boring(s) was /were advanced with a 6 -inch nominal diameter continuous flight auger. As a result, samples recovered from the boring are disturbed, and our determination of the depth, extend of various stratum and layers, and relative density or consistency of the soils is approximate Soil Classification: Soil samples were visually and manually classified in general conformance with ASTM D -2488 as they were removed from the sampler(s). Representative fractions of soil samples were then sealed within respective containers and returned to the laboratory for further examination and verification of the field classification. In addition, select samples were submitted for laboratory tests. Individual sample information, identification of sampling methods, method of advancement of the samples and other pertinent information concerning the soil samples are presented on boring logs and related report attachments. �l 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 GENERAL NOTES DRILLING and SAMPLING SYMBOLS LABORATORY TEST SYMBOLS SYMBOL DEFINITION SYMBOL DEFINITION C.S. Continuous Sampling W Moisture content - percent of dry weight P. D. 2 -3/8" Pipe Drill D Dry Density - pounds per cubic foot C.O. Cleanout Tube LL, PL Liquid and plastic limits determined in accordance with ASTM D 423 and D 424 3 HSA 3 %" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger QU Unconfined compressive strength - pounds per square foot in accordance with ASTM D 2166 -66 4 FA 4" Diameter Flight Auger CONSISTENCY 6 FA 6" Diameter Flight Auger N60 Value (corrected) TERM 2 % C 2 %" Casing 0-4 4 C 4" Casing Loose D. M. Drilling Mud Pq Penetrometer reading- tons /square foot J.W. Jet Water S Torvane reading- tons /square foot H.A. Hand Auger G Specific Gravity — ASTM D 854 -58 NXC Size NX Casing SL Shrinkage limit — ASTM 427 -61 BXC Size BX Casing Ph Hydrogen ion content -meter method AXC Size AX casing O Organic content - combustion method SS 2" O.D. Split Spoon Sample M.A. Grain size analysis 2T 2" Thin Wall Tube Sample C* One dimensional consolidation 3T 3" Thin Wall Tube Sample QC Triaxial Compression Coarse 3" to %" * See attached data Sheet and /or graph WATER LEVEL SYMBOL Water levels shown on the boring logs were determined at the time and under the conditions indicated. In sand, the indicated levels can be considered relatively reliable for most site conditions. In clay soils, it is not possible to determine the ground water level within the normal scope of a test boring investigation, except where lenses or layers of more pervious water bearing soil are present; and then a long period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium. Therefore, the position of the water level symbol for cohesive or mixed soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. The available water level information is given at the bottom of the log sheet. DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY TERM N60 Value (corrected) TERM N60 Value (corrected) Very Loose 0-4 Soft 0 -4 Loose 5-8 Medium 5 -8 Medium Dense 9-16 Rather Stiff 9-15 Dense 16-30 Stiff 16-30 Very Dense Over 30 Very Stiff Over 30 RELATIVE PROPORTIONS PARTICLE SIZES TERMS RANGE MATERIAL DESCRIPTION U.S. SIEVE SIZE Trace 0 -5% Boulders Over 3" A little 5-15% Gravel Coarse 3" to %" Some 15-30% Medium %" to #4 Sand Coarse #4 to #10 Medium #10 to #40 Fine #40 to #200 Silt and Clay Determined by Hydrometer Test 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 CLASSIFICATION of SOILS for ENGINEERING PURPOSES ASTM Designation D -2487 and D2488 (Unified Soil Classification System) O 7 0 rn 0 Group MEIN Major Divisions Symbol Typical Name Classification Criteria E N Well — graded gravels and v Cu = D60 / D10 greater than 4. o > GW gravel -sand mixtures, little b.0 Cz = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) between 1 & 3. O 0 or no fines. c U ai > 0 K ai c J Poorly graded gravels and s a 2 GP gravel -sand mixtures, little Not meeting both criteria for GW materials. O o o 111 or no fines. c o > v z ° O J •� o c ° 6 v c Silty gravels, gravel -sand- � Atterberg limits Atterberg limits ui 0 v � o v " GM silt mixtures. a � ,� below "A" line, or plotting in hatched o E •c R U P.I. less than 4. area are borderline ° v 3 y c a Li = Atterberg limits classifications "A" O z o > GC Clayey gravels, gravel - sand - ;� v o above line requiring use of dual c O o Ln clay mixtures. o o with P.I. greater symbols. c v l7 m than 7. C7 '� o oil Well- graded sands and little c > v a a v > "' Cu = D60 / D10 greater than 6. v N SW gravelly sands, or no n a °o Cz = (D30)2 / (D10 x D60) between 1 & 3. o � _0 fines. ,°— 0 o Q' O 0 U Ln w ro N O '~ O o 0 O 0 N O O O O O co C\1 ;Iwll 434Seld > Poorly- graded sands and o z o •°L _T SP gravelly sands, little or no z Not meeting both criteria for SW materials. v a fines. -'7 m z C IS r_ 2L N o Atterberg limits Ln SM Silty sands, sand -silt p N ti Atterberg limits g below "A" line, or Ln N mixtures. Ln o plotting in hatched 3 T P.I. less than 4. area are borderline c v E Atterberg limits classifications v LL SC Clayey sands, sand -clay R o o -o u o above "A" line requiring use of dual ° n mixtures. LL with P.I. > 7. symbols. v U .N 0 0 N Ln z CL Ln w '^ e i fO 0 o c t v c0 G v o � o 0 U Ln -a c O E n J s J t �o U N c �°° o m Ln ±+ J N -0 s J T U c � ao = 0 Inorganic silts, very fine ML sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands. Inorganic clays of low to CL medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. Inorganic silts, micaceous MH or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts. CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Pt Peat, muck and other highly organic soils. O 7 0 rn 0 MEIN ON E 0 O VA 0 E M O 0 U 0 r E K J d O � v ILI 5 111 11fli a w O J -0 R o a 0 I oil 0 O 0 N O O O O O co C\1 ;Iwll 434Seld 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NTI Project No. 19.MSP07361.000 APPENDIX B BORING LOCATIONS DIAGRAM SOIL BORING LOG Boring Location Diagram Completed Boring Locations: • 22000 Stratford Place Shorewood, Minnesota NI- I) T NTI Project #: 19.MSP07361.000 TECH NO OG IES, LLC NNOTE: Boring locations are approximate. Inver Grove Heights BORING NUMBER SBA 6160 Carmen Avenue East PAGE 1 OF 2 N T I Inver Grove Heights, MN, 55076 x NORTHERN P: 651-389-4191 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CLIENT Bill Coldwell PROJECT NAME 22000 Stratford Place PROJECT NUMBER 18.MSP07361.000 PROJECT LOCATION Shorewood, MN DATE STARTED 1/22/19 COMPLETED 2/21/19 GROUND ELEVATION 100 feet HOLE SIZE 6 1/2 in. DRILLING CONTRACTOR NTI GROUNDWATER LEVELS: DRILLING METHOD 3 1/4 in H.S.A �Z AT TIME OF DRILLING 8.50 ft / Elev 91.50 ft LOGGED BY RRH CHECKED BY SDG AT END OF DRILLING - -- CAVE IN (ft) - -- FROST DEPTH (ft) - -- AFTER DRILLING - -- NOTES Elevation assumed to be 100.0. ATTERBERG w p 0 U Q-0 U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION a }� dp �Z U) o } > 0� Lu � �Dj 0 5 Q 000% UZ z w w N U� O D z Q } D' p w o ED Oz �0 U LIMITS z LL p—� z� O� �J z U) aJ U X �p QZ D a TOPSOIL (18 Inches) 1.5 98.5 SS 1 100 20 -22 -17 39 CLAYEY SAND, (SC) dark brown to black, fine to medium grained, moist, trace gravel x SS 2 78 9 -5 -2 7 (Undocumented Fill) 5 SS 3 44 2 -2 -3 5 6.5 93.5 CLAYEY SAND WITH GRAVEL, (SC) dark brown, fine AU 10 to coarse grained, moist 9.0 �Z (Undocumented Fill) 91.0 NOTE: Hit obstruction at 6.5 feet, sampled auger cuttings. 4 5S 89 0 -00 -0 ORGANIC CLAY, (OH) black, moist, soft, trace gravel, 15 12.0 occasional roots 88.0 (Swamp Deposit) S 6 89 0 -1-2 3 SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) brown to gray, moist, soft, trace gravel, occasional sand seams (Glacial Till) SS 89 1(4)2 20 SS 8 33 —4-2-1 3 24.0 76.0 SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) gray, moist, soft to rather stiff, trace gravel Al SS 9 89 3 -5 -6 11 25 (Glacial Till) 30 SS 10 44 3 -5 -6 (11) 35 SS 11 89 3 -4 -5 9 40 NOTE: Encountered practical auger refusal on apparent cobble / boulder at 38 feet. Boring offset to adjacent location. SS L 12 75 50/2" (Continued Next Page) Inver Grove Heights 6160 Carmen Avenue East N T 1 Inver Grove Heights, MN, 55076 NORTHERN P: 651-389-4191 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CLIENT Bill Coldwell PROJECT NUMBER 18.MSP07361.000 BORING NUMBER SBA PAGE 2OF2 PROJECT NAME 22000 Stratford Place PROJECT LOCATION Shorewood. MN E'f• SS 5 -8 -7 15 78 (15) 60 SS 89 4 -8 -13 60.5 39.5 A 16 21 Boring extended to 60.5 feet in adjacent location on 2/21/19. Bottom of borehole at 60.5 feet. 11 ATTERBERG Lu aG✓ o z w o LIMITS U � U U LUm �_ cnw �ZJ Lu ~� 0Z d Q O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LU LU O of �� Lu � (0 z Q Lo W o� L U w Lu z Lu 0 � a? <z m O UZ S Oz O- F- � H 0 LL O Lu O D �O �J gJ Qz U) of d 0 U d d SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) gray, moist, soft to rather stiff, trace gravel (Glacial Till) (continued) 45 SS 13 89 7 -9 -14 23 50 NOTE: Occasional silty sand (SM) layers below 50 feet. M SS 14 78 7 -10 -11 (21) E'f• SS 5 -8 -7 15 78 (15) 60 SS 89 4 -8 -13 60.5 39.5 A 16 21 Boring extended to 60.5 feet in adjacent location on 2/21/19. Bottom of borehole at 60.5 feet. 11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 19 -036 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMMENDMENT TO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR A CITY -OWNED PARCEL LOCATED AT 22000 STRATFORD PLACE WHEREAS, On July 23, 2018, the City Council approved a sale of a city -owned parcel at 22000 Stratford Place; and, WHEREAS, One of the conditions of the purchase agreement with the Buyer, was the Buyer had the right to conduct soil investigations prior to the closing of the sale; and, WHEREAS, The Buyer conducted a soil inspection and determined that there were very poor conditions, and in order to build a house on the property, his investigation showed it could be done but at a significant expense; and, WHEREAS, Given the additional expense, the Buyer has requested, and Staff is recommending that the sale price be lowered from the $155,000 approved on July 23, 2018 to $145,000. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council, that; 1. The Council finds the sale is in the best interest of the city and approves the sale of the property with the address 22000 Stratford Place 2. The Amendment to the purchase agreement as attached to this Resolution is hereby approved. 3. Directs staff work with the buyer and others to ensure the sale is completed in a timely manner. Adopted this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk FIRST AMENDMENT to the PURCHASE AGREEMENT by and between The City of Shorewood and William Coldwell RECITALS 1. PURCHASE AGREEMENT. The parties entered into that purchase agreement (the "Purchase Agreement ") dated May , 2018, by and between the City of Shorewood, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (the "Seller "), and William P. and Margaret M. Coldwell, husband and wife, (the "Buyer "). 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY. The Seller is the owner in fee simple of real estate located at 22000 Stratford Place in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which is currently legally described as Outlot A, Woodhaven Second Addition, PID 3511723330026, attached to the Purchase Agreement as Exhibit A (the "Property "). AGREEMENT The parties agree to amend the Purchase Agreement as provided below. 1. Section 4, Contingencies; is amended as follows: CONTINGENCIES: In consideration for the amendment to the Purchase Price, Buyer agrees to waive and delete the Environmental and Soil Test contingency in Section 4.B. of the Purchase Agreement. 2. Section 6, Purchase Price and Term; is amended as follows: PURCHASE PRICE AND TERMS: The total Purchase Price for the Property is One Hundred and Forty -Five Thousand Dollars ($145,000). The Seller acknowledges it does not have any tenant on the Property who is entitled to any relocation services or relocation benefits. The Buyer shall pay an Earnest Payment of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) upon execution of this Purchase Agreement and the balance of the full Purchase Price to the Seller at the Closing. There are no improvements necessary to be made to the Property. 3. Section 7, Closing Date; is amended as follows: CLOSING DATE. The Closing shall take place on or before April 30, 2019, unless otherwise mutually agreed upon by the Seller and the Buyer. The Closing shall take place at Shorewood City Hall, or such other location as mutually agreed upon by the Seller and the Buyer. 1 4846 - 1939 - 7006.1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seller and the Buyer have executed this First Amendment to the Purchase Agreement as of the date written above. CITY OF SHOREWOOD, Seller By: By: Dated: WILLIAM P. COLDWELL, Buyer By: Dated: MARGARET M. COLDWELL, Buyer By: Dated: 2 4846 - 1939 - 7006.1 �l City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Meeting Date: Prepared by: Reviewed by: Attachments: Utility Rate review March 25, 2019 Joe Rigdon, Finance Director Greg Lerud, City Administrator Proposed Ordinance Policy Consideration: Should the City Council approve utility rate increases? Background: MEETING TYPE REGULAR At the 2/7/19 City Council retreat, a memo was provided by David Drown Associates, Inc. (DDA) regarding the funding and financial impact of completing various street and utility construction projects from 2019 -2023, and 2026. In order to sustain positive cash balances in the utility funds, DDA has estimated annual increases to the utility rates through at least 2028. For a property using an average of 15,000 gallons of water per quarter, the projected utility fees are calculated as follows: * Lots 10,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. 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 Quarterly Utilities 15,000 Average Gallons per Quarter Storm Increase Water Sewer Water * Per Quarter 2018 $ 49.35 $ 79.60 $ 28.74 2019 $ 54.29 $ 86.76 $ 29.60 $ 12.96 2020 $ 59.71 $ 94.57 $ 30.49 $ 14.13 2021 $ 65.68 $ 103.08 $ 31.40 $ 15.40 2022 $ 72.25 $ 112.36 $ 32.35 $ 16.79 2023 $ 79.48 $ 122.47 $ 33.32 $ 18.31 2024 $ 87.43 $ 133.50 $ 34.32 $ 19.97 2025 $ 96.17 $ 145.51 $ 35.35 $ 21.79 2026 $ 105.79 $ 158.61 $ 36.41 $ 23.77 2027 $ 116.36 $ 172.88 $ 37.50 $ 25.95 2028 $ 128.00 $ 188.44 $ 38.62 $ 28.32 * Lots 10,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. 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 Annual Utilities 15,000 Average Gallons per Quarter Storm Increase Water Sewer Water * Per Year 2018 $ 197.40 $ 318.40 $ 114.96 $ 453,358 2019 $ 217.14 $ 347.06 $ 118.41 $ 51.84 2020 $ 238.85 $ 378.29 $ 121.96 $ 56.50 2021 $ 262.74 $ 412.34 $ 125.62 $ 61.59 2022 $ 289.01 $ 449.45 $ 129.39 $ 67.15 2023 $ 317.91 $ 489.90 $ 133.27 $ 73.23 2024 $ 349.71 $ 533.99 $ 137.27 $ 79.88 2025 $ 384.68 $ 582.05 $ 141.39 $ 87.15 2026 $ 423.14 $ 634.43 $ 145.63 $ 95.09 2027 $ 465.46 $ 691.53 $ 150.00 $ 103.78 2028 $ 512.00 $ 753.77 $ 154.50 $ 113.28 * Lots 10,000 to 50,000 sq. ft. Wnfor Fiinrl- As indicated in the chart below, Water fund operations have been relatively stable over the five year period. Prior to 2018, the Water fund did not have a rate increase since 2010. WATER 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 est. Operating Revenues $ 425,928 $ 406,147 $ 408,911 $ 408,875 $ 453,358 Operating Expenses * $ (401,476) $ (405,371) $ (416,609) $ (420,100) $ (447,672) Operating Income (Loss) * $ 24,452 $ 776 $ (7,698) $ (11,225) $ 5,686 * Excluding depreciation and pension expense (non -cash) Meanwhile, the City's cash position in the Water fund has declined steadily over the past several years, as follows: 12/31/ Water Cash 2014 $ 3,711,388 2015 $ 2,783,726 2016 $ 1,763,344 2017 $ 943,703 2018 $ (18,026) This decrease is partly attributable to principal and interest payments paid each year for debt service on the general obligation water revenue bonds of 2013 (approximately $282,000 per year through 2022). Also, in 2018 the Water fund contributed $864,547 for its share of the Riviera Lane /Shorewood Lane /Mann Lane improvements. It should be noted that the following receivables are recorded in the Water Fund at 12/31/18: $1,015,044 advance to the City's tax increment financing (TIF) fund in 2016 for the Shorewood Landings water main extension; payments are projected to begin in 2019 • $625,821 of an original fire truck lease amount of $774,683, to be repaid by the Excelsior Fire District with annual payments in 2018 through 2022 All of these factors have caused the Water fund cash to decrease to a deficit position at 12/31/18. In order to fund future Water fund infrastructure improvements, the City will consider financing through the issuance of bonded indebtedness. Water utility rates are projected to increase in order to provide a repayment mechanism for the debt service on the bonds. Sewer Fund: Sewer fund operations have resulted in operating losses for both 2017 and 2018. Metropolitan Council waste water service costs have been increasing at a faster rate than the City's sewer utility charge revenues. SEWER 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 est. Operating Revenues $ 852,254 $ 858,066 $ 877,599 $ 909,965 $ 924,502 Operating Expenses * $ (805,813) $ (852,266) $ (869,174) $ (936,952) $ (992,976) Operating Income (Loss) * $ 46,441 $ 5,800 $ 8,425 $ (26,987) $ (68,474) * Excluding depreciation and pension expense (non -cash) Sewer fund cash is about $2.5 million at 12/31/18. However, the fund cash is forecasted to become a deficit in approximately 2023. The decline is projected based on significant capital outlays programmed into the City's capital improvement plan, including sewer portions of street improvement projects, inflow and infiltration projects, lift station rehab, etc. The City is contemplating the issuance of bonded debt to finance various projects, including sewer costs, but will need increased revenue to repay future debt service payments. 12/31/ Sewer Cash 2014 $ 3,232,484 2015 $ 2,566,193 2016 $ 2,809,803 2017 $ 2,626,386 2018 $ 2,502,007 Storm Water Management Fund: Storm Water fund operations have resulted in operating income in each of the past 5 years: STORM WATER 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 est. Operating Revenues $ 220,658 $ 227,676 $ 275,171 $ 341,180 $ 381,997 Operating Expenses * $ (164,975) $ (76,549) $ (75,524) $ (62,659) $ (92,423) Operating Income (Loss) * $ 55,683 $ 151,127 $ 199,647 $ 278,521 $ 289,574 * Excluding depreciation and pension expense (non -cash) Simultaneously, cash in the Storm Water fund increased from 2014 to 2017. Cash declined in 2018 due to nearly $600,000 in costs associated with land acquisition at 26245 Smithtown Road. Also, in 2018 the Storm Water fund contributed $168,325 for its share of the Riviera Lane /Shorewood Lane /Mann Lane improvements 12/31/ Storm Water Cash 2014 $ 119,086 2015 $ 497,758 2016 $ 705,073 2017 $ 804,294 2018 $ 280,496 Storm Water fund cash balance is projected to increase over the next several years. However, those projections currently do not include the funding of potentially significant storm water improvements for Grant /Lorenz. Options: For each utility fund, the Council can reject the proposed rates, accept the proposed rates, change the implementation date, or give staff other direction. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the following rates be adopted and that the rates be effective with the July 2019 billing and upon publication. If that is what the council decides, the motion would be to adopt Ordinance No. 563. Water fund: CATEGORIES CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES First 5,000 gallons $18.35 $ 20.18 Per /1,000 gal from 5,001 to 50,000 $ 3.10 $ 3.41 Per /1,000 gal above 50,0000 $ 4.46 $ 4.90 Water Service — low income $15.75 $ 17.32 Sewer Fund: CATEGORY CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES Residential $79.60 /qtr. $53.07 /qtr. low income $86.76/qtr. $57.84/qtr. low income Commercial $9.00 base, $79.60 /qtr. fee for 1- $9.81 base, $86.76/qtr fee for 1- $20.73 /qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. 28,500 gallons, $2.08/1,000 gallons in 28,500 gallons, $2.26/1,000 gallons excess of 28,500 gallons per qtr. in excess of 28,500 gallons per qtr. Storm Water Management Fund: Current Basic System Rate: $28.74 $20.13 /qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft $28.74/qtr: lots 10,000 — 50,000 sq. ft. $37.41 /qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft. Proposed Basic System Rate: $29.60 $20.73 /qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. $29.60 /qtr: lots 10,000 — 50,000 sq. ft. $38.53/qtr: lots 50,000 plus sq. ft. Next Steps and Timeline: Staff will prepare a notice for the website, a newsletter article, and social media postings. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE 563 AN ORDINANCE TITLED "UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 1301.02 of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances is hereby amended as follows: CITY OF SHOREWOOD UTILITY SERVICE CHARGES Section 1. Change the Water, Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Management Utility Rates as follows: Water CATEGORIES CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES First 5,000 gallons $18.35 $ 20.18 Per /1,000 gal from 5,001 to 50,000 $ 3.10 $ 3.41 Per /1,000 gal above 50,000 $ 4.46 $ 4.90 Water Service — low income $15.75 $ 17.32 Sanitary Sewer CATEGORY CURRENT RATES PROPOSED RATES Residential $79.60 /qtr. $53.07 /qtr. low $86.76/qtr. $57.84 /qtr. low income income Commercial $9.00 base, $79.60 /qtr. fee for 1- $9.81 base, $86.76/qtr. fee for 28,500 gallons, $2.08/1,000 1- 28,500 gallons, $2.26/1,000 gallons in excess of 28,500 gallons in excess of 28,500 gallons per qtr. gallons per qtr. Stormwater Management Current Basic System Rate: $28.74 $20.13 /qtr: lots less than 10,000 sq. ft $28.74/ qtr- lots 10,000 — 50,000 sq. ft. $37.41 /qtr- lots 50,000 plus sq. ft. Proposed Basic System Rate: $29.60 $20.73 /qtr. lots less than 10,000 sq. ft. $29.60 /qtr: lots 10,000 — 50,000 sq. ft. $38.53/ qtr- lots 50,000 plus sq. ft. Section 2. This ordinance is in effect with the July 2019 billing and upon publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 25th day of March, 2019. Scott Zerby, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk #1 Oka MEETING TYPE City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Regular Title / Subject: 2018 General Fund Budget Report Meeting Date: March 25, 2019 Prepared by: Joe Rigdon, Finance Director Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Attachments: December 2018 Budget Spreadsheet Policy Consideration: A General Fund year -end budget report is provided to the City Council for review on an annual basis. Background: The following information describes the unaudited financial results of the City's General Fund for 2018. Comparisons between 2017 and 2018 amounts for revenues and expenditures are included to assist in gauging fund performance. General Fund Revenues: • Property tax revenues for the General Fund were $5,342,946 in 2018 and equated to 99.5% of the total 2018 property tax levy of $5,369,245. Delinquent taxes as a percentage of the total levy increased from 0.4% at 12/31 /17 to 0.9% at 12/31 /18. • Licenses and permits amounted to 230.7% of budget, or $565,688 in 2018. The majority of the revenue consisted of building permits and plan check fees. As a comparison, licenses and permits revenues for 2017 were $315,574. • Intergovernmental revenues were $125,139 in 2018, decreasing from $144,923 in 2017. A Christmas Lake inspection program grant through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District decreased from $32,367 in 2017 to $20,096 in 2018. • Fines and forfeitures of $67,734 were recorded in 2018 (112.9% of budget), as compared to $76,056 in 2017. • Miscellaneous revenues totaled $225,691 in 2018. Antenna rent is the largest component and amounted to $171,496 for 2018. Investment interest earnings for the General Fund were $32,875 for 2018. • Budgeted 2018 transfers in from utility funds of $25,000 were recorded in January 2018. These included $12,500 from the Water fund, and $12,500 from the Sewer fund. • Total General Fund revenues (excluding transfers in) increased by 5.6 %, from $6,052,842 in 2017 to $6,388,805 in 2018. • Revenues for 2018 were 105.9% of budget, amounting to a $354,270 excess. 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. $6,000,000 $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 GENERAL FUND REVENUES Taxes Licenses and Intergovernmental Charges for Fines and Special Miscellaneous Permits Services Forfeitures Assessments 0 12/31/2017 ■ 12/31/2018 ■ 2018 Budget Expenditures: • General government expenditures for 2018 were $1,362,881 (100.0% of budget), or 8.7% lower than 2017. • City Council expenditures decreased by $30,913 from 2017 to 2018, due to a classification change from general government to parks and recreation for the Christmas Lake inspection program costs. • Administration costs were 99.2% of budget for 2018 and were 1.7% lower than 2017. • Election costs were recorded in a new "Elections" department for 2018. • Finance department expenditures were 108.3% of budget in 2018 but were $13,691 lower than 2017 costs. • The Professional Services department expenditures were 98.6% of budget for 2018, and 10.7% lower than 2017. o Planning expenditures were 122.7% of budget, including approximately $34,000 of comprehensive plan costs. Expenditures were significantly lower in 2018, as compared to 2017, largely attributable to 2017 employee separation payments. o Municipal building expenditures were 81.4% of budget. • Public safety expenditures were $2,322,024 for 2018 (104.6% of budget), increasing 5.9% from $2,193,083 for 2017. o Police expenditures increased 4.0% from 2017 to 2018. o Fire expenditures increased 3.5% from 2017 to 2018. o Protective inspections were 150.2% of budget in 2018. The cost overage is related to the training and transition of the building official's duties from an existing to a new employee. • Public works expenditures totaled $1,014,258 for 2018 (82.9% of budget), increasing from $750,354 for 2017. o General public works operating costs were 30.9% higher in 2018 but were at just 77.6% of budget. o Ice and snow removal expenditures were $140,111 (123.0% of budget) in 2018, as compared to $62,488 in 2017. • Parks and recreation expenditures amounted to $274,534 in 2018, decreasing $4,475 from 2017. • Budgeted and other transfers out to other funds were $1,182,745 for 2018, as compared to $1,104,913 for 2017. Additionally, $700,000 of 2017 transfers from the General Fund were authorized by Council action and recorded in March 2017. • Total General Fund expenditures (excluding transfers in) increased by 5.5 %, from $4,715,464 in 2017 to $4,973,697 in 2018. • Expenditures for 2018 were 98.1 % of budget, amounting to a $96,040 excess. $2,500,000 $2,000,000 - $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 - GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES General Government Public Safety Public Works ■ 12/31/2017 ■ 12/31/2018 . 2018 Budget I Parks and Recreation Fund Balance: The 2019 fund balance policy states the City's goal will be to maintain an end -of -year unassigned fund balance in the General Fund of an amount not less than 60% of the next year's budgeted expenditures and transfers out of the General Fund. The policy further states that if unassigned fund balance in the General Fund at the completion of any fiscal year exceeds 60% of the next year's budgeted expenditures and transfers out of the General Fund, the excess may be used for specific projects, capital acquisitions and improvements, transfers to other funds, or for other purposes determined by the City Council. At 12/31/18, the excess fund balance is calculated at $469,529. Effective 1/18/19, the City Council authorized $460,000 of capital transfers under this policy. Financial or Budget Considerations: This report is intended to provide budget to actual and comparative financial information for the General Fund. Options: 1. Accept the budget report. 2. Do not accept the budget report Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the budget report Next Steps and Timeline: The 2018 audited financial statements are projected to be presented at the 4/22/19 City Council meeting. Connection to Vision / Mission: The review of periodic reporting of financial information is a component of sound financial management. City of Shorewood General Fund Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances Through the Month Ended December 31, 2018 (Unaudited) Current Current Current Prior Final Year -to -Date Year -to -Date Variance Year -to -Date Budget Amount % of Budget With Final Amount 2018 12/31/18 12/31/18 Budaet 12/31/17 REVENUES: Taxes $ 5,369,245 $ 5,342,946 99.5% $ (26,299) $ 5,221,374 Licenses and Permits 245,155 565,688 230.7% 320,533 315,574 Intergovernmental 91,250 125,139 137.1% 33,889 144,923 Charges for Services 53,885 57,761 107.2% 3,876 62,056 Fines and Forfeitures 60,000 67,734 112.9% 7,734 76,056 Special Assessments - 3,846 N/A 3,846 - Miscellaneous 215,000 225,691 105.0% 10,691 232,859 Total Revenues 6,034,535 6,388,805 105.9% 354,270 6,052,842 EXPENDITURES: Current: General Government 1,363,543 1,362,881 100.0% (662) 1,493,018 Public Safety 2,220,146 2,322,024 104.6% 101,878 2,193,083 Public Works 1,223,227 1,014,258 82.9% (208,969) 750,354 Parks and Recreation 262,821 274,534 104.5% 11,713 279,009 Total Expenditures 5,069,737 4,973,697 98.1% (96,040) 4,715,464 Excess of Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 964,798 1,415,108 146.7% 450,310 1,337,378 OTHER SOURCES (USES): Transfers In 25,000 25,000 100.0% 25,000 Transfers Out (1,163,895) (1,182,745) 101.6% (18,850) (1,804,913) Total Other Sources (Uses) (1,138,895) (1,157,745) 101.7% (18,850) (1,779,913) Excess of Revenues & Other Sources Over (Under) Expenditures & Other Uses (174,097) 257,363 - 147.8% 431,460 (442,535) FUND BALANCES: January 1 4,162,048 - 4,604,583 December 31 $ 4,419,411 $ 431,460 $ 4,162,048 Balance Balance 2018 2017 CASH: January 1 $ 4,026,374 $ 3,983,586 Increase (Decrease) in Cash 259,665 42,788 December 31 $ 4,286,039 $ 4,026,374 City of Shorewood General Fund Statement of Expenditures and Other Uses by Program /Department Through the Month Ended December 31, 2018 (Unaudited) Current Current Current Prior Final Year -to -Date Year -to -Date Variance Year -to -Date Budget Amount % of Budget With Final Amount 2018 12/31/18 12/31/18 Budget 12/31/17 Imo / »0l lrrMI:ON Current: Southshore Center - Building General Government 38,000 100.0% - Southshore Center - Operations 70,000 Council 84,100 77,232 91.8% (6,868) 108,145 Administration 447,024 443,412 99.2% (3,612) 450,889 Elections 21,975 16,160 73.5% (5,815) - Finance 172,483 186,792 108.3% 14,309 200,483 Professional Services 240,000 236,627 98.6% (3,373) 265,078 Planning 190,361 233,652 122.7% 43,291 295,550 Municipal Buildings 207,600 169,006 81.4% (38,594) 172,873 Total General Government 1,363,543 1,362,881 100.0% (662) 1,493,018 Public Safety Police Protection 1,449,930 1,453,368 100.2% 3,438 1,398,020 Fire Protection 625,953 651,925 104.1% 25,972 629,587 Protective Inspections 144,263 216,731 150.2% 72,468 165,476 Total Public Safety 2,220,146 2,322,024 104.6% 101,878 2,193,083 Public Works City Engineer 89,500 83,056 92.8% (6,444) 83,314 Public Works Service 1,019,797 791,091 77.6% (228,706) 604,552 Ice and Snow Removal 113,930 140,111 123.0% 26,181 62,488 Total Public Works 1,223,227 1,014,258 82.9% (208,969) 750,354 Parks and Recreation Park Maintenance 196,932 221,581 112.5% 24,649 227,700 Recreation 65,889 52,953 80.4% (12,936) 51,309 Total Parks and Recreation 262,821 274,534 104.5% 11,713 279,009 Total Expenditures 5,069,737 4,973,697 98.1% (96,040) 4,715,464 OTHER USES: Transfers Out: Southshore Center - Building 38,000 38,000 100.0% - Southshore Center - Operations 70,000 70,000 100.0% 95,000 EDA Debt City Hall 93,895 93,895 100.0% 102,913 Equipment Replacement 135,000 135,000 100.0% 120,000 Street Improvements 785,000 785,000 100.0% 1,245,000 Park Capital 42,000 42,000 100.0% - 242,000 Park Capital - PY Correction - 18,850 N/A 18,850 - Total Transfers Out 1,163,895 1,182,745 101.6% 18,850 1,804,913 Total Expenditures & Other Uses 6,233,632 6,156,442 98.8% (77,190) 6,520,377 City of Shorewood Cash and Investment Balances December 31, 2018 Fund Balance Balance Fund Fund Type Number 1/1/2018 12/31/2018 Chanae General Fund General 101 4,026,373.80 4,286,038.61 259,664.81 Shorewood Community and Event Center Special Revenue 201 133,892.76 20,657.36 (113,235.40) 2016A Public Safety Fire Facility Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Debt Service 307 36,056.93 37,231.93 1,175.00 20166 Public Safety Police Facility Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Debt Service 308 (1,203.83) 396,996.17 398,200.00 2016C Public Safety Fire Facility Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds Debt Service 309 11,856.19 13,031.19 1,175.00 2017A Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds (Refunded 2008A) Debt Service 310 7,050.89 7,050.88 (0.01) Park Capital Improvement Capital Projects 402 1,141,210.14 482,894.61 (658,315.53) Equipment Replacement Capital Projects 403 536,889.49 473,326.72 (63,562.77) Street Reconstruction Capital Projects 404 2,533,352.31 1,482,718.38 (1,050,633.93) MSA Construction Capital Projects 405 129,801.43 131,648.96 1,847.53 Trail Construction Capital Projects 406 (759,597.26) 402.74 760,000.00 Community Infrastructure Capital Projects 450 122,957.96 128,974.40 6,016.44 TIF 2 Oppidan Senior Housing Capital Projects 470 146,982.74 (2,448.96) (149,431.70) Water Enterprise 601 943,702.60 (18,025.71) (961,728.31) Sewer Enterprise 611 2,626,385.64 2,502,007.35 (124,378.29) Recycling Enterprise 621 231,732.09 273,820.45 42,088.36 Stormwater Management Enterprise 631 804,294.19 280,496.08 (523,798.11) Payroll Clearing Fund Internal Use Only 700 0.00 0.00 0.00 Escrow Deposit Agency 880 273,556.00 542,485.50 268,929.50 Unallocated Investment Income N/A N/A 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 12,945,294.07 11,039,306.66 (1,905,987.41)