The URL can be used to link to this page

042682 CC Reg AgP t. SHOREWOOt COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 26, 1982 ., COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. : ~:1 ^...., .. CITY OF REGULAR MONDAY, AGE N D A CALL.TO,ORDER: a. Pledge of Allegiance and Prayer b. Roll Call: Mayor Rascop_ Haugen ., Shaw Leonardo Gagne 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. Meeting - April 12, 1982 [Attachment #1] 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR: a. b. 3. MINNETONKA MOORING - Mr. John Cross Mr. Jim Norton, City Engineer [Attachment #2a - Request for Hearing] ~ [Attachment #2b - Letter and Resolution from city offices] I~~~~ease refer to the agenda packets, O.f February 8, 1982 ~~~ Attachment #2, - and February 22, 1982 - Attachment #4) 4. BUILDING ,PERMIT APPLICATION FOR SWIMMING ,POOL JPnny Rudd and Tom DiRocco, 28150 Boulder Bridge Drive: [Attachment #3a - Permit Application] [Attachment #3b - 'Building Inspection Report] 5. ARVIDSON DOCKS - Mr. Mike Arvidson: [Attachment #4a - Planner's Report] [Attachment #4b - Attorney's Report] ~~XI LABORATORIES ~ Council Action: - ~ [Attachment #5 - Resident Letters] ** (Please review agenda item #5 of the agenda packet dated 4/12/82.) It is recommended that any council action on this issue be'set forth ina resolution drawn by the City Attorney. 7. REVIEW AT AMESBURY WEST RECREATION FACILITIES PLAN - Jim McNulty: ** (Please review the minutes in the council agenda packet - 4/12/82. '. . . . . APRIL 26, 1982 COUNCIL AGENDA - 2 - 8. CREPEAU 'PROPERTY -'DETACHMENT & ANNEXATION REQUEST - Mr. John Lee [Attachment #6] 9.DEEPHAVEN-HOOPERLAKE'ROAD'REQUEST [Attachment #7a - Traffic Study] [Attachment #7b - Schoell & Madsen - Engineer Engineer's Report 10. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT: , _ L .:i. "'""\:) . v....D. ~(.o'-,~-.. a. te:.~ 'Vf'~~ -.....s--( ~_ z.-~) 11. PARK COMMISSION REPORT: a. ~~~,c;...-l 6~ ~ ~"'- ~.-..K- ~G.-,-..L\~ ' 12. ' ATTORNEY'S REPORT J' J- ;' J~~ , ", ,; 4..r~.,2,1 ~~ a. Report on Johnson Trial - 7rr:t...~. ,~;{fA' ,J~'-t b. Lift Station Report: [Attachment #8 ]-<1,- .'-II-?.t> -+-f~ t,.",/c" /! \(' lJ. ,.,.,...,.; ,. . Of stead Property Agreement [Attachment #9] d. City Hall Litigation - Deposition 13. , ENGINEER'S REPORT: a. Boulder Bridge Farm Pumphouse [Attachment #10] 14. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: a. Informational ,Memos and Reports 1. Police Department Budget Report ~Information on IMDeC Proposal ~. LMC - Conference Registration Forms 15. MAYOR'S REPORT: a. b. 16. COUNCIL MEMBER~S REPORT: a. b. 17. , MATTERS FROM FLOOR: a. 18. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT CITY OF REGULAR MONDAY, SHOREWO(.'D" - ~ COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 12, 1982 -" t'NCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. " M I NUT E S CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Shorewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Rascop at 7:35 P.M. on Monday, April 12, 1982 in the Council Chambers. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND PRAYER The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. ROLL CALL: Present: Mayor Rascop, Councilpersons, Gagne, Haugen, Shaw, and Leonardo. Staff: Attorney Penberthy, Engineer Norton, Administrator Uhrhammer, and Clerk Kennelly. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 22, 1982 Moved by Leonardo, seconded by Haugen, to approve the minutes of March 22nd with correction under "Revised Mechanical Electrical Amuse- ment Devices" to read - Haugen moved to table indefinitely for further revisions. Motion carried unani~O~lY. DIl";i.4t,J'~ (J REZONING - VINE HILL FLORIST PROPERTY ~ESOLUTION NO. 40-8~ Request was made to zone the entire parcel of property located at 19465 State Highway 7 to C-3 Zon~. Presently, this property is split into two zones - R-l and C-3; with the use being C-3. Moved by Haugen, seconded by Gagne, to rezone the entire property in the C-3 district. Roll call votes - 5 ayes. Motion carried unanimously. ENGINEER'S REPORT A & KCONSTRUCTION ~ Voucher #4 RESOLUTION NO. 41-82 The Engineer recommended payment of Voucher #4 to A & K Construction for Badger Field Pumphouse, Project 80-WTP-l, in the amount of $7,945.15 holding back $1,000 for the final completion and also to approve the change order presented. Haugen moved, seconded by Shaw, to approve the change order. Motion carried unanimously. Shaw moved, seconded by Rascop, to approve the payment of voucher #4 as changed. Motion carried unanimously. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT Kristi Stover, chairperson, recommended approval of the Emmer Division with the recommendation of safe access onto Covington Road. A request to have all material submitted for reviewal at meetings; to be received no later than 5 days in advance or be moved to the following meeting. Planning Commission would like the Planner to attend the study meeting for the revisions of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Funds to pay for this can possibly be taken from re-allocated CDBG funds. -=\\==-\ \ '. . Regular Council Meeting - 2 - March 22, 1982 COUNCIL REPORT Haugen reported on a meeting of the Deephaven Council where various plans to close off or cul-de-sac Vine Street were presented. Council requested to review the various proposals submitted. EMMER DIVISION - PUBLIC HEARING 8:00 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 42-82 A request was made from owner, James Emmer - 5570 Covington Road, to divide his property, described as Lot 3, Block 1, Noel Wood Addition, into 2 parcels with a square footage variance of 2000 square feet on one of the lots. Shaw moved to approve the division subject to the owner submitting access plans to be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. Gagne seconded. A roll call vote of 5 ayes. Motion carried unanimously. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT February Financial Statements Submitted for reviewal with a memo of corrections that were found to be corrected on the March statement. Spring Clean-up Funds were not budgeted to pay for this expense. A request was made to transfer funds from the reforestation fund to pay for the clean-up expenditures. Salary Reviewal To be taken up at a Special Meeting - Tuesday, April 13, 1982 6:00 P.M. - City Hall. MAYOR REPORTS Minnetonka has plans to extend the trail system along Vine Hill Road by adding 8' to the width and moving the center line further into the Shorewood side. On site meeting will be held April 14, 1982 at Strat- ford and Vine Hill Road. Councilman Shaw will attend this meeting to obtain more information. P.U.D. - RE UEST FOR IXI LABORATORY PUBLIC HEARING 8:30 P.M. Pu lie Hearing was opened in front 0 City Council -.. John Worroll, representing Ron R. Johnson, made a presentation of the proposed "Research Estate". He presented the proposed use of building, type of building, environment impact, traffic volume, and effect on the neighborhood. Attorney John Lee sited reasons for applying the P.U.D. rather than Conditional Use, stating that the city would then have more control over the use of this property. Council opened a public response period at 9:10 P.M. Concerns and questions were expressed by area residents; Pat Malmsten of 5350 Shady Hills Circle, and Carroll Thurston of 19580 Shady Hills Road. Public comments closed at 9:16 P.M. Council clarified further questions on volume of work done at this site and qualification of the P.D.D. Ordinance. Public Hearing was closed at 9:26 P.M. Written comments will be accepted until the Council meet- ing of April 26, 1982. The Council will vote on this proposal at that time. , e . Regular Council Meeting - 3 - March 22, 1982 COUNCIL BREAK - RE-ALLOCATION OF YEAR VIIC.D~B.G~ FUNDS 9:30 P.M. RESOLUTION NO. 43-82 Public Hearing on re-allocation of Year VII C.D.B.G. Funds was opened. Request was made to re-allocate $8,000. of the $10,000. to be received for the Comprehensive Planning Process by supplying needed maps such as, Base Map, Park Maps, Wetland Map, Utility Map, and present Land Use Maps. Haugen moved, seconded by Gagne, to approve suggested uses for the re- allocation of $8,000 of Year VII C.D.B.G. funds. Roll call vote - 5 ayes. Motion carried unanimously. I.M.DeC - DEVELOPMENT Irvin Mandel of IMDeC apartment building on Lot 34, Manitou Glen; County Road 19. Recommendation was made by the city engineer to move the building 2' to the east and to raise the elevation of the building and the proposed garage floor. The engineer cautioned Mandel of the drainage problem that exists on this property. Mr. Mandel agreed to follow all recommen- dations made by the engineer and building ~nspector. Concerns were expressed by local residents, Jim Borchart, Mr. & Mrs. Wells, George Harrison, and Dave Littlefield, regarding the drainage problem that currently exists and the effect this project may have on the surrounding properties. They questioned the engineer regarding the drain pipe currently draining' this area and what capacity for run-off it has. Residents felt that the drainage problem created by this area should be addressed prior to allowing the start of this project. The council informed the residents that the project complied with all the city requirements and that we had no legal right to refuse to grant a building permit for this property. The drainage problem was created by properties above this area and were not created by Mr. ,Mandel. . PROPOSAL presented a plan to build an l8-unit, 2 story the property described as Lot 23 and part of located at the southwest corner of Glen Road and PARK COMMISSION REPORT Shaw reported on further Freeman Park Plans. Also, theBMX track sche- dule has been accepted - deleting "open at all times". COUNCIL REPORTS Request was made by Shaw to have signs placed at the sites of all pro- posed subdivisions or proposed rezoning areas in the future. Moved by Shaw, seconded by Leonardo, to have signs made up for the purpose of clarifying these areas for the public. Motion carried. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Rascop made a request to order 50 "City Limit" signs. An esti- mated cost for these signs came to a figure of $1,678.00. Due to lack of funds for sign replacements, the Mayor postponed his request until funds are available. Haugen moved, seconded by Rascop, to have the city pay fee for the Administrator to attend the City Manager's Conference. Motion carried unanimously. e e Regular Council Meeting - 4 - March 22, 1982 MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Bob Hedtke from the City of Deephaven reviewed some of the proposals to close off or cul-de-sac Vine Street at some location. Further discussion will be continued at a later time. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS AND ADJOURNMENT Moved by Haugen, seconded by Gagne, to approve the claims for payment to be followed by adjournment at 11:25 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. General Fund - [00166] Liquor Fund [00174] Checks 25399 - 25442 Checks 8735 8805 = $ 84,399.79 42,704.25 = Respec~fu11y submitted, '"->--c/~--,d0- X=~Cr Sandra L. Kennelly, Clerk ' ~ OBM MEMORAND~ JM COlluml1l IIGllEEll1 LAID IUIlVIYOIlI \"A.A..) memo l'I: date; comm no.: project : owner: Jim Norton April 26, 1982 033-1744 Minnetonka Moorings City of Shorewood 2021 EAST HENNEPIN AVE. MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55413 (612) 331.8660 subject: Minnetonka Moorings Meeting, April 22, 1982 Today I met at the Shorewood City Hall with the following people: Doug Uhrhammer, City Administrator John Cross, Minnetonka Moorings Bill Dolan, Minnetonka Moorings Engineer The meeting was held to discuss the letter and resolution rejecting the fill permit previously issued for Minnetonka Moorings. The City's concern and reason for rejection was the fact that based on submitted drawings, Minnetonka Moorings intended to fill in part of the wetlands~ QAfter our discussion today, it was apparent that as originally proposed the west end of the parking lot would fill in part of the wetlands. Hower toda John Cross said the would 0 the arkin lot 40 feet short and oint' existing fill. By stopping 40 feet short, the parking lot fill will corne up to the edge of the wetlands. The drainage ditch running through this area has been routed south of the parking lot. This move was approved by the Watershed District and reported on at the December 14, 1981 Shorewood Council'Meeting. It's our feeling Minnetonka Moorings is not filling in the wetlands. They should be allowed to finish what they've begun with the understanding they are to abide by all the previous conditions of construction. Signed: ct: ~ Z:7POEO JPN:nlb /--_. -.----1 * J ...:. . ~ .'" \ r'- l ;)." -- ------...:- f < ~". : ._ _._.'" f --""- ! I ! .: t -.--.. t ':"'~-' .~...--:;a t ;.,' ,- '-r)~ "-- , ~~'".,' "'. I --. -..-_,----, e . 00:.:-:1.%11;9 March 24, 1982 Mr. Doug Uhrhammer, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Mn. 55331 RE: Resolution #36-82 Dear Mr. Uhrhammer, I am in receipt of your letter dated March 15, 1982 and postmarked March 20, 1982. In regards to the resolution numbered #36-82 passed by the City Council on March 8, 1982, I wish to exercise Item #4 of that resolution and have the matter scheduled for a hearing at the next regular City Council meeting. Sincerely, ~q;~ John H. Cross, President MINNETONKA MOORINGS, INC. jhc/w 600 WEST LAKE STREET · SHOREWOOO, MINNESOTA 55331 · PHONE: 474-2533 =!f-2ft March 15, 1982 e . (:ITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Robert Rascop COUNCIL Jan Haugen Tad Shaw Alexander Leonardo Robert Gagne ADMINISTRA TOR Doug Uhrhammer 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . 16121 474-3236 Mr. John Cross, Minnetonka Mooring , 24250 Smithtown Road Shorewood, Mn. 55331 Dear Mr. Cross: This letter is to inform you that the city Council of Shorewood has revoked the fill permit (Permit No. A-163-8l) that was issued to you on December 31, 1981. \ The reasons that the permit has been revoked is stated in the attached Resolution; passed by the City Council on March 8, 1982. Please contact the City Engineer prior to removing the fill, which has been placed in protected wetlands. The city engineer is Mr. James Norton, Phone No. 331-8660. Sincerely, ~~r City Administrator DJU:rd cc: Attorney, Engineer Mayor Rascop, Bldg Insp. Jim Miller ~2B . ..;th:ct I'lumber & Nwne e . pennH II . :t $--- $ AlljuotCll I.'ce $ $. $: $: $ $ $ $ Penni"t li'ce Plan Check Fee State Surcharge Metro S.A.C. SUB'l'O'l'AL Sewer Pemi t II \-Iater Pe.mi t II TOTAL Penni t for: Fire Repair (For Office Use. only) New Construction D':' D'.. . .."..,', '.' . .... o ..' .:....0.::...'... Date Paid s ~ Remodel or Add \'1e11 Penni t # . . $ .'\ . . WARNING Before digging call tocal utilities TELEPHONE. ELECTRIC. GAS Elc. 1r-0UP~~!') BY Lp\\^/ ?r6perty ~mer:- . ;:e~~__13: :~~~ ",etA) . AddresG cJ B (50 _ ~""6'~ Ide.\(;. CITY OF SHOnEWOOD BUILDINq .PEm1.r! ~I.CA!ION /1 !8~ I Da~e~\,~H? /' I I I CP-/ ~L~<!-~ h7);~~ :p..~ Telephone. ijNcP 9'~.3 l.r B.r.le Contractor: :.;' ,'", ",-':':\ _Telephone 1. Legal Description of. Property, including Street Address if known: Lo+ .3) ~\o' ,- D J.Q.~"~tL-1J1'" ~~, 'S.~Woo.Q', Address \. .. 'l. , ",,, ,.,. Plot Plan: Attaeh plot plan' of lot showing location of any proposed or existing buildings on same with respect. to boundary lines.... Show on plan present or proposed location of water supply facilities and - water and sewer supply piping. Plot plans a.re ,to be certified by . a surveyor. .... Disposal of surface water must be shown. Soil Bearing Test may be reqUired at fO\U1dation level by a minimum of , two borings.by. a .Professional Civil Engineer.,':'. .., . Hames and Addresses of Sub-Contractors or Installers of: ,?..._~_""'~..'_'. ..,.'_' >~"<.',J 1. Construction 2 . Sani tary Setler connection:"':"N rI'U )~ 3. \':e1l and rlater Supply. System: LI Cb~struction Information: 1. Estimated value .of work for whioh pemitis re,quested, not including value of lo~. LII0 tJ.1L<~ 0 -'. . . ., '., ... . .;"'- 2. Type of ,work to be done: (J'rame dwelling, remodel, ~ther.) :fo:i. .." .::>'~:jt:'~~ ,...., ' ~ ""W-. ~ c ',' 3. Attach copy of ~orking drawin~.'Jor ich 'construction permit is requested. 4. Att""h domestio water sUpply speoifioations i~d;r~. ~ . . c ~ .....!:!I+".,.". nf ^ nnl icant .. .-.--,,- "8 VI ('1) Q. lD tlI ., OJ 10 ~ -;- {~r . 'r' -.-, - o o ., II to ;., ... ~ o o Q. VI tiT 7\ ('1) . I m o L: Z 1JO~ ~ Z Z Z -- m ~ ~ m ~ I l] - ~ en Z</)\ Z ", J' m U)Zcn oCe -iml] 1> (J) < L'l Q m UlL -~~~ CJ -~z,~._u._.._---- () -, 6 fil n (f) III -- --- ,.illi"/Y , I . . ..,/,0'-. _--- __ ....- . / Sl/b-8-se.----- -- . ~'-~ tJR/VE ____- BJ2/oCi. S0t11-0EJ2 e . April 22, 1982 TO: CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT: POOL & POOL AREAS -28150 Boulder Bridge The four foot high fence on the south side of pool area should have a minimum of three feet even border to facilitate up-keep of fence and grounds. Stair treads and risers and railings must meet the code. The drainage appears to work well with the terrain of his lot; also, if there were a sudden rupture ~ater would be contained on this property. Written approval must be given by south lot property holder. James E. Miller Building Inspector JM:rd Ene. 1 43f3 , . .r .. NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: FROf\'I: Doug Uhrhammer Brad Nielsen DATE: 19 March 1982 RE: FILE NO: Arvidson Docks 656.09 (82.03) At your request we have prepared background information on the Arvidson Docks issue. Since the City Attorney will be addressing the zoning aspects of the situation, our report is confined to describing existing conditions on the Arvidson property and immediately surrounding area. The information presented herein was gathered from the City's most recent tax records, a visual inspection of the site and property descriptions from the Shorewood half-section maps. Based upon property ownership, we have defined a study area around the Arvidson property. Since the half- section maps were felt to be cluttered and confusing, we have prepared a map of the study area which clarifies the property ownership pattern. The following information includes addresses, names of property owners and occupants and use of each parcel. Each parcel was assigned a number (shown in bold typeface on the map) because not all of them have addresses. Approximate locations of docks have been shown on the map with bold letters. MAP NO. 1 23880 Smithtown Road; single family residence owned by Donald Schaefer and H.C.W. Nelson, et al.; occupied by Donald Schaefer. 2 23830 Smithtown Road; single family residence owned and occupied by Shirley M. Feay. 3 23780 Smithtown Road; single family residence owned and occupied by James R. Olds. 4 5590 and 5592 Timber Lane; two family residence owned by Thomas Quam and Donald Frueling; occupied by Shirley Adjick and Michael Urbanski. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 -4F4A . . Doug Uhrhammer' 19 March 1982 Page Two MAP NO. 0-- 5595 and 5597 Timber Lane; two family residence owned by Philip Dutcher; occupied by Mike Arvidson*and Martinson. *Arvidson formerly owned this property as well as Parcel 13 on the map. When Parcel 5 was sold, Arvidson maintained ownership of Parcel 13. 6 23620 and 23622 Smithtown Road; two family residence owned by James Dutcher; occupancy currently not available. 7 5585 Timber Lane; single family residence owned and occupied by Duane Bagdons. (Note: Bagdons has an easement over Parcel 13, Dock F is presumed to belong to Bagdons.) 8 5580 Timber Lane; single family residence owned and occupied by Allen Manning. (Manning also owns 8a - a sliver of property between the Timber Lane and railroad rights-of-way, and 8b - approximately half.of the small penninsula on which two docks (0 and E) and a small storage building are located.) \ 9 5570 Timber Lane; single family residence owned by Henry C.W. Nelson and D.W. Schaefer; currently unoccupied. (Note: These two owners also own Parcel 1 and Parcel 9a - the western half of the penninsula on which Dock C and a small storage building are located.) 10 Undeveloped parcel owned by Axel Nelson and Donald Schaefer. 11 5525 Timber Lane; single family residence owned by Lee Webster; occupied by Thomas Quam. Dock A is located on this parcel. (Note: City records suggest that Quam may be the owner of this property, possibly under a contract for deed arrangement.) 12 Narrow strip of land located between the<lake and -Timber Lane; owned by R. and D. Quam and Donald Frueling. A ramp with a small sailboat (shown as Dock B) is located at the east side of Parcel 12. It is possible that itis actually located on 9a. (Note: A dock permit for this parcel was' applied for and denied in 1978.) ~. Doug Uhrhanmer 19 t<1arch 1982 MAP NO. 13 14 15 A B C D & E F. G & H Page Three Strip of land located immediately east of the small penninsula; owned by Mike Arvidson; Docks F, G and H are located on this parcel. (As noted for Parcel 7, ,Duane Bagdons has an eas~ment over part of Parcel 13 and Dock F is presumed to belong to Bagdons.) 541 West Lake Street; Shorewood Yacht Club owned by Minnetonka Moorings (John Cross); no attempt has been made to show the location of the Yacht Club's multiple docks. Chicago and Northwestern Rai.lroad right-of-way; recently abandoned; while the exact future use has not yet been determined, it seems evident that it will be put to public use. . Dock for Parcel 11. Wooden ramp with a catamaran sitting on it. It is difficul t to determine whether it is located on Parcel 12 or 9a. Dock located at the end 'of Parcel 9~. Under same ownership as Parcel 9 and Parcel 1. Since the house on 9 is vacant, possibly the dock is used only by Parcel 1. Although separated from Parcel 8b by public right-of-way, these two docks are presumed to be owned and used by Parcel 8. Although this dock is located on the Arvidson property (Parcel 13), Parcel 7 apparently includes an easement over the property and the dock is presumed to belong to the Bagdons. Two docks located on Parcel 13, owned by Mike Arvidson. It has been alleged that one of the docks has been rented out. cc: Ga ry La rson .. ~ ) 11 ~~~-- ~ ~ Z 1:1\ ~ ~~ j . ( J ~' ) ~I~j) ",'f"'# , >:.-~/'yt. , .. " '" ~ " ~ ~ :::> t:xa:.L.-?Iaz. .~~l . . . a - ,,--,,_..;;;;;-- ,..."",-,,,,,>,,,,~ _....-'~'- /" t', ~. // ,.. ., I " '" .... ,," "" """ " ~-_., ~ ......,. . '.y-- -',,' , , - ,.. ~ I ~-1ODY-;;;A-~,.- -. ----- .- ...---.- e e -March 22, 1982 MEMO rro: Shorewood City Council FROM: Gary Larson City Attorney You have asked that I write to you concerning Mike Arvidson's use of certain lakeshore property located at the right angle turn on Timber Lane. This property is identified on the Planner's map as'Lots 2 and 3. Apparently these lakeshore lots have been owned in conjunction with the same owner of the lot identified as Parcel 1 for a number of years and boat docks have been maintained there since at least 1930. Additionally" the owners of Lot 5 have an easement across Lots 2 and 3 and the owners of Lot 13 own and dock boats on Lot 10 and the owners of Lots 14 and 15 use lakeshore rights at Lot 11. All of these activities apparently have been taking place for more than 25 years. However, recently the ownersbip of Lot 1 has been severed from Lots 2 and 3 and they are no longer under common ownership. You have asked if the docks located on Lots' 2 and 3 are protected by grandfather rights or the non-conforming use provisions of the Ordinance. Additionally, it appears as though the property may be rented for docking privileges to persons other than the owners of Lots 2 and 3. I enclose a copy of Ordinance No. 77, Section II, Subd. 7, Subd. b and c. After reviewing the non-conforming use of the section of the ordinance, a copy of which I enclose, I have concluded that the combined use of Lots I, 2 and 3 together, 13 and 10 together, and 14, IS, and 11 together, have established non-conforming use status or as commonly referred to as grandf ather rights. I ;, An important element of the non-conforming use regulations are maintenance of the status quo as to the property, i.e. the use cannot be expanded, enlarged or altered. I further conclude, therefore, that the severance of the common ownership between Lots 1 and 2 and 3 effectively eliminates the grandfather rights for Lots 2 and 3. Section II, Subd. 7 c. of Ordinance No. 77 provides "......however ~t dock may be used in accordance with the authority granted through 4/5 pproval of the Village Council in those cases where the dock is 1 cated on an easement or strip of parcel of land not suitable for construction of a residence or use as a residence." In this provision of the ordinance, it would be in the nature of a special or conditional use permit to be granted by the City. Minnesota case law provides that an ordinance with this type of a provision, must set out standards by which the Council is to judge the suitability for giving approval or denial of permission. #4B e e MEMO TO: Shorewood City Council March 22, 1982 Page Two This section sets forth no standard by which the Council can judge or conversely the landowner can decide whether he has a right to a dock and under what situations he is entitled to said dock. In order for that section to be constitutional, I would have to conclude that the drafters of the ordinance intended that the standards set forth for conditional uses should be applied by the City Council in deciding whether to issue a dock permit in the instant case. That would, of course., call for a public hearing and the standards set out in Section 7, Subd.2 B. provide that the use will not have a substantial undue adverse affect upon the adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility fa~il~ties and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare and that the use will be designed and arranged and operated so as to permit the development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the applicable district regulations. , I . , I also am led to understand that there is some history leading up to the denial of the City Council the right to grant Dr. Quam the right to the use of certain property in'a same o~similar situation. The City Council minutes are vague and ambiguous in setting forth the Council's reasons for denying Dr. Quam dockage use. I further note for the Council that Don and Jane Shafer have been clients of mine in the past and that I from time to time represent them in legal matters. They own Lots 14, 15 and 11. The r~ntal of the docks is an entirely different question to be considered by the City and it is my understanding of the City ordinances, that it is illegal regardless of the status of those lots. Gary Larson GL:jo Attachment ....:..e. secl"H.l~NDIT_I().N/~I..U~~S A SuD.,. '''HORITY .. Thl VIII'VI CounCil "'.V. .lIlr revllw .nd 'I,ommlnd.llon by Ih" I>I.nOlng Con"nIUIOII. t.kl .cllon upon. condlllon.1 Uil pI,,,,lt 'lqU.tt, SuDel.2 STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FDA CONDITIONAL. USES A. A condltlon.1 UN INrmlt Ih.1I bl VllnteCl for thl fOllowlnV uses onlv: 1. Any us. Iplclflc;llly IIlt.d II . conelltlon.1 UII In the r'lIulltlOnl 'Pp""DI. 10 the ellll,lct In wnl,h II II to I>Iloc.tl"; 2. Clultlr ellv.lopmlnll In .ccorel.nCI with Ih. provlllonl of Ihll Orelln.n,. In .nv ellltrlct ; .n" 3. Any of Ihl fOllowlOll uNsln .ny railel.nll.1 or ,0mm.rcl.1 ellSlIlcl: (.) RIIIIIIOUS Inllllullon.. provldlel Iherl II' mInimum III. of 7 '''1'' Ihl lit. II .d)"lnt to . 1,,"1 with Vlhlculll IlIfflc 01 over 2000'v.hlclll per d.y. .ndlh.1 In. lit. funller 'I.ell"lnl 10 . commlrcl.1 dlllrlcl. ID) Community r.cre.llon.1 bulldlnlll.na flllds provldea Iney conform 10 Ih. compr.n.n- live Pl.n. 4. Anv of Ih. followlnll UtlS In .ny dlltrlcl: (.) PuD!iC uructu'.s to be uleCl bY the VIII.Ge .na Ine Scnool Dlltrlcl. (0) PUOllc Slruclurel to bl u..a by Ihe VIII'lIe or SChool dlslrlcl P'OVldld .11 MfllY "lIull- \Ion I Ifl mil end luch bulldlnll or '''1111\1 .. lufflclenllY Icrllnld Irom Idl."nl prollll" lill. ' B. A conaillon.l.u.. p..mll Ih.1l bl IIr.nled only If evldlnce II pr.senled 10 'II"blllh: 1. Tn"t Ihe proPoled buildlO\l or u.. will nol hev." IUblt.ntl,,1 or undue "dv.... '''.ct upon "dj"cenl prop..ty. the ch"r"ctlr 01 1111 nel9hborhood. Ir"llIc condlllonl, ullllty f"cllltlel .nd olher m.\lers .fflCIIO\llhl pUbliC hulth. 1I1.ly .nd 9.ner,,1 w.lf.rl; .nd 2. Th.1 Ihl proposed bulldln9 or use will be d'll,ned. ,"'O\I.d .nd op."t.d so as 10 p.rmlt Ih. d.v.lopmlnl .nd UII of nel9hborl0\l prop.rty In .(cord.nC. wllh Ihe .ppllcabll dls- trlCI ..gul.tion. C. Thl VIII.'1 CounCil m.y ImpolI such conditions upon lilt premilll blnlfltld by . condl- 100n.1 UII II m.y bl necI..lry 10 prevlnt or mlnlmlzl Imp.ct upon other prolNrty In the n.illhborhood. V'OI,,"on 01 such condltlonl .nd nllllulldl Ih,,1I be . vlOI.llon of Ihll Ordln"nCl. D. No condit 10n,,1 UII permil Ih.1I be v.lld lor. 'perlod lonver th.n 1 y..r unl.n . bulldln9 p.r. mlt II.inued "nd conUrucllon "clu.lly bIlIun wllhln Ih.t INrlod .nd Illh.rl"ft.r dlllvenlly pursued to compllllon or "ny occup.ncy permit II olllllnld .nd . UII comm.nced wllhln th,,1 period: provia.d. nowever. Ih.t In Ihe C"II of condltlon.1 UIII gr.nlld for pl"nned d.velopm.nl. In. provilionl 01. "ny .pproved devllopm.nt "".dul. Ih,,1I conlrol over lne provllionl 01 Ihil 'Ubp"r","ph. Subd. 3 PROCEDURE A. Prior to foIin, " 10rm"l "PPllc.lion tor. condltlon.1 UII permit .1 h...ln.fter provided. " pro- Iplcliv. "PPllc"nl m.v. bY I.ller to Ih. Ch.lrm.n 01 I". PI.nnln9 Comminlon. reQue" · p,elimin"ry "pP'",,,nCl bel ore Ih. PI.nnln, Commllllon "Ion. of III IIl1ul.r public m.et- .n9' IU gener"lIy .cqu.,nl Ih. PIAnnln, Commllllon wllh Ih. propOlld requesl lor. coneli- 1.0n,,1 ull "nd 10 obl.ln Ihe p,.lImln"ry "lewl of Ihe Commllllon prior to the ."pendllure 01 lundl nllcllwry 10 prelHre tne comPI.1I docum.nl.llon required for" lorm.1 "PPltc"lion. AI ,uch plllimln..y "pp...r"nC'.lhe prOllNcllv. .ppllc"nt Inlll present such inlormoltlon "no ol"nl U he 'h,,1I a..m n.cllwry 1'0 ,.ner"lIy .cqu.lnl tne PI"nnlng CommlUlon wiln nl' prupo"'l. I AI luch preiimln.ry he"rlnll. Ih. m.mbl.. of Ih. Pllnnin9 Commiulon m.y molke .ucn Inquiries "nd ."PII" such view, concernln9 the proPol.' U tney In,,1I ".em oIppropII"e. Tne PI"nnin9 Commllllon m"y. bY wrlllen order. '''CUII Ihe prolPlcliv. .ppltunl I,om submltlln, "ny ,peelllc lIem of Inform.llon or docum.nl required whlcn it m"y fond 10 De unneClllllry to Ih. consldelllion of Ih. .ppllCllion 10 b. flied. B. Whelher or nol Ih. procedu"l h.v. been uIlIlZ.d. An 'OpIlC"llon lor" con.,i1ion.1 use per. mlt In.1I be lubmlll.d to In. VIlIIQe Clerk. A nonr.funa"ble 'PpllcAllon f.. Of S 100.0010 cover "dmlnl'tr"tive co,,, .nd COlli of Ihe lIIarl1\9. 'h. II oIccomp"ny e.en .ppllc.tlon. C. E"c'PI U IP.ellle..;lIy e"cu..dIlY " wrlllen ord.r of Ih. PI.nnln9 Commission. " copy 01 which ord.. Inlll b. .1t.Ched 10 Ih. .ppllullon. Ine .ppllc"tlon In,,1I conllln In. followlnv Inform"t1on .nd O. "ccomp.nled bY Ihe fOllowing submissions. "I w'll <IS lucn .ddltionAI InformAllon .nd IUbmllllons '" may b. pr.scrlbed by rul. of the PI.nnlng Com million: 1. LIlI.1 descrlplion ollne 11101 01 I.nd: 2. Evld.n,e Ih.t Ih. .ppllClnl hU sufflcl.nt control over t". Ir"ct 10 .ff.ctu"l. the propolld pl"n. Inclualnll . ,I.llment of .11 the owne..nlp .na b.n.f1cl.llnter"U In tn. tllct of I.na .nd the proposed developmenl; 3. Evidence of In. f1n.ncl.1 c;eOlblllly of the .ppllunl to comPllt. the prOPOlla a."eIOp. ment; 4.. PI.nl dllwn 10 convenient se.I.. Inowlnll Ihe curr.nt zoning cluSlflc.llon "nO ."lltlng I.nd UII of I"e tr.cl. .nd Ino.. tr.cU alr.clly.d).unl to It. .nd .ny slgnlllc"nl topo- ,"phl,,1 Dr physlul flltur.1 Of Ih. tr.r:I; $. Thrll copl.1 of preliminary pl.nl. allwn to a convenl.nl sc.I.. 1II0wlng the followinll Inform.lion: (.) Th. loc.tlon. Ilze. u... .na .".n,ement of propollCS buildings .nd ."llIlnll bulldlO\l. whiCh will rem.ln. II .ny. (b) T"e propolld Qu.ntll Y .na .".nvement of off.,trllt p.rkln, .na lo.aln, IP.cel, Cc) Th. location of propolld .ntrenea, ..It. and clrcul.tlon drive" Cd) Till loc.tlon. u.. ana 1111 olllructu" anel 01". land u... on ICII.unl propertl.1. CI) PfOpoMellOtl .nd block.. II .ny. CI) A"a. prollOMcl 10 be conveyed. dedlutecl or "..rved for publIC or common op.n 100Cl, II .ny. Includl", perk.. pl.y,round.. K"oollll.. .nd "c",tlon.1 'Klllli'" CII Pf.lImln.ry sketch.. of propOHd Itructur.. .nd l.ndK.pln" (n) The Gene,,1 dllln," pl.n lor Ih. dev.loped tract. (I) A I"oullllon of u.. ...... ,II. COVII'". parkln9 lO.cel, r..la.nll.1 denllly. floor .... a.voted 10 comm.rcl'l UII'. .nd oth.r dev.lopmenl a.t.; 6. Wh.n I'" propollcl dev.lopment Includll provlllonl lor common open IP.ce or r.cr.... 1I0n.1 f"IIItI... . II.tement d.serlbi", thl provlllon In.I.11 to b. m.de for the ".. .na m.lnl.n.nce of such open lP.c. or recr..tlon.' f"lIltle.. If 1111 propo..d In.t such oOln sp.c. 1>1 owned .na:or m"lnl.lned IlY .ny .ntlly other Ih.n . ,0Vlrnm.nlll .utholllY . coP III of th. proposed artlcll' 01 Incorpor.tlon .ny by.lawl of such .ntity Ih,,1I1>1 lul)- mltted: ,. Copl" 01 .ny re""cliv. cov.n.nts th.t a" to be r.cOrd.d w.I" rllPlcl to p,operlY IOCIu- eled In the propolld developmentl .. Wh.n the dev.lopm.nt II to be conllruclla In It.... or unll.. . scneaule lor Ih. a."eIOp. m.nt 01 such ".... or unit' '''.11 be IUbmltted II.lln9 the .ppro.lm.1I b.,lnnln9 .nd completion el.te for each IUch II... or unll. NO IUch .t..e or unit .h.1I h.v. A rlllaenll.1 d.."II" th.t ..c.... DY _re tha" 2$ perunt the propo..d re.lelenU.1 d.n.lty of 11\1 .... tire dev.lopment. Whan . a_lop_t provld.. for common op.n .peCI, the tol.1 .... of common oOln IP.ce provlelecl et .ny .".. of d.velopment sh.l\. "I . minimum. be.r Ih. 11m. "letlonttlll~ to Ih. total OOln IPKl to III provided In tn. entire alVelopment .1 th. Ileee. or unlU comPI.t.d-or under a_lopment bUr to t"e entl.. aevelopm.nt, .; t.. .' t~ ,. f l ~' r} I e e I I i I i i ; 1 j i l M .., C. '....itn.. 01 Ca,"11ca,a 01 OccuP"'ev. No ea"llIc.l. 01 OCCUll;nev 10' a .I.uelu'.. 0' addl' lion 11..'.10. COn.l,ucl.d. ,.con.',uCl.d, '.",od.lad 0' movad ,"a' III. .1I.cllv. d.'a 01 ,,,,. O'dlnance .".11 b. low.d unlll .uc" wo,k II.. b..n compl.I.d .nd 'Ill p'.m.... In.peel.d .nd ca"II,." bV '''a Enlo,um.nl Oltlc.' 10 tI. In hill ."d eompl.I. compll.net willi all I"a .Ppllc. abl. ,..ul.llon. 01 I"" O'dlnance. P'oYIOad, nOWh.', '''a' a Ca'I!lIUla 0' Occup.ncv .".11 be I..uad 0' a w,III.n nollc. '''all be Vly.n '0 I". .ppllcanl .I.llnt ,,,. '..'01'1' W"V . Ca,IIIIu,a c.nnOI Ita IlIuad. withIn I.n day. a, Ita' Iha .acalp, IIV '''a En'o"aman' Olllca, 01 w,III.n nollllc.tlon I".' III. lI,uelu'. 0' pu_ ...10 ,aaOv 10' occup.ncy. O. Tampora,y C.,Wlul. of Occup.ncy. NOI wllllll.ndln, III. p,o"I.lon. of P.,..,.P" ell.'. 01. wll.'. cnnll,ucllon. '.cOnll,ucllon 0' 1."'Od.II"." _truclu,. dOa. nol ,"ul,. I". v.ea" In, 0' 'h. ."uelu,.. 0' w".,a p.,II of I". ",uclu,. ..a ".II.had .;'0 ...Oy 10' occupancy b. 10.. '''a compl.llon of .uch con.trucllon, ,.conll,uellon 0' ,.mOd.llnt. a Tampo,..y e.,II11. cat. 01 Occup.ncy m.v It. luu.d 10' . pa,lod nOl 10 ..eHd .1. mon'h. I,om III 0.'" S.etlon 10 NONoCON"ORMINQ. l.OTS, l.AND uses ANO ST.RUCTURES Sultd. I INTENT Wllllln Ilia dl.I,ICII .'IIt1I1.II'd by 1111. Ordlrl.nce 0' .",.nd",.nll III.t m.y I.t.. b. .doPled. ,,,... nisI loll. lI,uelu,.. .nd I".' of I.nd .nd lI,ueluI.. wlllcll w." I.wlul b.fo.. IlIls o,dln- anc. wll P.llad 0' .m.nd.d, bul wnlc" would b. prolllblted und., t". la,m. 011111. Ordlnanc. 0' lulur. .m.ndm.nl. It I. I". In,.nt 01 1111. 'o'dln.nea 10 p.,mlt 1110.. nonconfo,mltl..IO co"tlnu. unlll th.y ..a .. moved. bul not 10 .nco,,'IV. t".I, ""vlvll" S"eII u...lr. d.cll,.d by I"" O,dlnlnce to b. In- compatibl. wltll pit mill lei "MI In I". dlll.lctl Involvt4. It II f",tll., III. Inl.nt 01 Ihls O,dln- anc. 111.1 n~n'conlor"'It"1 1"111 not bl .nll".d upon, .lllWndtd no, ..t.nd.d, no, be uMd .s "o"nd. 10' .ddln, olh., IUuclu,a. 0' u..s p,ohlDlted .IMW".'. In Ih. ""'. dlll,lct. A non-confo,mln, UI. 01 . IUuelu,., . non.confo,mln, UM of I."d. 0' . non.eonfo,,,,ln, us. 01 I lI,uclu,. .nd IInd 111.11 not b. ..Iand.d 0' .nl...ed .".,. PI..... of thlo O,dlnlne. Oy II. tachm.nl 0' .ddlllonll slvIII to I Oulldln,. 0' Ih. pl.cem.nl of .ddltlon.1 II,ns to . Dulldln.. 0' 'h. pl.cam.nl of .ddltlonll ..,nl 0' dllpl.y d."lc.1 on tll. Ilnd oullld. t". bulldln.. 0' Oy Ih. add.llon 01 0111., u.... IIlu,1l .ddltlons .,. 01 . n.IU'. w"l'" would O. D,ohIOIt.d ..n.'llIy In tIt. dllt,lcl Invol"IeI, To IYOld unou. III,dIIlID. nOlhl'" In thll o.dln.nc. Ihlll De d""led to ,.Qul,. . ehan.. In th. pl.n,. consl,uctlOn, 0, dlll,nallel UI. 01 .ny O"lIdl", on wnlcll .etuII eonlltucllon w.ll.wlul. IV tIIlun p,lo; 10 In. .II.clI". dll. of Idoptlon 0' .m.ndm.nl 01 Ihll O,oln.nca and upon whiCh .clual Ouildlnv constluct.on liaS b..n dlll..ntly CI"lId on. ACIU.I conluucllon II h.'. by oalln.d '0 Includ. III. pl.,I", of con",u,IIon m.t..I.1I In D.'m....nt polltlon .no ........ .d ,n . parm.n.nt mlnn.., .nd d.molltlon, .IImln.tlo" lneS r.",o"lll)f .n ..lllIn, lI,uclU'. In c"nn.cllon wltn luch conll,ucllon. p,ovklld thll .etuII conll,ucllon wo,k sllall be dlll..ntly ca"led on unlll III. compl.tlon Of tlM bUlldl", In"olved, SuOd. 2 NON.CONFORMINQ l.OTS OF RECORD. "n .ny district In wlllc" IIn...f.mlly dW.llln,1 I'. p.,mltt.d. nOlwllnstandln, IImllallon' 1m- potlcl by oth., D,o"lIlonl of tllll O,dln.n,., I Ilnll.flmlly dw./Ilnv Ind cu"oma,y aCClSSO'y lIulldlnv may be ...cl.d on any p,."lously lawfully .uthoUI.d I,"vle 101 01 ,.co,d .1 Ih. el. l.clI". dat. of .doPtlO" 0' .mandm.nt of t"ll O,dlnanc.. Such tol musl O. In IIP.,ala own." Inlp .nd not of contlnuoul Iro"li,. with 01".' loti III III. 11m. own.,,"lp. Tnls p,oylolon Sllall apply ev.n I"ou,h luell lot f.lIs 10 mMt Iha ,.Qul,.m.nll fo, .... 0' width, o. oolh. ,n.t a'. ,an.,ally .ppllclbl. In Ih. dlslrlct. provld.d,tllll y.,d dlm.nslonl Ind otlle, ,aQul,.m.nll not In..ol..ln, .,., or wlell" 0' OOlh of 101 onlll conlorm 10 III. ,.,ul.II0nl'O' I". dlsl,lcl In wnlch SUCh 10' Is loulad. VI;llnc. Of'YI'" '.Qult.",.nu and 0111., ,..'ul.llons '"111 O. oO,.lned only "uou,h acllon 01 Ih. VIII.,. council. " IwO 0' mo,. loti 0' comOln.llonl 01 1011 Ind po,tlo"s 01 'Otl wllh conllnuoul I,on,av. In slnvl. owne"hlp a,a 01 ,.co,d at t". 11m. 01 pI"." 0' amendm.nt 01 Ihll O,dlnlnce, and" all 0' P." of Ih. Iou do nOI mHI Ih. r.oul,.m.nllfO,I..I wlGln .nd a,e.. II .staOlllh.d ov Ihls O,dlnanc.. tn. I.nd' Invol..ad "'.11 It. consld.,ad to It. an undl..kI.OP.re.1 10' tn. pu,po... 01 Ihls O,dlnarv:.. Ind no porllon 01 IIldDI,e.llhlll be UIIO O' sold wnlCh dO.' nol mael 10' anO wldlh aner'.,.. ,.oulr.m.nll .It.blllllad Oy tllll O,dlnanc.. no' .n'lI .ny dlvl,lon 01 tne p..cel GO made which 1.I..el ,.malnlnl .ny 101 with wldlh 0' I'" OIlow Ih. ,.qul,emenu sUled In ,hIIO,dlnanc.. SubtJ.3 NON.CONFORMINQ USES OF L.AND: WI,.,.. at Ih. .lfecll... d.I. 01 .doptlon or amendm.nl 01 InlS O,dlnance, lawlul u.. 01 land ,.Ist' lhal Is no 10nV" pa,ml..lol. und., th. ,.,m, 01 Ih" O,dlnance as ana".d 0' amend.d. .uch ule may be conllnu.d. 10 lon, 1111 r.mllns otll.'W". IIWlul, subj.ct 10 Iha ,,,lIowlnv p,o- vl"ons: A. No IUCh non ,onlo,mlnv UM Ihall Ite .nl.,ved O' Incr..'.d. no' ..tend.d '0 occupy a ~. u!er a'.. 01 Ilnd IIIln wll occupl.d It th. .".cti"e dll. ul IdOP'lon 0' amendmant 01 Inl,O,tS,nanc.. . R. No such non-conlo,mln, ull shall be mo...d In whO" 0' In pa" 10 .nV o'he' pO,II0n ul 'h. Inl 0' p.re.' occupllel Oy s"cn uM .1 I"e .".cll... dal. of .dOPllon 0' .me;.dm.nl ul Ihlo O,d,nanc.. C. " any 'u,,, nOl\oconll"mlnv u.. 01 lano c..... fo, anv ,easnn 10' a De,iO" 01 mo,. I"an ninelv (lIOI davl, .ny luo..Quenl u.. olsuc" land .h.1I cnn'o,,,, lu Ine ,e"ulal ,on, sp.cll,ed Oy 'hiS Ordinanc. In' II.. dl.I,le' In wn'ch ""h lano ., local.d. Subd.4 NON. CONFORMING STRUCTURES I' a .awlul ull n' . ","ctu,e. I)' (0' .Uuclu,. and p,eml,,, ,n cllmOin.llon, eIli"..1 Ihe ,lie"..' da,e f'I .d"'lIl1on ,.. am.,Id",.n, ul Ihl. O,dlnanu I"a' .....ulel n"l O. allllwe" ,n Ine o,,,..c, unde, the term, u' 11"\ Uldtn-t.,,_. the '.w'ul U\e In.y be r'.I.,..nued '0 lOftq lU If ,em~ln\ ul".'- w." law'ul, ."Oitlcl 10 III. Inll"wl", p,o....iDnl: A. No su,IISlluclu,. m.y O. .nla".d, ..I.ntHd. c"ny.,I.O, ,.,onsUuclad 0' ".uelu,.lIv .... le,.d ..nl... ,n. UM of tll. It,uelu,. "cn.",adIO ,.n. pe,mlll.o wltllln III. O.strlcl In wh"n su'h bullOlnt IIIOC.llld. Th. no...conl')lmln, u.. .11.11 nOI Ih.,.a".' be ..,ume". 8. Should "'cll st,uel"'. b. d.Stroyed Oy .ny melnl to.an ..I.nt 01 mo,. Ihl,. IiIIV ISO"') p.re.nl 01 il> aDprlitlcl ".Iue "' 11m. ..I d..I,uctiOn, It "'.all 01 nOl ,.con.trucl.d ..c.p, in c..nlo,"'lty wllh 1111 pro"lllonl Clt Ihll arGinIne.. C. Should luc.h lI,uelu,. b. mo..1eI 1M any ,.."~n fM .ny dlstlnce wn~looeve'. il shall ",.,",,,, conto,m 10 tn. ,.,ulltlono 10' Ih. "lillie' .n wlllell It .. localed .IIe, II is m....eo. l), Wh.n a "o~c.onlO'mln, UII 01 a ,truClU'" 0' It,uelu,. .11" p,.mis.sln comoln.tion. i. "isc,,,,lIn,,ad '" ..O.n"oned lor II. C61 co.....eu\l". monlhl or 10' .IIIII..n (III mon,'" du.. In, .ny Ih,_y.., pe,lnd. tlla ",uelu,e. or sl,uclu'. .nd p,.m..e, In comOln.IIOl\. s".all nol "'e,ea'.a, O. IlS.d ,.c.pl i.. cunlo,mlnet wlln Ill. ",,,"t1ons iiI 'h. dlSI,lcl In Wnlch .1 " Inca lad. E. Whtn . non-culI'o,ml", u,a II.Iul .appll.s '0 .a sl,uclu,. and Dreml... in <nmOlnallon. ,amov.1 o. <Inl,ur.tlull u. In. U,uc,u,aslllllelimlna,a In. non'~llnlo'mln9 Italu\ 01 'he 'and _ 1'". OUCIIS p,..enlly b.in" Ulld contrl'y 10 Ihl. IIcllon shall oe "oy.,ned OV Sac.',on II. SuOel. 7. Ind ",ch ".. 111.11 lu,lh., O. IImll.O bY 1111 r..ul.lilln\ ... '''a ...M.C.O. SuO". S REPAIRS ANa MAINTENANCE On anv bUlld;n, de..ol.d In wllol. o. In pa,t 10 a"y non-confo,m.n, U'., wO'" mav lie done in .any p.nod of Iw.lv. (12)' coniIC"IIv. monlhs on o,din.,y r.pa"" 0' nn ..pa" 0' ..pl.c.men, 01 non.tIIl,ln, w.alll, II.Iu,,,, wl,lnv 0' plum",,,,, to .n ..I.nl nOl uce.d.n, len C 101 p.,. cenl nl Ih. cu".n, app,.ahlel ...Iu. of III' bUlldl"', pro"ld.d Ihll In. cuOlcal soace (onl.nl 01 ,ne Ouilel.", .as II ...lIed .1 ,,,. tlm. 01 IWS....o' .m.ndm.nt 01 tllll Ordlll.nc. sllall nOl tlOl .ncr..'.d. ' NOlhln, ,., 1111, O,dlnanr.. 111111 O. dHmect 10 pr....nl III. 1t.."'lh.n.n, ... 'aUu,ln9 lu . ul. ~ond.lion 01 any ltullO,ne (I, Dlfl tll.,tol decl.,.d to DI un"l. Oy .any V.lla,. ollle.al ,"a"ed w.ln p'n'lCtin, I". ouOllc III.ly, UDOII o,d., ... wc" o'lic,"I. . ~ 4 e e ., \ECTION II 'AN~RAI. PROVISIOIIIS SIIOO. 1 c.:OMPI.IANCE ['(OPI 1\ h.,.lna"., p,ovld.d: NO bUlla. nil. ,t,uclu.. 0' l.nO '1'1.11 1'1....".. b' u,ed 0' Occupied, and no bulldlnll o. ",uclure nr P.,t 11'1"'0' 'hili her..I,.. b. .."I.d, con",uct.o, recon,tru".d, mov.d O' \I'U"u..lly I" t..,.o un"" In con1o.mlly wlln .11 01 In. '1lIullllon, ne"ln ,peclfl.d '0' 11'1' dhl,,,, In wnlen .1 i, IOCII.d. Subd.:l BUILDINO REQUIREMENTS No builOlng 0' 011'1" II""lu.. '1'1.11 1'I....ft.. b. er.cteo o. .ne,ed, to .."eO In 1'1"\11'11. 10 U' commoOI" o. 1'I0u.. I I,ute, numb.. 0' 1Imlll". to occuPV I 1I,.ate. p..cen\lll' 0' 101 .'''' 10 1'1.". n."ow.. o. ,m.II.' re.' V..d', Iront YIIO" lid. y.,dl O' 011'1.. open 'PICII;II'I.n 1'I....n reQullld; O' In anv ot....r m.nner conlrarv 10 11'1. provlllon, 0' 11'111 Ord.nanc.. Subel. ) AREA REQUIREMENTS NO p." 01 a yerd, or oll'l.r 0::.1'1 Ipace, or oll.'trul parklnl 0' 10ad.nt Ipace reQul,.el about 0' 'n eonn"l.on wlln ,nv bulld.lRlI '0' Il'Ie pu.po.. 0' compllIlnl .'""I Ihl, ordinance ,l'Iall be In. C1uO.el 1\ Pili 0' . Vlld. op.n IPU', or off.",..t Pllkln, 0' lo,dln, IPaee Ilmllllly requIred I(), Iny otl'l" bullOln" e.cept II mOdified h..elna"er, No Ylld or lOt elllllln, ,t th' 11m' Of p,..a.. of thll ordln'nce Ih,lI b. reduced In slle 0' a,u b.low 11'1' minimum reQulremen" Mt fo't" "..eln. Vlldl or tOil cruted after the ell"live da.. 01 thll o,dlnanee Il'Iall me,' ,t "," th, minImum rlQulram,ntlllt'blll"ed bV tl'lll ord.n. ance. SubO. . MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS In Ih.1r Interprellllon and IIppllcellon, Ih' provlllons O. thll ordinance Ih,lI beheld to be mini. mum requirements. adopl.d for 'h, promotion of the pUblic health, ..',tV. con"enlence, com. 10'1, p'olpe,lIv 0' ,en,rel w,If,r.. W"."".. th' reQulrem,nU Of thl' Ordinance er, In "a,llInce wlln tl'le "Qul"m,nU of IInv other lawfullV IIdopted rul',. ",ulaUons. Ord'nanclI.deed "",Ic- lion O' covenann, th. mOil re,trlclI"e or ""' Impolln, th, "I,".r "aneterd'. ,hllll ,overn. Subej.5 HEIGHT LIMITATIONS NOT APPLICABL!:'. ., T". ".III"t IImllllllon, ,lIpul,tedln thIS orllln_nee "'1111 not ,pplV to t". followlnll: 'A. E"enllll S.."lce Structu"" Archltecturel fllI'ures. E'c.: C"urCh Iplres. beltrl". CUPOIII 111'111 ""mes. water towers. Iran,mlnlon lo_rl, fl.. pOles. a..lall 'nd ".'''lItor p,n' "OUM" Subll.6. VARO ANO "RONTAOE LIMITATIONS NOT APPLICABLE T"e va'lI 'nil fron,a.. IImltatlonl "Ipulated el"wllere In t"" ordlnanee 'hllll nol liP Ply to t"a fOllowlnll: .. A. A.a,..e Depl" of "ront Vllrlll - Front Vull ObMr"ed: In anv dl,trlcl w"". front YII,dl .re ,aQulrell and wile" lortv ("01 p.,cent or more of the fronta.. on on' ,llIe of , ,tr..1 Datwun IWO In,er"ctln, "r.ell II oeveloped wltll bulldlngl '''al IIave a Iront y,rll t".t il llre..er 0, 'e.. '''an '''e reQulrell Iront vard In ,he lI1Strlct, 110 lIulldln, '''1111 prol'cl beyond I'" 1I""alle front vardlO ,n'III1"'ed. S. Lak..llore 5"~Ck': LOll borllerlng upon "kas"or' '''all m,lntain M'bllCk' from tile w.l.. 0' .. 'elllt 50 f.., unll.. relluced or Mt fort" In SuDct 7 "",of. T"" "tbllck "Quire. ment s".1I IIl1ve precedence over all otll" nructural loll back reQulrem,n,s. C. Varll SP.ce Encrouhm,nll. Prolectlonl In'o Vllrd,. TII. fOllowln, prolectlon' m,y De p"mltt.d In,o ,ny front. rear or ,.Ierior sid' y,'1I all- jl)inlnll II .tr..t 10' IIi'lL 1. Co.nlc... 111Is. bill courMs. eav.. and 0'"'' ornamen'al featur., to a dlllance 0' not more t"an IwO 121'''' ,Ill 161 InChes. 2. Fire ..CIIPlI '0 a dl'tence of 1'101 more Ihan four 1"1 feet II. 161Inc"u" 3. L.nlllngl IInd uncovered porc"", w"en conllrucl'd more t"lIn ,I. 161 Inc".. abo"e IIIe ,rounll 'evel lit '''I bullllln, 1111.. to . "orlzontal IIln,nce o. 1101 more t"an ,Ill 16I,..t. p.o- "Idell ,alII landin, or porc" "U III Iloor no """" than t"e .ntrllnu floor 01 ,"e bulllllno. An open rllllln, no """" 1"111'1 t"". 131 f..t Il11 (61111C"" mav Da pl'cell'around IUC" ,,'UC. tU'L .. Say wlnllow, anet c"lmnllll '0 a dl,',nce of no' more t"an I"ree (31 f.at. pro"ldeO t".t ,urh 'ell'ur.. 110 not occUPV. In IIIe ...r..a'e. more IIIan on.'I'II,dl1/31 '''e len"" 01 tha buildlnll wa" on which t"ey lire loca'ad. 5. POll.Coche,as or canopies to a dlllllnce of nOI more t"an two 121 fe.t Illl 161.nc"." 6. Salconles. In R..lCIenee Oll"lcll. to II dlltanu o. nor more Ih.n I"re. 131 'eat inlO varlll of .... t"an twenty 1201 f..t 'nd '0 a dl,tllnee of nol more t",n (61' ,Ill te.1 11'110 y.rdl of more t"an twenty 1201 f..t: pro"lded that Mid Dlllconl" 110 not occupy, In t". .1111"'11", more t"an on.,"I'''' 1l/31 ,,,. 'en,'" of t'" bullllln, wall on w"lcll th.V ... lO- cated. O. 'n'.rlo' SllIe Vulll: SUbJect to t'" IImltlltlon' for f.a'ures proj'ctinll Into Ironl ya,el'l. .11111 'utur.. m.V. 1110 proJ.ct Into rlQulred varll' ICIlolnln, int"lor ,Ill. 10' 111'1.'. p.ovldall t"at t". al,tance '''all no' ellcMd on.flft" 11/51 of I'" rlQulrell I.all wldl" o. ,uc" 110. vard anll no' more '''an t"r.. (31 f..t In IInV call. ' 5ubll.7 REGULAflONS APPLICABLE TO LAKE SHOREI.INE PROPERTY A. No I,".cture Of IIny kind '''1111 be built wit"ln filty 1~01 fee' of t"e "19" wa,er ma.k 01 · munllered I.k.. 'lleept l"a' ullO" "/5th', IIpprov,l of t".v.II"a Cnuncll. '''I m,n,mllm dlnance mav ... reduced to tlllrty.fh,. (351 ,..t. 0....""" used. Of occuplell on lanll ~r~:~~~~~~::~:E:~r~~I~:::~::E:~=~I=~i~~~~'~~~::='o:o ~:.I~U~I~P::- ~cc~~: ~u::::,c~fo~:,:::f~nc1 w""".. p.. lot Of parul otlendln ,"e R Ol,trlc', I"a:..::: limited '0 on. antS I'"~ .."'. ,"all be operated. Uloid and melntalnedlOlely for '''I UM ollled member' 01 the famllV or 'amlll" occuPVln, 'altSdPropert~:.::: a':~~~~I:~',~:::,~sll::OuII" provillell "ow,,,.,. tll. dock may be uMct In accor anee w .,5t'" ,pprov'l O' ,,,, VIII". Council In t"o.M' caM't ~~~:"t:: :~::I~~~~:a~~tSu:: ,a.". era::.: men, or ""p or p"c'l of lanll not IUllaDI. or con, r..~ .... ~ ~'n~~ DOli' barge bOllt"ou" 0' Olh" lloatln9 "..", or ,,~uClure tied or connectell 10 a d~CI< or w,,;,f w,lnln th' Villa" 0' anc"ored wllllln t"e Inn" "arbor 11m III o. ''''I VIII'lIe, 1\ defined by orllln,nc" of '''I' Villa,., '''1111 be Uloid II , permanenl, "mpora'y. or ..a.un. .ble r.lld.nc,.' ' .. r t 0 i'hl '-. ,E. No dock or wharf, p..manent or flOlltln, structure ,"all be lon' ell or con'tru~ e w n live (!II la.I o' ,"e IIlIe 10' line 01 any 10' or parcel prolected to ,"e Inner "..bor hmlll. F NO OOCI< 'ocat'd wll"ln tile R Olllrlcll I"all ellt'ntS furt"" In,o I'" water Inan ""onao- I; nac"..ry to provlll' dockln, 'pllce lor bOIlU and crefll used bY I"', owner 0' tl'le OOCk. .nd unller no circumstance ,IIal- , 1I0ck c",'e a "fety orlla"II_lIunal ""lIrd or "lOCI< ."y cha"nel or acce.. to I'"~ I,ke 'tom 1CI101nln,lolI or, parcals. Subll, . MOAE THAN ONE PRINCIPAL.. BUILDING ON A LOT NO' more '''an 9ne pr'nCIPlI build In, ,''," ... 10c"etS on I lot. In ""ld.nce OIU,lcll R.l anll R.2 ..cept olh"wlM author lied DV '''I' or.ln,nce lpeclflcallll. ~ , . , i' TO: The Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED 470 Pillsbury Center; Minneapolis. Minnesota SS402 FROM: David L. Graven RE: Ron Johnson Application for PUD DATE: April 26, 1982 As attorney for Ron Johnson, I would like to make the following br ief comments as you pr~pare to vote on this most important matter. There has been speculation and questions by the neighbors as to the impact of a Ron Johnson bankruptcy on the future of the twenty acres if it were to be zoned PUD. In add i tion, there ,is a strong implication in one of the letters that Johnson had, in fact, undergone bankruptcy, making the question even more relevant. The Mayor and Council should be advised that Mr. Johnson has never filed either personal or business bankruptcy in any corporation in which he had an interest. The answer to the speculation as to future uses of the research estate in the event that Johnson is dead, bankrupt, or incompetent is in the drafting of the agreements of Johnson with the City which are a part of the PUD process. with the excellent professional help the city has, including its Planner and Attorney, strict and strong assurances can be built into the agreement which will insure that the future use of the property will be just exactly what is asked for in the present rezoning. It should be clear by now that the major objections of the neighbors are to the present situation at his house and do not rela te, as I see it, in any way to the desireabili ty of the research estate PUD. It is hard to conceive a less intensive use of the property. I don't think any reasonable person familiar with land use law in Minnesota can agree with those who say the land must be left vacant for hikers and bikers. On any zoning issue if one uses a decibel meter the anti's will win every time. Many people that are generally in favor of, or at least neutral to any proposed development, do not wish to get involved or take the time" and trouble to support a worthwhile project. The council vote on this most important matter should reflect the interest of those people who aren't here as well as those who are. Granting of the PUD gives stability and certainty to a large area that will remain uncertain otherwise as to its long- range use. It will provide a needed tax base for the City and school district. It will further the state policy envisioned by Wellspring and other statewide organizations which see Minnesota's long range future hitched to high technology and its spinoffs. The legitimate concerns of the neighbors as to the environmental or visual impact of development are fully addressed in previous submissions by Mr. Johnson and, as your own planner has indicated, can be basically alleviated and handled in a most satisfactory manner. . "., ," e e Patrick R. Malmsten 5350 Shady Hills Circle Shorewood, MN 55331 April 13, 1982 Shorewood City Council Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: IXI Laboratories/Ron Johnson Dear Council Members: I am writing. this letter in protest to the proposal of IXI Laboratories, Ron Johnson to rezone the 20 acre site behind his home in Shady Hills to a P.U.D. for the purpose of building a "Research Estate" in a residential community. Shady Hills is a fine residential community. The residents are permanent and have developed Shady Hills into a community of concerned, participa- tive people. We.have all in Shady Hills lived through the sewer, ..1he water.~the Burger King problems. I have lived in Shady Hills for over 20 years. My professional background is with Honeywell Inc.'- Defense Systems Division. As I indicated in the meeting on April 12, my pos.ition includes numerous professional engineers and technicians re~orting to me, tool and die makers, and a considerable number of skilled and semi skilled production workers. I therefore believe I know what constitutes manufacturing, development, and what I personally have observed at the Ron Johnson residence. The fi rst P6NJt I woul d 1 ike ~o make rega.r.di ng thi&<'matle-~ is. the ~urrent status of the~on JOhnson res1dence, although I do know th1S 1S be1ng addressed separately_ in legal actign.--a-g-alnst Ron Johnson. The present place is an eye sore. 'With .Ql-a. -strC~covered buildings and 12 to 15 auto- mobil es parkey.poofHl--SnaUy-.,Hi 11 s Ci rcl e duri ng the day and frequently into the~ing and on weeken.ds. I cannot agree.that this is a "Research Estate". A factory tour will show that this operation has manufacturing equipment - drill presses~ metal lathes, milling machines. (Ron Johnson admitted this.) He did not cover that there is a warehouse to store raw material. It has a stockroom to store parts in inventory. It has an assembly section. It has a purchasing department. This is a typical small manufacturing operation. I pick up electrical interference on my T.V. set when certain equipment 1S running during the day and night. The operators all come at the same time, go to lunch at the same time, go home at the same time unless working overtime. This generally runs to *5 e e '"-: > ,. Shorewood City Council April 13, 1982 Page 2 9:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. On Saturday, it is common to have three to four cars outside. Is this a "Research Estate"? In my opinion this profit making endeavor is not. Deliveries from United Parcel come in daily. The product currently must go out in station wagons or cars. As I work daily I am not sure. Up to a year ago (1981) moving vans were used to ship the product. Althougn-'ffifs did not come uP in the proposal to the Council, I remember in the proposal lathe Planning Comnission that there was included a dock. Why w.ould a Research Estate need. a dock? Another point which came up in the meeting Monday, April 12, was that the residents have ly complained in the la.st..jlear...---~s disappointing to me. We all fee Bonhecause some years ago he went through bankruptcy and as a !,_e.5-ltfts-tar ed--in.J!.is home. During this start up period, ther~two or three cars onl~up front. It is in the last~hree years that this business has grown to the eye sore it is. This only points up to me that the residents of Shady Hills were too nice to Ron Johnson and now it comes back to perhaps bite us. This also leads me to question what will happen to the proposed "Research Estate" as it grows. Will this mean more buildings, more cars and traffic? The Johnson attorney, Mr. Lee, made a pleading comment that Ron wanted to be near his work (so would I) and'that Ron w~nted to preserve the neighborhood, the ecology, etc. Yet we have had that present eye sore and 12 to 15 autos in front. This does not seem to be consistent and should be taken for what it is. The second point I want to make is the proposed rezoning. This residential area is now zoned Rl. This proposal. would be a precident setting change to a P.U.D. What would happen if IXI Laboratories went bankrupt or moved, or expanded? If a P.U.D. is granted for this section, then it is a lot easier for adjacent land to follow this precident and lead to what? We do not want apartment buildings or similar non Rl structures on the west side of Vine Hill Road the same as we have on the east side of Vine Hill Road in Minnetonka. Thir~ I believe in the past that Ron Johnson has promised the Council that he wo~ld discontinue the present operation. Ron Johnson told me when he built the warehouse that this would be temporary. Ron Johnson indicated that the parking problem would be improved. This never happened. Did Ron Johnson get a permit to build the warehouse? All of these indicate that there is ah increasing lack of respect for the Council and the neighborhood by Ron Johnson. The upcoming law suit re-enforces this contention. Ron Johnson has lived in Shady Hills for about 12 years. For most of this time he has been a good neighbor. It is in the last two to three that he is taking an increasingly unfair advantage of the neighborhood that gets worse daily. e e ~. Shorewood City Council April 13, 1982 page 3 Finally, Ron Johnson has three other plants as I remember in the presentation. Why is one of these sites not a proper place for this "Research Estate". These are probably in a non residential zoned location. Why is this not considered by Ron Johnson when they would not be a great hardship? I ask the Shorewood Council to consider all of the above in turning down this proposal, as did the Planning Commission, and let Shady 'Hills remain a residential community. Sincerely, L'?R~~ Patrick,R. Malmsten "'""-------.... e ~v 110 f' April 16, 1982 Shorewood City Council 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 e REF: Shady Hills Research Estate Let's be sensible! The appeal of Shorewood is that it is a residential community. We do not want anything other that residential in our area! There are numeroous other areas throughout the Twin City area already zoned for the -type of business suggested. Why reward someone who is already violating zoning laws by allowin~him to build an eye s.~7 J1~~reQJ~Jll Dan and Rebecca Huber :- , e e 5210 Shady LAn~ Shorewood, MN 55331 April 16, lQ82 ' Shorowood city Council 5755 Country Club Rond Shor~wood, MN 55331 Denr Council Members: I am writing to object to e proposal put forth by IXI L~borAtories owned by Mr. Ron Johnson to rezone a 20 acre site in Shady Hills to a P.U.D. for the purpose of building a "Rese~rch Estate". J~st two months ago my family which includes my wife, MArv A'nn end two young children, moved into the Shady Hills' communtty from Ph1.1adelph1.a. W8,. selected th1s community because, it WAS a qu1.et, attractive res1.dent1.al community and was part of Shorewood, wh1.ch hAd e reput~tion of being P. resident1.al community stresstni family life and upholding zoning restr1.ct1.~ns. It was very d1.stunbing to hear, A few weeks After arrtv IDi here, that there may be a rezoning of propat'ty very near our costly new home. In addition, ! was very disturbed to d1scover thAt three blocks away from my horne a ma nufQcturlng bus1. ness en terpr1.se was being conductediQ a restdential home. I had understood thFlt such l2'act1ces were.no't permltted 1n Shorewood. The home 1n t"'Uest1.on 1s/unslghtlyand creates a high volume of trAffic on stre~t'5"occupied by chi.ldren on bicycles and the fe\.J fA[\'}ily vehicles otherwise 'traveling this aI'e". As you nre perhAps nware, Shady Hills is A tiny community of just 34 homes. It 1s alre~dy hemmed in by commer1.ca1 development on two sides, the north and the east. It would be A trAgic mistake to surround this smnIl resi dent1.al Area with further commericial development. Issues tar lArger thAn possible tBX incomefol'rthe'oity must be dealt with seriGUsly. The homes, family life, anc investments of more than thirty families would be jeopardized. As you can tell, I am already disappointed thAt the City Council and authorities .in Shorewoodere permitt1ni a commerical business to opera.i;e, 1b-:a,~~uldant18lly zoned neighborhood. Ictlon' should be' taken to stop thAt pract1ce'immed1.Ately. Then the counci.l s~cu~d iO on record 1n atfirmlng the present zoning of the area. As Councl1 will see should they visit the present site of IX! Laboratories, thi~ ln no way classifies 9sa research operation. Tat assist this type of operation to expand into a tine neighborhood would be tragic. ~ . S1nc.frolY."(}f--- , /1 -- I Ut2Jr (;~~I Ref.) Gary F. Anderson e e '1. ~ '. .~~-dft ~~'a 5255 SHADY LANE SHOREWOOD, MN. 55331 APR. 2 1 1982 (612) 474-3827 if? J /s;2- ~l-''''' CrfLL/T'''G..f Jrl~n/tf.~:?: (f)ML 01~ Uv- ru~~ t ~~ fr~ ~1...Q.- -t:rL'I~--c::li~ !c/L-(.-:;tX )--r1/lf"7-<-~ ~ /' A;?" /-~ t;E,,-,,- ~~~~ /~~Vl,'--.-~ J( 11: tP:-D~/ 06 j-"-~~,,,:;; ~<I?J~ G--<,J) ~"'"i.!1' f' ~ ~ u) o..v i,-c-~rr.$(i~/fl1/ rz{llJ ) ~ ~ 0/1 CL;;f' /7'Y~ C'-r.--p t;'L~(:'r'V ~i/r) ~)?~ 1r~ (f2~ r!}c~~~~ ;rU?~--<' -cot:,- ~o-{r.. !~CPV!~ -te-~ &~ crY\-, ~~ LW~P C'JT>:-"-) (W d7 (,v:,ff -Yw!; 17 ,frU (je~ {,V c.tY-P ({<,(if be &r."'1fLOj;J, , :?11/';;[ {;eP.,L~.r I,<,~~ (?~ ~ if"", d~ /?Q,~1, U O--dl~~;;"" of -.@p ~~' f ,c'Hfh7' ~7'2f'~'~:"'~', -rk 7V ~~ / -t!/Q -bt~~) ff/tO .9/(:.p~-Li2.J #UJ //vvCo-~/ ~- oPJ?-t;;;-o ),C'-o.rj!-7 A> oK J"" a J?jJ;J~~~ ~ o-fl ~ Il;e !2.Jt.-cP~--9 /YL-<) --J--Y~ ' IU-f jV'.,:JR.< g,,.,,r C'fl"<-'- -3 ~ ..l-btf- ~ , ~'I:R~vjJ4!, U7Y>~ 5c:P~ cr<- ~ v.~ on,. ,JJ /ILO/I,"-) .j. 1J"'yw-LR, J""~~ ). ~ ~~ .(!V'/U ~ j2.p ~ /r'L,;fV 7J.f,'~ -a k M/l.<', ~ D O"}1/~C ~-1r d~-e -:r ~. d. 1YtA.~~ (3,J2fl/..c-~T~Y~ .J~--r- ~'7 .rlL~/}d 6kecz ~' ~. ~ n ~ ....J.v,y.lft~'\.e~;Y ~.. t&.e OU~IA~~ ttZ~ /jI/'bu'/r jt.o-tlL- 9r.l.<7r C;l_.:z-r?...hJ /') " /J 'J - to t ..L...41. // 0 L. _." :.--II-tC' eyoo'<'j I ~ {J/J2-Wv-f:e ( lpt~'l t9'.ctJ,;-Y CR..//..........~ -z;T-cv.Pl(l11.C.O.....(/...-'?-'" /;;f cr !?,,~-{j clZ?__C-<L4/. cJ--lfk7. {/ (o-h,.!./'- ) \ .. " e - , (fie- (J 'L~ ?J~-:O J}'4#t<( ~ tt:rP Cv/u:P-ilY ~'::::::',~~~l!!P/q:~~::~~ ) o-4-tfd 'i ~ J~~J) ~-~{!2~ t; ~ {!P'1_~7f. " P/ 0Cf ~ I? pA~ " \ e fIt~~~ 5"3e(, ~ H-iilJ ~ ~ ~ t.;-)3~/ ~ lellq8~ ~~~ ~')1\;'Y\.. ~'.J-XI ~ fUO ~ 15~~~~ ~~) {J ~ ~.t}4~ ~ ~::Ii' f (lO ie' r 0.4 ~ ~ ~ ~ t<f:tJ.;. f. U.tJ ~ h-1:)CJ' ~, 'l~.~~ ~ fh ---Vv~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J~~~ ~~ ~~:{f~~a.~tMI~ ~ce~JP~ ~- ~ ~J~ ~ .wJ.- ~ ,;;f ~ w..d A.J.4 ~ ~ h7ft4. ~~ ~ .J)n/),n,,_(j"A-h-~j ~ ~ ~~'f- ~ ~.~ ~~7~~ 05L~ ~.lf)~~~~~~~~ cf(tJ.V-<- ~ ~ ~ tUlJ~ ~~/~ ~~~V$f).~ ~;b; ~~unf-~~{~~~ ~ ~1:VJ~f-uto~~ ~~ :tAt ~~ ot:JXI ~. Jk ~)~ , ~~~- xd.t.~C4Mdf~ AI-i1l4 - ~ ~ f) 'E JtJ r -:tiLu ~ C) ~~~~,. . J~~ ~~ ~~~~~c4-~S-S-~ JldlJ CiJ)~ I B- ~ ~4. ~~ ~ I xI M lLvv ~ ~. fJ-;t..A-. ">>J. ~ ~A poO ~o-Jy~ ~_./1_A I ~ ~ rf ~OA",-rJ;Il_ ~ ~ tA. 10 ~...J)nJ J+ ;It ~ ~ ~;::;;~ 'N) ~ ~ ~ c;/ ~~ , .~ ~~~ 4f U fJ;J.f ~ha ~1IU/-.~ ~~ cw-d~~f~.9~4k4~ ~:r4f(}\~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ci4,c;41 ~ ~ ~,C< ~ k.~~ ~ ~ ~fWt!!I~/MUJ .~d11:tL . ~~~, a-h eeJ-d~ ~rk ~1~;t ~ i-~.:r ~ ~ d-u.-L ~ ~ ~ ~ eM tI... ~.1ljL~~, ~~~~~~ ii ~ IV]. ~ .~. ~ ~ /M.- tIv- ~ ~ ~ ~ 0-- ~ at ~ pO () ~11j.~~ ~~& . f5W-..-~ '. .~~~~ ~~~~d-~~0vvJ~~~ 1-4.J- ~. wle.:f ?~ ~ ~ Awl ;tdJ ~ ~ y ..J. ~ ~ ~ A~,. .. 7 \ ~~~. , d-k ~~4ryr ~~tA~ll~ A.-t~ ~ ~.'l ~ ;d~. tL~~ ~~ ~~~4~ ~--ckI--i4 ~ ~ ;t. ~~ ~ -1k~.ut IS' ~Q-O~~ ~ u~~ '.' tuJv~ ~ ~ cd 1'35"7 ~ · ~. . ()~~ ~ <X4 ~o---eJ ~~ ~~ . ~ AA.nllJtio~~ ~..:v ~ C/-4:th ~:{: ;:i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rJ-U.-'o- ~ D tW~ ~F!Ii iJ. ~ dh. ~ ~ ~ dfIh ~ . ~~~~~. liJL~ ~:tJ, EN}' ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ cUv\- ~c . iJ... . ~ ~.r~~ 4~~Y" ~j \.",~_.._-,.. e _.. ..,_._~.-... e LAW OFFICES ..JOHN E. LEE. ..JR. MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 220 EXCELSIOR. MINN. 55331 ATTORNEY AT LAW 171117 HIGHWAY 7 MINNETONKA.MINNESOTA AREA CODE 812 TELEPHONE, 474.5225 RESIDENCE: 475.11" 'March 18, 1982 TO: Robert Rascop, Mayor City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 TO: Richard J. Knapp, Mayor City of Excelsior 339 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Re: Charles E. Crepeau Property in Shorewood adjoining Co. Rd 19/5mithtown Rd. Part of Gov't. Lot 2, Sect. 34 - 117 - 23 (legal description attached) Ours: 3359-6-L On behalf of Charles E. Crepeau, I enclose copies of proposed Resolutions for adoption by the Councils of the Cities of Shorewood and Excelsior in detaChment/annexation proceedings. The proposed Resolutions have been approved as to form oy the Minnesota Municipal Board. We will submit copies of the Resolutions as adopted by both Cities to the Board's Executive Director to initiate proceedings before the Board as provided by Minnesota statute. The proposal is that the Crepeau property located on County Rd. 19 in Shorewood be annexed by the City of Excelsior. Both cities and the property owner will benefit from this action for the following reasons: ' 1 . The Crepeau property adjoins the westerly boUndary of the City of Excelsior at the south and east lines of the Crepeau property and is, by its geographical location, best suited to be a part of Excelsior. 2. There are now four existing commercial businesses on five contiguous parcels of land located on the south side of Co. Rd. 19, two of which are Excelsior. The other three parcels are located in Shorewood - the Crepeau property. The commercial use of these five parcels of land should be prescribed/regulated by one city zoning ordinance in one commercial zoning district in the same city. 3. The five parcels of land will continue to be used/developed for commercial purposes. The reasons are many: (a) property location (b) existing use of property (c) existing zoning/permits (d) topog- raphy (e) soils (f) nature of adjoining area, etc. These five proper- ties have little or no value as residential property. They are very valuable and in demand for use as commercial property. =ff=6 > .. \ e e March 18, 1982 Page 2 4. It is anticipated that the commercial 20ning of the two easterly parcels in Excelsior (Collision Center and Excelsior Animal Hospital) will continue as the appropriate zoning for the use of the two properties. Excelsior has informally indi- cated to the Owner that the Crepeau property will be zoned commercial upon becoming a part of Excelsior. The adjoining B-2 zone in Excelsior is appropriate zoning for the development/use of the Crepeau property. 5. The Crepeau property was zoned "commercial" from 19,56 to 1973. Shorewood has since down-zoned the Crepeau property. The existing zoning for the Crepeau property under the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance is multiple dwelli~-residential. The proposed use/zoning for the Crepeau property (Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - September,' 1981) is low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre)and'Shorewood has designated the Crepeau property as part of a search area for a proposed community park all of which are totally inappropriate based on the property location, the value of the property, its cost to acquire, and other normal criteria and standards. 6. The proposed Amendments to the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance (see Shorewood Comprehensive Plan - Sept. '81) will not permit the sale/fabrication of Crepeau docks under any zoning district. The contemplated zoning under the Excelsior Zoning Ordinance for the Crepeau property would permit the Owner to continue his business/ commercial activity on the most westerly parcel of his land located on Co. Rd. 19/5mithtown Rd:as well as the other two parcelS. 7. The Owner requires a commercial zoning to develop his property. At this time the Owner is in a holding pattern. Crepeau would like to make improvements on the portion of the property used by Crepeau Manufacturing which has been in continual operation on this property since 1948. The improvements would include construction of a storage building at the rear of the existing structure. The.building on the middle parcel is occupied by The Garden Patch which is a retail bus- iness engaged in the sale of fruits, vegetables, etc. The operators of that business are short of space - the Owner would like to add on to the building. The Owner would like to construct a building for com- mercial use on the most easterly parcel. The owner made and then withdrew an application to do so last year. He was informed that no new building could be built on this property - that a commercial use of this parcel was prohibited by the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance. e e March 18, 1982 Page 3 \ ;./ \ 8. Except as otherwise provided in the Shorewood Comprehensive .Plan (SCP) approved/adopted last September, the City of Shorewood is attempting to discourage/eliminate commercial uses in the City. Pursuant to the PIa n concept, only service-oriented retail type commercial uses will be allowed in cohesive, compact activity cen- ters at locations identified on the maps attached to the Compre- hensive Plan. No fabrication/manufacturing use will be allowed \.under any zoning district anywhere in the city. Less than 1% (35 of 3,754 acres) of City land will be zoned commercial. Shore- wood cannot approve commercial zoning for the Crepeau property ~ithout violating its conceptual plan. Any other zoning is in- jappropriate for the Crepeau property. The annexation of the Crepeau / property to Excelsior would eliminate the problem to Shorewood in . ! that the property would then become commercial but Shorewood would ! not be .setting a precedent which would violate its Comprehensive Plan for the City. 9. The public would benefit by the annexation in that the Owner would upgrade his property with a commercial zoning. As it is now, he cannot do so. 10. Shorewood would lose little tax rev~nue. The property will go downhill under the present zoning. The 'tax benefit. to Excelsior will far outweigh the tax benefit to Shorewood in that the Owner plans to improve/develop his property when it is annexed to Excelsior. 11. By approving the annexation, Shorewood can eliminate a constant hassle/dispute with the Owners of this property. The only reasonable use of the Crepeau property is for commercial purposes. The City can e x p e c t repeated requests for zoning/permits from Crepeau and future own~rs of the property. It is not unlikely that a Court action will be commenced if the inappropriate zoning continues as to the use of the property. In such case, the City will be involved in further disputes and incur unnecessary costs and expense. ~2. The two adjoining commer~ial properties in Excelsior are con- nected to the Excelsior public water system. Following the annexation it is anticipated that the Crepeau property will be served by the E;xcelsior water systelllo Shorewood recognizes in its SCPo thllt cOJDIDercial development requires t~e Owner to provide an adequate water system ~o insure proper fire protection. It is my understanding that Shorewood does not anticipate installing a public water system which will se~the Crepeau property in the foreseeable future. The SCP makes reference to residential opposition (in 1977) to the installation of a community water system in Shorewood~ The Crepeau property would best be served by the City of Excelsior which has. an operating public water sys~em which serves Excel~ior's property owners7residents. " . e e March 18, 1982 Page 4 I've discussed the above matter with' Gary Minion. He operates a business known as "Shorewood Nursery" on his property located ad- jacent to and immediately west of the Crepeau property. Following seven months of actfvity, the Shorewood City Council approved an R-C zoning for Gary's property and issued him a Conditional Use Permit for his nursery (Resolution No. 25-78 passed by the Shore- wood City Council on March 27, 1978 - see attached). Although Shorewood has refused to grant Crepeau a commercial zon- ing for his property, the City has always treated the Crepeau property as commercial in fact. Crepeau has received a number of use/building permits for his property over the years. In addition, the City Council must have determined that commercial use of the Crepeau property would not be discontinued in the foreseeable future when it g ,a ve Gary the R-C zoning for theShorewood Nursery. Shorewood Ord~nance No. 99 a~opted in 1978 (amending Shorewood's Zoning Ordinance No. 77),which added the R-C zone to the Shorewood Zoning Ordinanc~ states in part that the R-C District is intended to provide for a gradual transition between commercial and resi- dential uses. It's a"buffer zone". No other commercial uses adjoin the Shorewood Nursery property. If the'Shorewood Council had thought that the Crepeau property would revert to r~sidential use in the fore- seeable future, it would have had no reason nor authority to place Gary's property in an R-C zone. There are particular on-site problems which affect the development of the Crepeau property. Many years ago the Crepeau property was a garbage dump. The land. \'las filled by dumping garbage - it was not a sanitary landfill. A seal has been formed about three feet below the surface of the ground. Methane and other gases in the ground be- low the seal escape when the seal is broken/ruptured. The land is suitable for slab-type commercial construction - the method used to , construct the buildings occupied by Crepeau Manufacturing Company, The Garden Patch, Excelsior Animal Hospital and the Collision . C en t er. It is totally unsuitable for construction of residential dwelling units. Further, except for the land over the old roadbed, the land is unstable. Expensive pilings would be required if the property is developed for residential purposes. Pilings are not re- quired for slab-type commercial construction over the old roadbed. The businesses now conducted on the Crepeau property are valuable to your community - it would be a shame to lose them. Chuck Crepeau owns! operates Crepeau Manufacturing which fabricates and sells boat docks, canopies, parts, and other related accessories. He estimates that there are in excess of 2,000 Crepeau docks in use on the lakes in the Lake Minnetonka . ^ . e e March 18, 1982 Page 5 area. For every two docks installed on these lakes in the spring of each yea~at least one is a Crepeau dock. The reason his docks are so popular is that he makes/sells a good looking functional dock of good quality. Its popularity can be measured by the number of his docks in use on the lake. His business is service-oriented to residents of the Lake Minnetonka area in that he is the only sup- plier of new Crepeau docks, Crepeau boat canopies, new dock tops, parts. and other Crepeau dock accessories. The location of his business in the Lake Minnetonka area is important to those who pur- chase the docks and accessories from him. He sub-contracts dock installation with six complete crews which primarily serve Lake Minnetonka community residents. The business located on the Crepeau property easterly of Crepeau Manuf'ac.turlng is known as, "The Garden Patch". Their business has been growing steadily - they will need to expand. The Garden Patch is a retail operation which primarily serves residents of Shorewood and the surrounding communities. Chuck plans to construct a new facility on the remaining lot to the eastf>r lease to a business which will also directly serve and be of benefit to your residents. As part of these development plans, Chuck intends to consider the aesthetics/appearance of the land/buildings. including appropriate landscaping. I suggest that your approval ;of the foregoing proposal will permit Chuck to execute his plans to the benefit of the cities, the public, and the owner of the property. In summary, it would benefit all concerned for the two cities to approve Resolutions allowing the detachment/annexation. I will be out of the Twin City area until March 30th. Upon my return, I will call the City Clerk and request that the matter be placed on the Agenda for consideration by your City Council. Cordially yours, ~t~ JEL:be Enclosures cc: Shorewood and Excelsior City Clerks Shorewood and Excelsior City Attorneys Charles Crepeau ,e e PROPERTY OWNER - CHARLES E... CREPEAU PROPERTY OCCUPANTS. Parcel (1) Crepeau Mfg. - 2J44S Smithtown Road - Westerly Parcel Parcel (2) The Garden Patch - 2)44) Smi thtown Road - Middle Parcel i"arcel (J) Vacan4an~.. - Easterly P!U'cel \ - ; Le~l Discription of Property () parcels) That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described as fo11o\\'s: Beginning at the intel'section of the West line of Lot 214, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 135 HENNEPIN COUNTY ?\lINNESOTA with the North line of Traet A, Registered Lpnd Survey No. 436, Files of the Registrar oC Titles, County of Jiennepin; thence East along the North .~ine of said Tract " A a distance of 2~7 feet to the East line of said Lot 214; thence Northerly along said East line and its extension to the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 19; thence Southwest~rly along said Southerly right-of-way line,to the Northerly extension of the West line of said Lot 214; thence South to the point of beginning., Hennepin County, Minnesota. . ., -- .- -. " North i Sec.J4-117-23 CHARLES CREPEAU PROPERTY - 3 parcels under one/single MO. CITY OF SJioPwooo ~o.V Gid.eo'" Solbere.., "~ Point j -+~'" C'> I.r~, 27. ' ~ .. ... o "" CITY' OF SHOREWOOD CITY OF EXCELSIOR I Crepeau's Property (J parce ls) is marked by "red arrows". The build ing to the left/west is occupied by "Crepeau Mfg." The building in the middle is occupied by "The G"arden Patch". The easterly parcel is vacant land. There is a large pond south Of/adjacent to the Cre~eau property. The buildings to the right/east {located in Excelsior) are occupied by "Excelsior Animal Hospital" and the "Collision Center", Excelsior's hockey rink is shown just south of the Collision Center building. Excelsior's maintenance garage, police department, etc. is located on the triangular piece of property on the north side of County Rd. 19 northeasterly Of/across the road from the Collision Center/ hockey rink area. Shorewood Nursery occupies the first building to west of Crepeau Mfg. The marina & dredging company facilities are shown on the lake shore north of County Rd. 19. This aerial photo was taken on 11/18/79. e ... CITY 0 F 1E X '(C lE IL S ~ 0 R MINNESOTA o &Q) ....__....{. I I ICAIA .. ...... ICD I '-6tm I _.. I OFFICIAL ZONING MAP I Ii Adoptad by ~ City Council thll 13th dey of December, 1876. - . ::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::: I :.:.;.:.:.; .:.:.:.;.:.....:..;.:. RI2 ff~~~ 0 e And Two familY ~idential R~3 l.. ..-1=.... 1 ~Itiple Dwelling I I . , ~I (:8-1) H-I HH,J1111111 I 9'e~.wLBu~ejs <.!.::&. . C~l. : -'1 /I~dustrial (1-1) ~ ft'ark e ClTY OF'EXCELSIOR e - SHOREWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE #77 COUJ~ Il IillWTES March 27, '1978 COIIDITIOrlAl USE PERllIT R/C ZONE RESOLUTION NO. 25-78 ~hved by Heiland, seconded by Keeler, to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit application from Cary Minion. 23505 Smith- town Road, to include his property as described (Pldt 34440-7420) in the R-C district and to permit the use as a Nursery and Carde~ Supply Center in accordance with conditions as stated. Hotion carried unanI- mous ly . , , Commercial l~ 1 .Shorewood Nursery. Property now in ~-C Zone - 1978 . CITY OF SHOREWOOD Map from Zoning Ordinance #77 (1973) ) R-1 R'- 2 . Single Family . IT. _....."'. R-3: Two' Family 1 R-4 rR. 5 . Multiple Dwelling : C-1 Neighborhood Convenlenc6 . lC-2 :. Au'tomotlve',co~m~rcI.81 JC-3 G 'I I 1 . enera Commerc 81 ," R-C RE2IDE.i,TIAL':'COiw'ihiERCIAL ZONE .Slngle Family (est,ate) ,-6---[' !. ." ~ j .-,'......... . --~.-;-- . ~ .' Townhouse ..1 . , ...JJ.J1". , I ~--t OD 81 ESOTA I MI SHOREWOOD Existing Land .Use . D Vacant o Designated wetland* D Residential estate =:J Residential 1979 DISTRICT 9 I"~~')' 'Semipublic ~ Public ] E3 convnercial! 8 Industrial Proposed Land Use f::.~::'1 Designated wetland* ~ Semirural residential (0-1 unit per acre) o Low density residential 1-2 uni ts er acre Low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre) DISTRICT 9 m Medium density residential (3-6 units per acre) ~:~:~ . bl' ~. . Semlpu IC ~. ~ Public \ r:J Commercial JAREA PLANS ) DISTRIO 9 lShorewood C.P. - P 117) ids 6/81 j Smithtown Rood to the north, the Excelsior/Shorewood border 'to ,the e'ast, yellowstone Trail to the south and Country Club Rood to the west form the ~oundaries of District 9.' Existing land. uses include large lot residential west of NIory lake with hal f acre reside~tial develop- ment along Echo Rood and Minnetonka Dri~. Commercial uses in this District include auto-oriented ~ommercial on the south side of. County Rood 19 and a commercial nursery in the northeast corner of the District. Badger Park provides recreational facilities for this area of the community and is, the location of the City gafOges and the ilewly con- Crepeau Property located in Northeast corner of District 9. Existing Use _ Commercial Iy a continuation of the current development Proposed Use _ Residential the commercial use in the northeast corner of (2-) units per acre) t in favor of a medium density residential use. Although the SCP identifies · specific commercial uses wi thin District ci; w~1I as District 8 involves tr~ns- the City. no mention is made and Yellowsto~e Trail being used as a shortcut therein that "Crepeau Mfg." & ';',The Garden Patch" are businesses lor the Shorewood Shopping Center mU$t still located in the City of Shorewood. resented: 1) instcll traffic controls to discourage _ _ the route less desirable, or 2) accept the heavier traffic flow and design the rood to handle it. e. e, " . ',FROM SHOREWOOD COMPREHENSIVJ:: PLAN - Sept. 1981 SHOREWOOD" , . P~rks Sy~tem Concept" ", l\1\l\I Reg iona I T ro iI Corridor <€P \, ,~P!'!; [!II !-Is'!. Site ., i @ Mini Pork ' @. Neighborhood Park and l/.l mil~ @ ; service radius €.9 Community Pork ( .} ~ Search areq fot PRlpose" llllur. Community Playfield . ~ park sites . PA:Q.I\S AND OPEN. S.Pl\CE :PLAN ert - to be zoned res1dent1al 2 to J units per' acre) - also shown in are~ (on this ... map) desimated "search area for . ~roposed future park site -Communit~ par~ ...... J area shown includes portion ~. . of and in Excelsior. ~~ ~- .~~ ~ -.:-,"t~; . ~ ~-= ' . - : -=:- IJ kA~; M!NN;TQN~A - s- ..' i. t.' =- . .LAK E fRO NT PARK.. _: e HOREWOOD Area Transpor~ation Plan E:3 Principal Arterial .. Intennediate Arterial - Minor Arterial ..... e * Sourc~: tiennepln County Transportation System Study HOREWOOD ransportation Plan . Intermediate Arterial Minor Arterial _ Collector SHOREWOOD . Mas.s Transit Routes - Bus Routes Source: Metropolit~~ C,?unci I MINNESOTA ...... Potential Future Collector . Local Street ~ Area of ~urther Study . vih 1/79 MINNESOTA I e ORDINANCE NO. . AN ORDINANCE FOR T E PURPOSE OF PRO~OTING HEALTH. SAFETY. ORDER CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. BY REGULATlNG THE USE OF LAND. THE l..OCA TION AND USE OF BUll..DlNGS AND srnUC'ruRES ON LOTS IN TIlE VIlLAGE 01-' SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA The Vi11a,~ Council or th~ Village or Sborewood ordains: !'F.crJO~ 'Z VSTARll~"'JF.VT Of- UI~IR CTS to or thf' purpose or thu ordinance thf' ViIla~f' of Shorr. wood is dividt'd into use di~lrict.s i1~ follows: Rf"5idmti.., Dis11ic1 and Commnrial [);!\tnrt. eal Rt-<idmti..l Oi!\tr~ sh~n embrace all the rra pmprrt~ within thf' boundaries or th(' Viii. a Ite or Sburew<lOd and not de- signated as . Conun~rcial Dis. trict he~in. Cb) t.,n I ~ . U' 0 tu\.\o11l pre1TllS~ Within t' Villa.. f 'h r . Lot 15. m~ .d 24. Auditor'. Subcbvision No. One Hundred Forty-one (I 41 ); Hennepin Coun. ty. Minnesota. ?\ " 4. and the \.erly 200 (ffi or Lot 26 and. th~ Westerly 6W feet of the Northerly .264 (eet of Lot Z7 all in Auditor's SuPdivi. sion . Number 133. Hennepin Counly. Minnesota. and Lot 1. Eurdc.a. . .J Except ,as proVI Section 9, in ~ach district land and stru::tures shall' be used only for purposes listed by this ordinan~ as . ~rmiUed in the district. In each district every' building heN'art~r ere'l"led or structurally altered shall be provided with the reoquired set. back and yards. shall be on a lot or the area sp<<ified. and shall not e1[. c:'ffd the height s~fied in this or. dinllnce ror the district. No opm sp;lC'e or lot reoquirrd for a buildinlt shall during its uistm~ be OC. C\lpird by. or counted as op''f\ Sp;l~ for. another building e FOR r . . lJLA. TIONS. In the rommerciaI district. unlcU othetwise .proVlded In this ordinanC'~. no buildinlt or land .hall be used. and no building shan ~ f'rrct~ or Itructurally altered u- c~ for one or mo~ or the fo11owin1 lriet., unlea otherwbe proVided · In t.h1a ordiDaDCe. DO ~ or land &hall be u.ed. ud no buUd-- InC sball be erected or at.ruc:t.ur- all,. altered except for one or more or the foUowinc UlU: ,1. All UIK'Il 'Permitted In U!t; rulc.lenU..l di~tTlct _ but a~ - ject to the aame .peelal U.e permit requlrementa aet. out 1D Section C. SubdJvlalon' 1. d uUn " AntntnnhUfI' illations. 'or "'the ..Ie or psoline; 011 ~ aDd accuaoriea. pubUc gar&Cu. and automobUe p&l'klnl' Iota. 4. The alrell , llpanclal I~tu- - Uona. telephone and telel'nph o!ficu. meaaenger .o1rlce.a. pro- fessional offices. r\ Csn>enter. furnIture re- r pairing or upholat.ery ahOpll. I book bindIng mopl.' drealI; .maklnl' shops. .hoe repa1~ or d.yelng ahopl. Dewspaper or job prlnUng -eatabll.lhmeDla. electrical. Un.sm1thlng, plumb- Ing. water. 1'&&. or steam tn- ting mops. palnt or paper hanging shops. 8. ther business UseII whIch in the opinion 'of v &I'c council. are of the same I'en- era! characler. && the UlU enumerAted .In tbls subsection and win not. be obnox.loua or detrimental 10 the dlatrict lD which Jooat.ec1. 7. The followln use <onlY upon the ~nl' of a Ilpeclal J!.IIC ~rmlr' proVided 1ft' ~ecm>n T!" a. Undertak .glabn.h- menta; b. Any drive-In bualne.. where people are served in automobiles. c, 0 u t d 0 0 r advertlsln Ili,gn! an stru urell. pro- vided., that. the aame aba.U be erected or placed in ba.ck ot t.he preacrlbed setback line requlrrd In the rq:oula- UOn! tor the resIdential dis- trict. d. )'tot.els. holels. and trail- er plr or tra er or our- iat campa, e. Sf'lf l't'n'kt' laundrlts -nnd drvr1ean'n~ ..nel com. ~erclil laundrtu. f. lbt's ('ommnnll: 11.1'1l~' r"lt'a ~ Hihl Indll!\lrillL I J'a~o;,'.1 !lIb '21111 ''''.r or Jut).. I J~I~6 I \\. !ATTI':ST: i F:U::,\ I \\'II_~";\'. '....,.k 11'..1.. 1I It .\IIKII..~ :!, 1!'1~6. J I. KI-:xr>nJCK Jobyur, . 'r ORDINA~~~~~~.~' ,..t') . AN ORDINANCE:rO AMEND OA. : .0lNANCE,NO." FOR THE PUR. POSE OF PROMOTING . HEALTH. . :SAFETY ORDER. CONVENIENCE i . AND GENERAL Wn;FARE. BY.. RECULATING :THE\'~.USE OF., )...AND THE LOCAT'ON :"NO USE ~ OF. BUILOINCS :.::'ANO:~RUC-'; TURES ON L.OTS"'N;l1'HE;:'~I&:.-~: LAOE OF SHOREWOOO...MIN...... ESOTA. . ..:".:::;.".f......::-..._.l;~:I-..J .. .. -.'..0 .....r.,.'. ........ ~. 'viil. ~ou~.lI iI.f~!l.~VI!~.~C1\ :snon.;..oo.r' OI'c1.lnAA~~-:;.~;;UF'?'.. SECTION 1: Tbat' Section 12. SUb: ; division Ib). somat'CI.' ~.~"tfi: I . Pa,.".ph 13) 0 Or nance o. · ..nd ".~br:.~ ;.!I'!':.~:1.~~;!.~...~., ~~: . '011...&..--.." ..;.;.... .....:.~. .....ti..","..,..... 'a' .. "".., . -~.,... .._....4"...... '"I , . In section '341 ""'e'south 20.... -feel of "Lot pO; t~.'South...1U' f' . 'M';O'"Lot::.1?.1. ~ndudln.~o"" ~. half. :0' 'the '.llCllacent, ".ated t! st,"io::Lo'I'.172.~ In:}.,' ;~ . .nd..3'OS . . .' . ......H~' nwm.n u . ;~ . ft.. lon ki04lr ..l35.~H.nnePln .; : '.count)' Minnesota. .Iso L.OU 1~. , .;.' : l".nd ;5;'Unden ~.rk,. :'. ..' I ~':~. ".- ,~;. :.~ ....~t. ....'h.b....0.rdln..nee1 SECTION,' z:>; ..- .: . '. : ....._U.;t.k. ;.Hec:t~'rom~..nd ...fler ~ltl ; " . "'i;f.rldritit>>llca'~~~..':;"'<u L~U.d~Y..ttM i~ftcjl.thli '12th' ~:c1a . of M.rch... : 11'.3 ~:. ~'~?{-J' .' ." ..' . ~.". -'TrEST.'.: '" ..;-,,-,.- ',:, ~'~~i. ~~IO~~~~~:t:'. /1/ ElM WilDeY. CIe.r:k..~~;tJ-,:",::,,'i.;~. ',,1: " '.' .' _.....;:.:~,,;'1'i~h;\ol.i{l Publl.tu M.tch J.:(l'7J~. .: ~<, .' . I . 0.'.. L"..~"""'.'"'~..r..t'..,~ cre~eau Property by Ordl.nance #8 (19.56) & by.Ordinance #69 (1973) zoned "Commercial" Le~all }ot '291 & ~h~ . vacated road adJol.nl.n ~ame . . ... . e. e' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ., CITY OF SHOREWOOD , . ) STATE OF MINNESOTA The City Council of the City of Shorewood of the st;ate of Minnesota, resolves; . That those certain premises situate in the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin' , described as follows towit: . That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described as tollows: 'Beginning at the . intersection of the West line. of Lot 214, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 135 HENNEPIN COUNTY MINNESOTA with the North line of Tract A, Registered L;and Survey No. 436, Files of the Registrar of Titlcs, County of Hennepin; thence East along the North line of said Tract A 8 distance of 2~7 feet to the East line of said Lot 214; thence Northerly along said East line and its extension to the Southerly 'right-of-way line of County Road No. 19; thence Southwest~rly along'said Southerly right-of-way line,to the Northerly, extension of the West'line of said Lot 214; then~e South to the point of beginning. That the City Council fin~s that the: above described property now located in the City of Shorewood abuts the Ci ty of Excelsior and is prope~ly subject to concurrent -detachment and annexation by concurrent resolutions. 'of the two councils of the two municipalitie~ pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.061. It is the desire of the City of . Shorewo0d that the above described property be concurrently detached from the City f Shorewood o . and, annexed to the City of.. Excelsior That i-hi.s resolution is being adopted concurrently with a similar resolution by the City Council of the City of Excelsior app~o~ing such detachment and annexation.as provided above. Let the above described concurrent detachment and annexation be effective upon the issuance of the board's order or at such.l~ter date as provided by the board in its order. e e. .. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF .. EXCELSIOR ~ STATE OF MINNESOTA The City. Council of the City of EXCELSIOR of the SLate of Minnesota, resolves; , That those certain premises' situate in the State of Minnesota, County of Minnesota , described as follows towit: That part of Government Lot 2, Section 34, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: 'Beginning at the intersection of the West line. of Lot 214, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 135 HENNEPIN COUNTY !\HNNESOTA with the North line of Tract A, Registered ~nd Survey No. 436, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence East along the North line of said Tract A 8 distance of 2~7 feet to the East line of said Lot 214; thence Northerly along said East line and its extension to the Southerly right-of-way line of County Road No. 19. . , thence Southwest~rly alongsaid Southerly right-of-way line.to the Northerly extension of the Westline of said Lot 214; then~e South to the point of beginning. . That the City Council finds that the: above described property now located in the City of Shorewood abuts the City of Excelsior and is prope~ly subj~ct to' concurrent .detachment and annexation by concurrent resolutions. 'of the two councils of the two municipalities pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.061. It is the desire'of the City of. Excelsior that the above described property be concurrently detached from the City of. Shorewood and' annexed to the City of.. Excelsior That ~his resolution is being adopted concurrently with a Shorewood similar resolution by the City Council of the City of appro~i~g such detachment and apnexation.as provided above. Let the above described concurrent detachment and annexation be effective upon the issuance of the board's order or at such.lpter date as provided by the board in its,order. '~___~~.,.~."';';~,.:::;'-;;li~~:.~'.:'!'m~'~~"!"~~~~""'~~--:'''f''J,!,\ ,.,...1,1.,..,4i, ~M~MW' J 1.'tP"'""" A~ -- ~ ~ e e CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 TELE: 612-474.5233 MAYOR Richard J. Knapp Apri 1 13, 1982 COUNCIL Lucille Crow James Grathwol Charles S. Thomson earl H. Weisser CITY MANAGER Timothy G. Madigan John E. Lee Attorney at Law 17917 Hi ghway #7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343 Re: Crepeau Annexation Dear Mr. Lee: In response to your request on behalf of Charles Crepeau for consideration of annexation of property located at 23445 Smithtown Road, the Excelsior City Council at its April 5, meeting, deferred ~ction until official action is taken by the City of Shorewood. , Once the City of Excelsior receives notice of action by the City of Shorewood, due consideration will be given to your request. If you have any questions concerning the Council action, please feel free to contact me at 474-5233. dle~l~ ~ M1digan. .. City Manager cc Ci ty of Shot'ewood p-t E-V-M.,\ v.-:- ~U '1~}. ~ .S. T. I. .c-(",! or . ') VJ-- J. "~~:. .tl(.2.SI..tio::J~ . . &J,,~.,~): J )L' ^ /.I t:;; ....,).l. ':"'- I.' 1'_. '- e .'- -- ., - . 4-11"~-8Z. ~ · ~.--,.- -' ,") . ~ ""N I . _, ,.J . . ~ V' 0: T: G ~il"'\ . 'R. HI tJ? o. eN~e.L C~~ ~8\\<~ crrt{ oP DEtPHAvc.l\J R I . .-)"- ~IDe-"JTS~ Hoop,,;)~: ...r'~. j"-\J I J",.u HAut;ov J CovNClL u.oM,tftJ) SHo;.&'a::1D ntb 'Dee-p H.A~Y"J Re~' D€~.)j~ oF" Hoop(;- ~ l..AKe- ROAO HA~'!1' QCC~Jc.:rru C:=oNmcL OF" -nte" e'l c.'5-""t.S\ VtI ~'FFIC of\) \l11\I~ ~r ... HooP~ J..f1~g- ,o,t)('oD. 1H~~ A~e .30' wIPE; Rl.'t\ow",~( RE'SID~TIAl... "S-r'R~"s. At.Jt) jVs'r CA0r HAtJDU?' T1II~ VOL.u,,-\.Of" ~n=, c -SAF'R'1. IF nte" 11-/f\V T1VtrF/c. f"'KOII-.{ MANol<. ReAD "0 , e-j..,Cf1..SIOf< 81....yD (v,,q VII'.JE :fr tfooP~) ,~ A LLou...c---P tb CDrJTIt-JU&' (t4.NO ttJ(r<.~ASo) TH€l2..'ir wILL P~~OICT~.~L."" 8e; AC.<:'\D01vT~ ArvD tFVCOrvV'G).;C(?' AND UL.TlfAA1fr1.'1 ~ l).J' C E"lv I tv c., ~ v p C, ~ D I NC-t 0 F 1'l'tti ..sn< t:="€TS VJ 1"T14 10:' ~~1:SS M 8\1 ~ A tv\ I ~s r ~ '51~ t1rT Re-WS, ~,. S 1?tS" Dee-'t't-\AYe'.) <::..." eT <-:I r- Pot../ cE :.t- , - &'V~/~z.. HA.~ f-1G"l<JnOf,.leu C/..oSHJ'1 VINe:;. 'Sm~ AI i'HtT D6lr""Ft;AIIb-'f'J 6o"''Dt::-~ ~r Fv r2,itt611.. 01 S('..U~'SIOt\J IN DJ CATt?5 ntAT f\ C t..o~,rJc, AT f'-\.4NOl<.. ~OAO WOUL.D CAV"Se l...e'SS fl\JCol\} l/elVle:1VcE. ~\s of COUt2SC:; J INVC)t..l.-t:l~ 'SH-DtLeiWOOr:>, J ftN H ~vc. ElV (WHo TooK TIM&- TO A~D 'Ttt6 D6ePHAVb;V Co,A.c..'0 HI\~ e~ F~rv\~Ht;;O W"~ ~ 1tvFo/U4A7101V F~OM Db&-PHA~""4 A/Vt:> 1f+e ~lIl?t<. IS Sc H ~Lt:='D FO~ D 'SGl)S~IOI\J AT 11+E' SHor.:CL-'A)oD C, "f1.1 <::...0 v IV C ll. C tJ AP R I \... c... U ~ 4- I\J 0 Ttr tv{. F rJAI'J i z.. f< \ (,L.O e.e o. :J'lJ L,., Ed B. ef\l< tiR s. 8o(.Ktrr" R. LU..JDI\OLH S. ROh tJc .J\ t'-J 1i'1; $ ET<. G.SKOVl fJAfJE'K 'S. K' III ... kl...'1 ~""'A~ I~ <::OPIwf of=" A TJ2A,:'FIC crt &ct< MClDii' .(<&<;6-,...;;,,-'1 AT ~OfJ2.. F2.0AC AND V,tvF-Sr: 1 F' ~ U_,I~t~ 1b VI EVJ A~1..f ~ ntc [)oCU'~~TS Go~c.~r.)l~ PAsr ~Cf1o")S ~~ Al-Le' AVJlI\ILAt3L&" AT 'T1't-e ~1T'l1 HA~L5 ~t~ l(ou.A-V\ (( COr JTA,C.,- t~. 'E. --eo ~ H-t--oTl< r: SO:.i~ H'Cof.:iC)~ 1....1-<:. '?D. 414 - C-foclS- 4-7A ~ '" ,), . LVI"" /7-:> I 3 ))~~ Sir , It )~~,:2 .- . e e TPr.F~IC Flow..l ~-,~- 82 I -",. , " r'.: ,.:' \ - '--T 1."'1 i(.;k ;',c".,",.J,) j 1 ru t::;l ~. S c:. H L - ScHod.. 8JS Dc v - [:;bt'PJ-IAVGT.J ~\iY VE"HIClE:7 I, p.,Fr':}A(~ :J~t F"r.20f"t sou"',,., 011 r.A lJOr::., WR.tJ otJ VOJr;;J I' 3. ... PI" l>.o Ac ~ I ~" r"".\ "1\ST "'1.. oU V/Tjil TtI~rJS'ourA ::>1) ,.....l'ttl.O~ c:r ,. '45 _ 0 - ~ f\ ^ t.~ """'. 0.....)...... r-, 't 2.. A F'~~c.~ ItJl.t!= ~I\ rJa~TH{ q 6N "'A~~ TlJIlUJolJ '1rllirJ 4. A~Pra.OAC.HIN~ fflOM Efrtl ~r} D l) VIM! j' Tv rv.> M:>Jl11i 01J 4- t-o"A~owa.. s: $c:vr;-f fuvu.D) ,vlt/-"K} S' ~, rJot::n-l 5'o.;ut. t-:':/.OR} 8 I. (. : 48 ~:52. ~ :54 r- ----1Joo-1 1;0+ ' 7: 0'1 , B, z. ,~ ltJ. s: - ~~~S~~ r-~:.~~- '-L 7121 (!:lev) 1:2.0 7.~'t'(D'V) B:IS ......-- ._---_.~.._...- .._- 8:l8 - ,:so ,-_ S , , 1(.) 4- 7: '3 J ,: ~ ~($c..H'-) 1:+& "'1 :so r....,,__w S',ot ! ~ 18 ,~s~ r-J:''). g-- '"r.41. '7~~' "14~ ':51 7: S4- '8'.00 ti',l$" ~~'S" 1~Of 1; I$' 1:4b iAI. 1:41 "11 . 1-1\ , o.'~ 1:1Co 0 ~ 7 ',30 1 :-1-1 1 ; -44- 1:50 1',Sl _ 7 :51 .__.~ S:a.)(S'HL) ~:~ o. ,." '-) I'..,) . ) g',oS- i:H;>> ToTA l Tl<AFFI~ Fl.ow - - ~4 ""ANolZ. POAD otJ'-~ Fl.ou..; - I ~ f'L.ow Hj\,/oLVtN'-t VrUt:" Si- 41 FL.o\.() "('~ '/INa ST. -";A~<;;.;O - - - Z8 AJ:F~'<~ lJ!) HcOPEr~ L:-.:, -:,:';', If"rFt':':'E.:c.nOfj (, AND Z. C:O'DE'"'$) C). "0 .) I .. '" , ! ~. ...i..' or Tl"l 1:-'" ,'- , ~ ,-', r ..f', M-" 1....0 ,'''::';<0'':"\ D AT me- .' . f.11 j'-' ..~ ~ f", V ' j '.. --"'I '" VI tv. os T. , ~/jF',~' ';) {;. cr to tlJ ,~ /J'51 Nc., V I Nfi"" S 17 7C, ~~ GC,4.J/ .....,t::' ~F" 11t I OS W.A ;'Fi <::: (coDe $ 2- '- 4-) I ~ THR.U j)QA FF\ c.. VHl i . q C"C tJTICI f;',/rt:--:' ro -n+er Hoo "t:'''~ \..A\(.;: Ru~r) (AI,D 'lIT.?" -S1.) .n..,...'~'. .... ("I:"~'-i:-"""'\.. ~ ~.:..c1"'\-r~~ ,==- .L" 1 ,-/ wiLLIAM O. SCHOELL CARUSLE MADSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON JACK E. GILL THEODORE O. KEMNA JOHN W. EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT R. SCOTT HARRI GERALD L. BACKMAN e e . - SCHOELL & MAOSON,INC. -.. ENGINEERS "NO SURVEYORS I (612) 938-7601 · 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 March 30, 1982 ~ City of Deephaven c/o Mrs. Juliene Weidner, Clerk 20225 Cottagewood Road Deephaven, Minnesota 55391 Subject: Hooper Lake Road Traffic problem Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request ,we have reviewed the above-named sUbject. In reviewing this subject we have used the traffic data collected.by Mr. Robert Hedtke, who resides at 5005 Hooper Lake Road. We have also viewed the problem area in the field. Mr.' Hedtkes report was very thorough and extremely helpful in \ understanding the problems in this area. The solution to the Hooper Lake Road traffic problem is not an easy one to determine nor is anyone particular solution clearly beneficial to all concerned. The key street to any solutions proposed is Vine Street. Vine Street is an inter-community street providing for traffic flow between two communities' sharing approxi- mately 1.5 miles of common border. .Within the reaches of this border the two communities have shared maintenance of roadways and cooperated to provide municipal service to residents of both communities. Three solutions for the Hooper Lake Road traffic problem have been arrived at with the help of Mr. Hedtke's letter. Upgrade Vine Street and Hooper Lake Road to better handle the traffic volumes. Turn Vine Street and Hooper Lake Road into a one way system. Close Vine Street at the Deephaven-Shorewood border. Some of the pros and cons of the three solutions follow. '#lB .. e e SCHOELL & MAOSON.INC. City of Deephaven Page Two March 30, 1982 UPGRADE HOOPER LAKE ROAD The existing right of way for Hooper Lake Road is 33 feet. To handle the traffic volumes during peak periods, a driving surfac.e of 28 feet minimum with:: no on streetr.parJdng: wou1d"ibe required. To construct a road surface of this width, additional right of way is necessary. Driveways and lawn areas will need to be sloped back and regraded. A detailed cost estimate for this alternate has not been prepared. However, the city policy for payment of the costs is to assess the abutting benefitted properties for the improvements. This alternate does not reduce the traffic movement thru this area but merely allows it to become more manageable for what we would estimate to be a fairly high cost. ONEWAY SYSTEM FOR VINE STREET & HOOPER LAKE ROAD A oneway system for these two streets eliminates the problem of high traffic volumes on Hooper Lake Road. Hooper Lake Road could be posted a oneway south and Vine Street oneway west from its intersection with Hooper Lake Road. This system of oneways does solve the drive thru problem but places somewhat of an incon- venience on the residents of Hooper Lake Road. If a oneway system was initiated no upgrading on the existing driving surfaces would be necessary. j/ Discussi,ons with the City of Shorewood officials have not .~. ) been held concerning this alternative. We did briefly discuss the }xi-. ):raffic prol:>lems in this area with Shorewoods Engin~er .and his ~eaction was not supportive of this alternative. '. Again this alternative would be an inconvenience to residents of the area but would solve the traffic problems for a minor amount of cost. ' t CLOSING: OF VINE STREET The third solution is to close Vine Street at the Deephaven- Shorewood border. This alternate also eliminates the high traffic votum~.problems on Hooper Lake Road. This alternate also does not ;t€q4-ire any upgrading of existing roads as in the oneway system. However, a turn-around should be constructed at the end of the road where Vine Street is closed. There will be some cost associated ~'with this construction and will vary as to the degree of turn-around I constructed. For example a full cul-de-sac with a 40 foot radius will be far more costly than a simple tee at the end of the road. If this alternate is chosen a means for payment for the improvements should be determined prior to construction. A detailed cost estimate could be prepared when a type of turn-around is selected. .t L~"./ . / '\ -( <./ lie . e - SCHOELL & MAOSON,INC. City of Deephaven Page Three March 30, 1982 " Although this alternate solves the problem for the Hooper Lake Road residents, the closing of a thru street between two communities is a major action. Input and action by both commu- nities is essential. We will be happy to discuss this report with you at your convenience and if additional information is required please advise. Very truly yours, I, SCHOELL & MADSON, 1V~ /. WREngelhardt/ib .- e e DEE} Jf-lA\ IJ:.N TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Chief Anderson DATE: February 22, 1982 SUBJ: Robert G. 'Hedtke Request of 2/17/82 In my opinion, the solution to this problem is the closing of Vine Street at Manor Road, which I understand was under consideration at one time.' This would involve the cooperation of the City of Shorewood since the intersection is in their city. In the past, I have, talked to a couple of Shorewood resi- dents, east of the intersection, who would favor the closing. A less favor- able solution, but still a solution, would be the'closing of Vine .Street at ~) Gour westerly.~ity limits / - It is not feasable to correct the 'problem by enforcemeAt..MasS'~1cketing ( may produce tempora..r...y compliance at t. he present s...t.op sign, but will nofQ :/ ,duce the dangers oJ heavy traffic flow and carel~s~_drlv.ers. -. -<'-...-. -..--- It is also interesting that of the 54 vehicles checked by Mr. Hedtke, only six (6) vehicles went west on Vine Street, and two (2) of these were school buses. Cify Of!ices:20225 Coffagewood Road, Deephnven, Minnesota 55331 (612)474-4755 t' .. ADD ". l' ,", ~n, -:" ~!J~ t... ", It;:' 6 198~ April 22, 1982 MEMO TO: City of Shorewood City Council FROM: Gary Larson RE: GRERNWOOD LIFT STATION I have reviewed the documents provided to me by Orr-Schelen-Mayeron & Associates, Inc. I also met with Bernie Mittelsteadt and Jim Norton. The facts, as I understand them, are as follows: In April 1972, Shorewood and Greenwood were in the process of constructing individual sanitary sewer systems. It became apparent that there could be some savings accomplished for both of the communities by the joint use of certain facilities. The cities asked that the sewer board help mediate a means by which the communities could agree to share the costs of the joint facilities. The joint facilities were separated into four parts, (see letter of Dougherty dated July 5, 1972). Section A was the Lift Station and Gravity Line to be constructed by Greenwood, Section B was a Gravity Line to be constructed by Shorewood, Section C was a Gravity Line to be constructed by Greenwood and Section D was the Lakeway Terrace/Fatima place Lift Station to be constrl1cted by Shorewood. Each section was determined to have a cost attributed to that section and a p~rc~ntage attributed either to Shorewood or Greenwood for the cost. Section A, the Lift Station, Shorewood was to pay 16.46% of the cost of the Lift Station and 50% of the Gravity Line. SectionB, each Cit~ was to pay 50%of the cost. Section r., each City vias to pay 50% of the cost. Section 0, Greenwood was to pay 48% of the cost of the Lift station. Each City had let contracts for the construction of the facility within their community. After the specific amounts owed on each section were determined to each community, the figures were added up and it was determined that Greenwood owed the City of Shorewood, $18,378, more than Shorewood owed to Greenwood. In addition, the cost of maintaining the respective lift stations was discussed and it was agreed between the communities that since each community was operating and maintaining one lift station, that those costs would balance each other. ..... . -- City of Shorewood City Council April 22, 1982 Page Two RE: Greenwood Lift Station Sometime in 1977 or 1978, through the efforts of Shor~wood and Greenwood, the Metropolitan Sewer Roard purchased the Greenwoo1 Lift Station as a metropolitan facility. At that time there was apparently a great deal of discussion between the communities and the sewer board as to who was entitled to what. The two cities were unable to reach any agreement and the sewer board finally threatened to not purchase the facility at all. Greenwood, apparently approached the sewer board and agreed to accept the entire payment upon a promise from Greenwood to the sewer board to hold the sewer board harmless from any claim from the City of Shore wood. Since that time there have apparently been some discussions about payment, but nothing has been actually pursued to conclusion. It appears to me that one of the rei'lsons it has not been pursued to conclusion is that the staff had a disagreement as to what was owed to the City. Bernie Mittelsteadt apparently feels that Greenwood owes the City 16.46% of the monies received from the Metropolitan Sewer Board, whereas it was apparently Frank Kelly's opinion that the City of Shorewood should receive 50%, (see letter of Steve Frazier to Metropolitan Waste Control Commission dated August 2, 1976). The issues to be resolved are: 1. What portion of the monies recieved from Metropolitan Waste Control Commission are due and owing to the City of Shorewood for its share of said lift station. 2. Should any interest be paid on said monies from the date of payment by the sewer board to date. 3. Should a renegotiation occur concerning the on-going maintenance of the Lakeway Terrace/Fatima Place lift station, since Shorewood's original maintenance of it was based on the fact that Greenwood was maintaininq its lift station and was therefore balancing. My recommendations to the Council are as follows: 1. That the Ci ty of Shorewood should Eorthwi th request that Greenwood pay 16.46% of the payment from the Metropolitan Sewer Board for the cost of the lift station, plus 6% simple interest from the date of payment. . . -- City of Shorewood City Council Ap r i 1 2 2, 1 9 8 2 Page Three RE: Greenwood Lift Station 2. That the staff be assigned the responsibility to negotiate a sharing of the maintenance cost and upkeep on the Lakeway Terrace/Fatima Place Lift Station. Gary Larson GL: jo I IT. L(J~ 1!OO/l.' ~~'I T . . ' ~ " i, ',' r > "0 Christmas Lak~ " .' " " i ! j ... I, . *6 Y~ ,,~r- -. DOIllj5Y. WINO'HORST.t:'ANNA~RO. Wftl~NE'Y a. ~ALLAOA~ ~J;;: .' 2300 F' RST, NATIONAL .AN'~H..D'NG ' 11;; ...'NNEA..OLIS.....NNESOTA 5'6""02 .... W-P"RST N...TION...L .ANII BUILDING aT fOAUL,MINNESOTA 111101 . 18IZI22'7-801'7 '8'ZI 3.0- 2.00 C....LE. DOROW TELEIl: Z9-060& TELECOPIER: ""2, 3.0-Z888 ~. liS TH.RO STREET SOUTHWEST "OCHESTER. "''''',HESOTA ...0' '&0'7. zee -31S8 CUENT: ~_:J pRO): lMmAl: J. N. ~ WAT 1ft MISt ~ _MTA OMR . The Honorable Frank J. Brixius Mayor, City of Greenwood 20225 Cottagewood Road Deephaven, MN 55331 May 18, 1977 LARRY L. VICKREY '8.ZI3.0:",Z.6'7 B .A.m J.: .rJ /, Re: Acquisition of City of Greenwood's Manor Road,Lift Station By The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Dear Mayor Brixius: This is to summarize my understanding, based upon our vario~s telephone calls and a review of your files, of the situation now existing. between the City of Greenwood, the City of Shorewood and the Metropolitan' Waste Control Commission in connecti~n with the latter'~ acquisition of Greenwood's Manor Road lift station. " ' Greenwood's regular city attorney, Frank Kelly, and Mr. Daniel Boxrud, of the engineering firm of Schoell & Madson, and Mr. B. Mittel- steadt, of the engineering' firm of Orr, Schelen, Mayeron & Associates, represented and advised the City in connection with having the .1~tropolitan Waste Control Commission acquire the Manor Road lift station. The efforts in this regard appeared.-tobesuccessf~l when.theMetr<~politan Council authorized the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to acquire the Manor Road lift s.tation from Greenwood sometime in March of 1976. Thereafter, however, the City of Shorewood made a claim to ~the Netropolitan Waste Control Commission alleging that the Manor Road lift s~ation ~as equitably owned by the two cities on an equal basis, and they requested the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission to credit the City of Shorewood with one-half of the acquisition cost. Greenwood objected .to this and claimed the entirety of the credit of the acquisition cost. , The Netropolitan Waste Control Commission then advised you that the acquisition coqld not be completed unless the two municipalities were in agreement on their respective interests in the acquisition cost credits and you were further advised that unless the municipalities could reach agreement, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (which offered to arbitrate a settlement) would advise the Metropolitan Council that the acquisition could not be completed. / r fir" rU ,1'/ 'Jj ,.I . - . , .~ ',~- .. _..- ~ ...... . . .. . . ; .\..... ~ ft~;., ',. . ..:"....- ... . . .. ~ .//- -- .// " . . DORSEY. MARQUART, W'Ioi::>foIORST, WtST & HALLADAY The Honorable Frank J. Brixius Mayor, City of Greenwood Page Two May 18, 1977 Since Frank Kelly is ~lso Shorewood's city attorney, you felt that he had a conflict of interest and should not represent either munici- pality in the matter. This letter, therefore, is to confirm our firm's representation of the City of Greenwood in connection with its attempt to obtain credit for all of the acquisit.ion costs to be credited by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the Manor Road lift station. Based upon my review of the file to date, I donct understand the basis upon which Shoret..Tood is making a claim f 50% . of the acquisi-" t on pric~. As so some researc on t e laws concerning acquisi~ ~ons by the Metropo~itan Waste Control Commission, I intend to write the Commission with respect to our position. If you should have any disagreement concerning'm~ understanding of the matter as stated above, please call.. Very truly yours, " , ~ Y' /. ' . - .' / /~ t'-,A.'" -. Y .' ,,/..t( ..' ,,",,-",,<.,r - . / ."/,,1_. ( ''''''1 ,(Larry'L. Vickrey r J !, "'_.1 LLV/dbl cc: Mr. Frank Kelly, pursuant to Mayor Brixius's request - ......... ....._--~ r' . {*""'~ f.' ~ ~~,..... - I~~~ -J~-~' ~ mE TROPOLIT~H! WRITE COflTROl - commllfior: ~""t(l ~- '.... ~ . J .',', :' s~o mHRO fOUR~€ BLDG. 7TH" R08E~T :TREETI \' fAInT PAUL mn 5',101 0''2 "'2'2.a~2S .~ I l' , w . , ~a \(.c~. .,_...=-===~~-._"~._~'~~~.,~=~.~~..~.~ ~ I ~ ~ ~;. i May 5, 1977 . -. . Mayor Steven Frazier City of Shorewood 6125 Seamans Drive I Shorewood, MN 55331 ml Dear Mayor Frazier:---- The Commission has attempted to complete the acquisitian of the Greenwood-Manor Road Interceptor as approved by the Metropolitan Council but has been unable to do so because of the disagreement between your city and the City of Greenwood. The Commission will be unable to acquire the facilities as directed by the Council unless both parties agree to the ownership. If we have not resolved this matter within the next 60 days it will be the intention of the Conrnission. to advise the~Metropolitan Council that acquisition of the facility as they recommended is not possible, and therefore, the ownership, operation:and maintenance of the station will remain with the Cities as it existed prior to January 1, 1977. The Commission is 'willing to offer its good offices t~ arbitrate this matter between the two cities. For this purpose we suggest a meeting with Chairman Strauss, Commission Legal Counsel, and the Chief Administrator and representatives of both cities on May 11 at 2:00 P.M. to arbitrate this matter. We assure you that the Commission will act as an arbitrator in the fullest sense to achieve a settlement. . ------ We will appreciate your consideration of this matter as well as the offer of arbitration by the Commission in order that we may resolve, the matter to everyone's mutual satisfaction. If there are any " questions we would be pleased to offer any assistance that we can. ,Your advice as to the meeting suggested will be appreciated at your earliest convenience. ~ RJD:pd cc. David L. Graven Maurice K. Dorton Bernard J. Harrington Raymond A. Odde Frank Kelly __"_...__r~_'''--''J''.''''''''.~.t~''-;r"'''K''~.-?":'#-'',r:~~','''~'....'t--:'.... ..-".:" ,,- ,... ~ .e 1/j. ~I C ..- . . . :. 'iJB WILLIAM O. SCHOELL CARLISLE MADSON JACK T. VOSLER JAMES R. ORR HAROLD E. DAHLIN LARRY L. HANSON RAYMOND J. JACKSON WILLIAM J. BREZINSKY JAC~ E. GILL THEODORE O. KEMNA JOHN W. EMOND KENNETH E. ADOLF DANIEL R. BDXRUD WILLIAM R. ENGELHARDT (6121 938-7601 . 50 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH . HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 OFFICES AT HURON. SOUTH DAKOTA AND DENTON. TeXAS SHo f.!. EUrTJC1) 17"'1 '"I INITIAL: .1, III , WAT STR--MISC OTHER CliENT: PROJ: SlM - c@i ~ DATA City 0 Greenwood c/o Mrs. Ju1iene Weidner, 20225 Cottagewood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 February 1, 1977 ~~ VO~ Clerk Subject: Acquisition of Metropolitan Inter- ceptors, Greenwood Manor Road Interceptor, Our File No. 8208. Gentlemen: Pursuant to the request of Mayor Brixius, we have investi- gated the concerns of ~he City of Shorewood regarding the cost splitting of the Manor Road lift station and force main as ex- pressed in their letter of December 28, 1976, to Mayor Brixius. Investigation shows that the recommendations of the then Metropolitan Sewer Board were essentially followed in the signed agreement between Greenwood and Shorewood concerning lateral, trunk, and interceptor sewers. Costs as bid were balanped against benefit received. It was determined that the cost to penefit ratio would be fair if Greenwood paid to Shorewood 40% of the cost of the Lake William lift station, and force main. The other sewers as bid would balance with -the benefit received, when the total of the projects was considered. With respect to the Manor Road facilities in particular, Greenwood was credited with 83.54% of the cost, and Shorewood was credited with 16.46% of the cost, on a design flow basis. This station was built totally by Greenwood, but received the use of some of the sewers built by Shorewood in exchange at a value equal to Shorewood's 16.46% cost share of the Manor Road facilities. Therefore, if the Manor Road lift station and force main had been built by the MSB, it would have cost Greenwood and Shorewood less, and in the proportion shown by the MWCC in their cost split. ~ " ;) .: . .~ . SCHOELL & MADSON. INC. 1,; Ci ty of Greenwood Page 2 February 1, 1977 It would seem reasonable for Shorewood to pay for their share of the costs involved in getting the MWCC to acquire the facility. Our costs are enclosed. Shorewood's 16.46% share of this is $514.29. They should also pay 16.46% of any other.costs incurred by the City of.Greenwood. If you require further assistance, please advise. Very truly yours, DRBoxrud:sjr SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. D~R.~ enclosure OSM110 ~ ~. 'if .. eCHOELL & ~OBON.'NC.' February 1, 1977 Amounts Charged to Greenwood, February 19, 1974 through September 29, 1976, for engineering assistance re Interceptor take-over by MWCC: 9/18/74 9/25/75 1/23/76 4/22/76 9/29/76 $1,371.00 495.00 411.00 75.00 592.50 $2,944.50 11/30/76 - 1/24/77 (Not yet billed) Total 180.00 $3.124.50 .. ._. _ ...... '" r"" '7. ....-...-.. r' " .......-..'- -.."""Ii" ;.......,.... P . .. . . .. . . .' ~-"'...-..... --... '.. . .. .. .... '." '.'~.,..~,",'" '-r~ ~"'~:.:'-'-- ;:..". Of. " .' ;:1 B. . J.. ~t- r l't. e,.~ .y .' ,,;,1\1 \~...\ - ;Z:,='J:":"~.z:"::'''~:~~;,:'~;~--~_.'-'- -- r (M. C -. - (' 'L.. A. '1 f)1~.~ L.S. 4: L.k.t to_..ll.......:... L.S". tJ--- W ~4~ -- ~ .~~, -. . ._~.- .... _......_..I....~ . /}>> S' a......... LJ . L..... ~ ~ ~L"",:1 ~.'" . ....'" . ~. so /c. 4.J'I R-.~ . 1 A ~lIEN~f:~~C PROJ: L,oFT 57"". INITIAL: .J. "'. STM ~ WAT STR Mise LmER ~OTHER "./J'.~ ~ ." ~- -_.~~ - ~r/___~ c. ~"-~ ~~ 6--- 0, . A~ ~~ Gr~ ~ Cv...t. ~~ ~d ~~ ~ ~ G~ "to. ~~~~ L,S. .. . -. " ...,.., .~ . -,.-'. . . '::',::' .:~"'- '"'\ .. ....... ..... , . -.. . .. .. . .. .. . . ,_. . .~:;:~~:;:i-~~~~~~~~~~~~~:::::::~:=:::;.t~;:.~ . . ,. ,r.'. a ., '\" $''), . ,,' '\.' ,. .. 't . . . '\:1 ~ -y ~,~-:,.;.;,~~~~..>:.'< " f' ,~, l CLIENT ~ ~ROJ: ' isTM : :' inTER ': , CITYQF' , SHO'. RE.W' OOD r''- ('"'\ - ~".f --.' f'. ' , " . ~_, . r . \ _' <~ ," ._ L.... '-' 20630 MANOR ROAD . S~OREWOOD. MINNEsdTA 55331....~o&12):474~3m cc::,':,:. #r:J33-/7<Y~ DEe, 91976 /4 ..' ...:~,::;\: . . . . ..:~rtNITtAl: SAN >WAT STR ' DATA ,OTH:[R ,. . - . .' - MAYOR ,....,.,. F ,.ie, ; COUNCIL , Will;"" K..I., Robert N.egel. , -JKk Hutt~, - . Je" H.ugen CLERK-ADMINISTRATOR EI.. Wiltsey -'" Mise . August 2, 1976 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission 350 Metro Square Building st. Paul, Minnesota 55101 ~-.-:".:..'-"':.~.;;;.--.'.'. ". "---.-I~ , . 1-' i---'-,i- . , Re: Metro acquisition of Manor Road Lift Station and Force Main, Greenwood-Shorewood Gentlemen: , This is a .further eXplanation of the. interest claimed by the City of Shorewood in the joint facilities constructed by the two cities of Shorewood and Greenwood, and which facilities include the Manor Road lift station and force'main. , , , .. .. . . Enclosed is an executed copy of the contract s~gned by the two communities. This document was drafted pursuant to recom- mendations of Mr., Richard J. DoUgherty and after many hours of negotiations between the parties. A copy of Mr. Dougherty's letter of July 5, ,1972 ,is attached. : The joint use project consisted of commonbounci8ry', and inte.r- community gravity sewers 'and the' two liftstations"and accompany---.n.:c ing force mains. The method of paying for these facilities was . arrived at taking into consideration' Mr. Dougherty's recommen- dations, as well as the give and'"take '01' negotiations.' The -, project was considered as a whole; -the indi vidual components were not considered as separate items. The entire project is shown on the attached exhibit and did include the Manor Road lift station and its force main shown as A; the .iriter~communi ty gravi ty sewer shown as B which nows into the Manor Road lift station; the inter-community se.wer shown as C .flowing into' the , Lake William lift station and force main D, all as shown on the attached exhibit prepared by qreenwood engineers, Schoell and Madson. - The purpose 01' the negotiations was to arrive at an equal con- tribution by each community for the entire facility. Following Mr. Dougherty's letter it was agreed that the cost of , gravity ,::.<.~.>".Jt, ,:.-. .:~"'~. . ~~ --., '.~~ ".,;:,r A Residential Communirv on Lake MIi" . _ _ _ . , , " :"~.f'~:~~0'~~~~~<~~~~:~\:">-'<7:: > -:::< .~~. .~.: I.:,:~",~;I,:.~~:~~ :~~;:;--.~.~~,,':';,~~1< ~J.J ~ ~;. ~~:"'~;: "'::::i ~..:::.~ '~~:;: ,_: ~,:l:'.~'w;...~ '.), ~~:' JI -...--. ~,.,._---_.~~~ ~~~,.:.:.:.:.;.;y:~~:~:;.;,.;~,.;.;~~,.:..:.:.:~;..;:;:;...;:;.~;~~_.'."-~' " : - -. -~ , h'~~.. .... ~,..", ....:~:-=.:.:~.:.:.:.:~:~.:~:.:-=~:..~:.-&::~~.:.:.:.:.:..It......~=~.~.~.~c~ ~~." _ " '_ _ .. M , . , -2~ .. , sewer B would be Shared equallyland the cost of the Manor Road lift station and' force main A wOuld be shared on a user basis.' The actual dollars were handled. by giving each communi ty credit. for the contracts 1 t had, previously' let. .The costs of this section of the joint project were as follows: SHOREWooD GREENWOOD Manor Road lift station and force main 8,200.00 . '16.46% 41,709.00 _ 83.54% Agreed division of costs Inter-Communi ty Grav! ty line, Section B - 24,675.00 50% 32,875.00 24,675.00 . 50% 66,375.00 Agreed division of costs Total Greenwood paid for its portionWitha'construction contract of' $49,900.00, the agreed established cost of A, the Manor Road lift station and force main. Shorewood paid its share of. the cost by contracting the constr\'l(~tion of gravii;y lateral B., To equalize the' joint investment of this section of the project, Greenwood agreed to pay Shorewood $16,475.00 additional cash. - '. ' , L -rf, j. 4,).-.s 1"..-y~'1:>. . The gravity sewer C was contracted. by Greenwood, the Lake. William lift station and force main was. contracted by Shorewood. .' After . much discussion, it was agreed, Greenwood would 'ply to Shorewood an additional $1,900.00 as an equalization investment. credit. , '-H.-----.-;'l ~ It was tile credit which ShoreW'ood gave to Greenw06d for'. con- -. --------- structing the Manor Road lifts~tion which purchased Greenwood's interest in the inter-community.:lateral sewer B. . The amount which each community paid for the entire project was equal. The method of arriving at the cost contribution was based in some instances on use. For Greenwood to receive 100% of the acquisition credit from Metro would mean that Greenwood would, in fact, pay nothing towards its share of the inter-community gravity sewer B. It is Shorewood'~ position that it is entitled to an equal share of all credit given by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the acquisition of the Manor Road lift station. . We would certainly appreciate 'an opportunity to sit down with you and review this matter in person. We will look forward to hearing from you as t6 when we can meet. Yours truly,. Steven Frazier, Mayor City of Shorewood ~':' ~"":~. c., r::.'. .: .'~"~..> . ~:-:... '., ~ . ~:?:" >~. - ~~ ..~' ~~~::=:~;~;.~~~~:;.~, ~~;~,;~.::~~ ~'~:,~~:, :~: ~_' :'~ ~ ~'.',~t' < >..~:';'~:~>>' '~.~:-::~7':-:'~'~;~~~ ..:~~. ,1:: : ,-. : :': ,: :~::.. ~.:::~~;~~~~ ~:~ ~,~. ~':-'W~"~~i ~ ,'~:. -,'; '" ...... ... - . ... >,. . .. \I .. . ....'"...........'.'..v-...."......--.-....--....-......... .;.~.;...~..:.~...-..'X~~~~"I ";}--...--.- 'i. ~'~~~)..~'~.(..~-~...,.:r~~~~~;~~ ~.;..:.:.:.:.:.:.;.;;:::..:.:.:-~:-:.~:-~:-:.~:.:.:.:.......~~:::;:.:-~~~ JOa.~';':~.'~' " ',' ,~"-.OJ ....."-~v~....... .-..:..-..--_...~~~.:-:.. ~:., ':.:~..:~ " .' ..b'J.;;-.M "J .... . ' --~ - II "J '. . '. ' ~: .;:~. , '. ,;.:J' I ' .' ' . .' , .~ . " " . :.... .......;,., . . : .. '.. '~"f.' , ';,r ~ :.:'. i< . .. . '. . . , ,.~. . .. '. I>> '$. ~ , .'f' ~-" . f . ,1' , v., ~:..- ~ ~f.. , - ~~ C'-.. . . .. . ~, -~. . .. _lf~lro Square BuDdiD~ 7th " Robert Street. Saint Paul. )ff.l:an~sota .55~OI . #.. j , .. Area '12. % .July 5, 1972 . " . .... ": " ( ! ,. I I . t , J r I I . i , Mr. Thomas E.--Halloran,'Mayor.'--' and Village Council of Shore wood Route 4,Box 34 Excelsior. Minnesota 55331 ..:: -~"- . '. s , . .; .' , . ~. . '/ Subject: Recommended Cost Sharing of Proposed Greenwood and Shorewood Joint Use Se"/er ;.,' Gentlemen: I : ~ . ,. The Metropolitan Sa.mr'Board has analyted and investigated methods of cost sharing of the proposed construction;of the.commonboundar,y 'and inter- community Se\1er and.joint use se''ler in; accordance with a request from your Village for a recommendation for cost sharing and a request 'from Greenwood for this 'office to assist in the coordination of the construction. The proposed construction consists of ~ections to be constructed by respec~ tive communities as shadri on the attachment. . The contracts, as awarded by~' each conm.rnity. consi.st of construction of Section:A and C by Green\'IOod and . Section Band D by Shore,.,ood. In accordance with the information provided · 'to our office from the 'ow.bid proposals by; the Engineers~.Walter Sargent of Schoell and Hadson,lnc.,for ,theVnlage of Greenwood and Bernie r~ittelsteadt of Orr-Schelen-Mayeron& Associates, Inc., for your Village. the 'construction costs of the se'''er, including 'street :repair~ legal and administrative. " contingencies. engineering, etc., totals an;estimat~d $241,603.94 for Sections A. B. and C. Greenwood has contracted:to construct a portion of the sewer and appurtenances which totals $132.470.18.; Your communi ~y has contra.cted to construct a portion of the sewer. :including appurtenances in the amount of $1~9,133.76. Shorewood has also contracted for Section D at a total cost of, $87,662.95. ' .It is recpnvnended that COlImon boundary inter-colImunfty gravity sewers be cost shared in, proportion to the design flow basis except where the gravity sewer is of minimum siie (lateral size) in which case the' cost sharing should be on the bais;ofa SO-50 proportlon. This is . recommended because the inter-community sewer is essentially being constructed . . . An Agene, 01 the' Jitetropolitan ~CounC'i1 or the Twin Cities Are, Anou C<lunt)". Carver Count,. Dakota Count,. Hennepin CCJu!.:. . -- '. ~ .:.., > '~" ~... . . T r'~ :-.(--::~ ~~;~~~..:'::..~>..~:..,..'~.; , ",' -. ..... ~ . ' : eo"";' .,.~..~..:..>~.;: , f ",', t .,~",.,.... .. \.' , . . .";,C '.::,_ ::,~.~:> <:~ .,;";~~::~~l::~"t "~~'i.'''II''''^'''''''.'.''''''..'''''''''''''~''.'.'''''''''''.''''J"'''''''X-:':':':.:.:.;".~.;:-:-~~ XXlW.......;~.j,,~Ji_;;~~~~,~........~~.':.::..'!..~.-:..............."II::~~U:~'-"J_"".'.'.~.'.'~..'''''.'';, ;?-~~..!-~....~~~~~ , . . 11 11r' Th-as Ef101 ) "''''UAr' " '. ,. () . '. . ,;.' .,\.;.... . . .. ....... . · .. .'OCV'u . , .....: . . .: .=r;..... and Village .....:ilctl of Sho~odi -2- .:::t . July 5. 1972 . ''I; " . , .;. ,{ " '.' ....~. . :~..;':.: ." . .." ,:..~ .~ , '... as a lateral and no additfon~l~cost. is being incurred to serVe greater or lesser areas in the respective .conmunities. :,. . Y. I ~:..~.: ;. .-:..:... .... :. . ". j" It is also recognized that if the Use of the sewer was not shared by both comna.rni ti es. then each corranuni ty woul d ha ve to bui ld thei r own facilities. In this respect ~here is equal benefit.' . Where flows are not of sufficient volume to require a pipe size larger than m1nfa.lum (8,- or- 9- in dianeterj. amount of flow cannot be consiciered an essential factor in cost sharing because this size pipe has to be fnstalledfnanycaseto meet standards.. The reason a public sewer must be at least 8 inches in diameter i5so that it can be' cleaned and main- . tained. ~ . ~,:'::.> . : .~. ,~;~ . '..:..... . ~:..:... .' .. . .:.. .' . "'. . . 2. Joint Use Lift Station and Force~ain System It is recommended that the cost of'1ift=station and forcemain facilities should be shared on the design fla~ ~asis. This recommendation is made in view that'the size of the station, size oLthe pumps and forcemaln are ba:>r:d upon tOta. 11 OW .. ~ ~ ~; 3. DUdnstream Joint Use Facilities Where there is a'minimum size .s~we~ and no apparent ~xtra costs involved in the dor/nstream sewer inordet t6 serve upstream communities, itis recommended that ,there be no' cost sharing. All costs should then be assigned in some manner within. the :do\"mstream co~uni ty. : . . . ~ . . . . . Where there 1s a sewer larger than:minimum size that. serves an upstream communi~. it is recommended that there 'be cost sharing. · The amount of cost to be~hared should be only .the cost over and above ;the estimated ____,cost of a minimum size sewer designed to serve only areas within 'the . . dO\'lnstream community.. Thi$ ext~a cost to be shared should be determined by subtracting from the cost of the' larger ,se\'/er .the estimated cost of a minimum size sewer which would serve only the downstream communit,y. The extra cost should tffen be shared on a deSign flow basis between the area s~rved by upstream users and the d~\~stream community. o. _ ,.. . .:. ~ .., .: Application of the above criteria to Sections A. B, and Cofthe sewer which are on the common boundary of the two c~munities is as follows: . " ..~f . ..~,~; : -." . .,' . J . , .-., .",.. :. .' (:: :" , .' . . . Section A to be constructed by Greenwood: , . :.. ~ (a) flow baSiS.'). ti~ ~ . .J r-%~S /.~ ..; Lift station and forcemain' on a design Shorewood's share - 16.46% Greenwood's share -'83.54% .(b) Gravity line on a 50-50 basis ," . Secti on B to be constructed by Shorewood:. (a> Gravity line on a 50-50 basis . ',. I "::- ._~~; ~~..- :.:-.....'. :-:., :. - ~., ,.:.,:.- - '.~' ;":,~-;=<:;-;;:~:t':">;:~'~' ~.:<: ~.> ::'.". :':' ..::<' ",:,.; ~,;.: ....,~:. .'~' :::~:~.:;;>:-;~:::;<:~:-',";,~~':'~'::;'" ..... J!~}~'. II "; ~_ -:' ,. ';"~'''~t',~. ,. ......,. ..".' , , ,.I)": ~~" ~4' ,J ,.~: ;'." ," - ~. ~. . . .. . . . " '- ' ~~:~,~": : .~:. :.~ ',~' '~1' .:., " .1'... -. ~'.-;' '. " . ." , ~ ;'.: r'o '.. . . . . , . ., " o ' , . f ~."o ' f . '! . I i 0 . . .' .,~,~ . I . ~. .: . ~: : ~,.~'L , ',;~.;~'>~. ..,' : . . , , ,. ' ..', . . . .- "l.... r.." .,. N"':>>"~~~~ ~ arid Village' ,.-, , ; "':,' , '"'',"i''' < '. ;', .::f:;:~";:" ': ", .' O'.'c', ;lr':~'\." 'I . '. . -i' ." , ....:. ,.-;.t. ..~t.. _ :.;;..,;;'- !', it;:.' ~.-;, !(f'~.:.;4,,; , July 5 .1972 ;' .~; ,. , , ,f .. , . "'".. . Section C to be constructed by' Greenwood: ea) Gravity line on a 50-SO basis :':. ~ " The above methods of, cost Sharing i~di cate costs' to each commoni ty: that are approxi~tely the same as the cost for the construction of Sections A, B, and C that each communftYhas included under their construction contracts. Therefore, based .on the cost fnformation' supplied to this office. it is. . recamencied that each. conmunity.fulfi11 their. contract obligations on Sections A. B. and C with no subsequent exchange of funds. ':'. .:" Section D is dQ1nstreamof Greenwoodand~is to be constructed by your Village at a total cost of $87.662.95. The eost. of that part of Section. D which consists of the lift station and forcemain on fonner County Road 82 from Lakeway Terrace to Fatima Place should be,cost shared on a design flow basis. The estimated cost of the station and forcemain is $45.945.04. It.is recom- mended that this be cost shared on the following ,percentages which were computed based on~ flow information submltted to this office. .' Shorewood Greem100d Deephaven 3li 48'; ;' 21% The remaining portion of Section' Dconsists of a gravity sewer of minimum size and is to be constructed by you~ Village at a cost of $41.717.91. Th~s sewer will serve cormnunities upstream of your Vi 11 age with no apparent extra cost involved in the construction of the: sewer to your Village and. therefore. it is reco~nded that this portion"n~tbe cost shared.. .. . ,- - . . : "~ ;. . .' We trust that the above recommendations for division of.costs enables your corMIJnityto re~h a mutually s~tisfactory agreement with Greenwood., feel free 'to cont~~~_this offl ce onapt~~stions concerning the above matter.,_.__ Yours very truly, . .)(2.Q.Ozs-S . Richard J. Qerty . G, Chief Administntor . . . .. ... RJD:CRP:DAE:pes Attachment CC: Mr~ Walter Sargent. Schoell and r:ladson, Inc. ., . 'Mr. Bernie Mittelsteadt. Orr-Schelen-Hayeron & AssoCiates, Inc. .' 'f'" <~:.\' ~"~'~ :.....~.r~c . ~~';. ~~:1~/' " .' .. itt":.~ ;.r:..... .,' . ,;. .~,~~::: . ' ".,.~I'~'. , .':." "I\~, .0. 'i~'i " .~,;..\, :'';-, ~ 4T1. .... ,. .1 ~~::~.~ . " . ....."".. :~; :~..., . ~.. 1";. :-: \;..J. :... --:~.-";. (;) .. '.-:::.'" . I : e. , ., .:...,. . . , . , . . ." i ' .r ," - . ..,-- --.. .. ... .. I. ." ., . "" :.. ..' ,. ; ~~ , . .. ~! .0.-.. .::'~.~." 'x:, 'i.~'~~: - ~ ;' :~:: '0 . J " . .;-0' . I, . . . ,.' ~ ~ . J .0. , .~ ~ , . . . . ' _.' . . -. ;' ~..f. " .;.. " ~ :. . .. ~ . i -. . N: . , ,~~ Ii~ll r:'J,~.:1~ --:.... ":." .. .....--- ....---- .. ..- . .-..-.- '~ . --- SCALE: I. · 600 LEGEND ---:- --e IJIIS1_ 16lO11Y&lI'I' -.. . - ,-- ...,.........'" .:.....::... ~ .r' ..-.' .. Pf>ClP05(D I '('MI : ---r--- ,ea<< __ '!.... .U......~.tT.. lA' sr_ta :lISla~' ; .,-,~....... ......-.-..--. , CD 'Cil.._ ito E) "LIF' S'.'1OtI t. ..., ' P.OfI'O'~ . :0. <!":,& A' ~_..:: ......:: .. 'M4 " .0..__ ., Y1LLACE Of' CIU.L~'OOO. tU:~r. PROroSr.o/RkA~~L~T _or:IClI) CI)o<""'C'ltS . SCIIOtlL eo '\ADSo:'f. I XC. ~[l':Cl:~[t:M.$ " St'k\'[\'OMS : ~O '0:;1:1 AVPo"[ SO'TlI . HOrK INS. HI ;.-:o.:tsOTA f ... . :SI:.II::' I I 1".60(1' Dr. ~, D<<c.-mbllr I'. 1971 ~ ... ./ .. .1 . .... ... ," . .' ' tt ~ . ',' .. AGREEMENT, FOR' JOINT USAGE OF SANITARY SE\'.'ER FACILITIES BETWEEN THE CITY OF GREENWOOD AND SHOREWOOD \ ' , i " , , , THIS AGREEMENT made and en'teredinto 1;h1Q ~;1..: day ot ~.l. ,1974 t by and b.twe~n ~e Cl ty ot Shorewood, a M1r~3sota municipal corporation Inthe Countyot Her~epin, State of J.1:1.nnesota, hereinafter ref~~red 'to as tlShore'Wood", and the Village of Greenwood,a Minnesota municipal corporation, in the , County ot Hennepin, State ot Minnesota, Ihereinaft~rre~erred to , as "Gre enwood n t ! , ! , ( l-lHEREAS, Shorewood has constructed and is operating sanitary r . sewer laterals and trunks in S~orewo~d which lead to a sanitary sewe disposal plant operated byth. ~etropolitan Sewer Board, and 'WHEREAS, Gref!!1wood has co~s-tructed and is o~erating sani tery sewer laterals and .trunks in G~eenwood,and ~. ! : \.;,~ . \:IHEREAS, c~rta1n areas o:tGreen,.,ood will be economically seweredthrough the use of' certain Shorewood trunks,. laterals , , end lift stations, and . \ WHEREAS, certain sewered by the use of stations, and ! areas ot lShorewood will be, economically , i , , certain Greenwood trunks,- laterals and 'lift 1 '. :j i " , WHEREAS, a portion 'of thecapacity"of certain Shorewood I sanitary sewer lines and 11ft: ~tatlons and certain ~reen\"ood sanitary sewer lines could be,~ade :available to the residents ot both Shorewood and Greenwood, apd ( . l-~REAS, .Shorewood and Gr.~enwQod have determined that it would be, economically advisable' to mutually use the trunks, la't- erals and li~t stations of ,the other city, and I . "IHEHEAS, r-Unnesota Statutes 444.075' subd.: 5 permits two or more governmental units to 'enter into a contract ~or joint c~- operative attainment and use o~ san1~ary sewage facilities, and :,~' .. . l-nrEREAS, Greenwood has agreed 'to pay a portion of the,cost . . . .- .. . of the construction of sanitary; sewer facilities by Sharewood, :, ...-:--. , NO". Tl!EREFORE. 1 t is hereby agreed a~ follows: 1......, ~rGer~wood ahal.l. ~or.~j:thl'.P'.Y 1~o Shora\lIood: SJ.,8,37S;OO. . 2. Greenwood shall bave 1;he use o~ Shore\lood' s lift -, - . .. t ., . " ; #. .. -- .. .. ; ! - , stations, later8;l 11nea and "tnmk linea as and for part of the1r city system to convey sewerage; "to the Metropo~itan Sanitary Sewer system. Shorewood Shal1 have ~e use of Greenwood lift stations, lateral. 1ines and ~ 1ine's ~s and for part of their city system to convey sewerage to the Metropolitan Sanitary Sewer system. -' 3. Shorewood Sh811 have the obligation and responsibility of building and mainta1n~ ~d keep~g in repair any portion of the aforementioned ~ac11ities ~h1ch were constructed by Shorewood. 4. Greenwood shall have ~e obligation an~ respon~lbility of maintai~ng and-repairing an~ portion of the aforementioned facil- ities which were construct~dby Greenwood. , I 5. The ,Metropolitan, Sewer Boar.d sha11 bill directly the City of Greenwood for any .sewage which originates !n Greenwood arid . flows. through Shorewood' s '1.aterals, trunks and lift' stations.. . 6. The Me'tropoli tan Sewer -Board shall bill directly the City I: . of Shorewood for any sewage wh~ch originates in Shorewood and flows through Greenwood later~~s,trunks and lift stations. i IN .J:TNESS \'/HEREOF, the 'Cl ty 'of Shorewood has caused this Agreement to be executed in 1ts behalf by its proper officers duly, authorized pursuant to an acti~n ot its council 'on. ',the .;?;{ day of ~.. " 1914, by ReSolut~on ";NO". 3;Z-1?{ and" the City of Greenwood has caused ~sAgre~ment to be executed '~ its beh~ by its proper officers duly authorized pursuant to en action of Its city council on the ~ day 6:C, April, 1974, by Resolution No. 14-1, and they have caused their respective corporate seals , . to be hereunto affixed on the ~ate first written above. ". ., i CIT~~~~~" -,.. .~r .~ A-. :'1 !~ '"~. ' ~~~~ ~ J-.,..,~..' ~... By~~ .~~,~~~ ~ -:-:-r . -~?''-t'~/ --:~~ By , .... 'I ; r.. - '7' - - " ,r... t. -. _ .. ',. . ... , . \ .. .. -... '" . -' .- /L '4~~~~~,-~~~",tT~~~';'~"""'4t.........~~~V~;&V:'~~:;':~:'~~V:-:<<-=,,~~~:~::::::;~:~~;''-':~~A<<~'''''~''~~ Attorneys' at Law -e. -- . '+ ~., ... .. . . . . . -:=::," . ..j;"' i " .' JANES S. HOLMES llOBnT E. KI.CIfE~ DAVID L. C.AVEN DoUGLAS A. KELLEY JOHN B, VAN DE NoaTH. ,.. CAn L. STENSON THOMAS R. JACOBSON JANES OTIS !lEnll llICHA.D HELDE LAny M. "'UTHEIM HOLMES. KIRCHER & GRAVEN C H ^ R T.E RED 4610 IDS Ct'nler. Minneapolis. MinnesOIa ~~401 Telephone 612;:nl-3900 December 3, 1976 CLIENT: PROJ:_~'h!f!ITI^L: STM S::.:! \,'.'.1 STR LETTER DA~A Oi:iE~ .... Mise The Honorable Steven Frazier Mayor, City of Shorewood 20630 Manor Road Shorewood, MN. .55331 Re: Metropolitan Waste Control Commission - Acquisition of Metropolitan Interceptors In Sewer Service Area No. 4 Dear Mayor Frazier: Enclosed please find copy of proposed Interceptor Acquisition Agreement for the City of Greenwood and the City of Shorewood. Please note that the' exhibits to the Interceptor Agreement are subject to revision. Sincerely, /~~~ \1. Larry M. Wertheim HOLMES, KIRCHER & GRAVEN Attorneys for Metropolitan Waste Control { ."\.. ~ :sI ..' . ~,. .":_~;-- Commission. LMW:nja Enc. R ~ r.: r..- I ',l [:. ~... " L Cl".,r-.._~.. _'!..' . ., ^ l ^~ . - ;; ;..::~'E'-:::., u I~J:';'CC. co: :;:~. ;;, t7.3 3 -/7",l/ . - ~ . DEe 9 1976 /J1 ~- . ..I~ ,-- r- i--~ '. .:~.-...;. ~~ >~-,.~.. -- . .-'T:'- ,,:~: -' , '._:~';:-f~<:.~\t ":"';~\::::::<;::; <,.~.::.:-7 ~ "'.> ~ ,:< :~::~:':''-: :. ~ .:.: ':;~;.'..:::;' ~:::::: . .--. ~ ~ ~:~ .~.~. t'~..-~.. ~~.:~:~: \ \ . -.!I"'-.= r:- ~ ~ll[NT:. It-'F"fL. ,~--- . PROJ:______-. "., 1(\ .______.-..,.-.- . .. ("'., C":"',T 5m r.'j;~~ GREENWOOO...MANOR ROAD fINTERCEPTOR' '" ACQUISITION AGREEME'NT " .......\ OTIIER - NO. 6-GW-649 This Interceptor Acqui.i~ion ,Agreement, mad~ and ." . ,. !. . 1, entered into as of the day of I I i I I I ! I . ' Shorewood muniGipal " . , ,1976, by and between City of Greenwood and,theGity lof ~ : t corporations of the State of Minne~ota,i organized and existing ; ,. I as statutory cities under the lawsjof the State of Minnesota (hereinafter referr~dto as the "M~nicipali~ies") and the :- Metropqlitan Waste Control Commiss~on, as a m~tropolitan commission under!the organized and existing i ' :laws! of the Sta te of , I . Minnesota (hereinafter referred tolas t:;he "Commission"). / / , . I WITNESSE'l'~ ~ j Subdivision I, authorizes theCdmrnissiqn af~er January I, 1970, WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, 'Section 473.511, : to assume ownership of all existing interceptors which will be 1 needed to implement the Metropolit~n Council'scomprehen9ive I plan for the collection, treatme~t~ and disposal of sewage in. I' the metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitap cocinci~lhas made~a finding that . . ' !. j the interGeptorwhich is the sub}ept of this Agreement is needed .. . j , to implement the MetropolitanCounpil's comprehensive plan for the collection, treatment, and,disposal of sewage in, the metropolitan area; and . WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes,Sect~on 473.511, I Subdivision 2, authorizes the Co~ission upon approval of the Metropolitan Council, to require any municipality to transfer . ' to the Commission, all of its rights, title and in'terest in any interceptor and all necessary appu,rtenFlnces thereto owned by any I............. . '...' " I municipality which wi:ll be needed lor ,,~he 'p~rpQse stated in ....-...-....'.......,""'..,..,.\.. ~..,. ~"~"".""'oo-r' '." .,~.....i......I"~.t~~'":.:u-:,".'.:<-...;"f....t- ~.-. .,..: ,,-,--,'. !-~-I,," !..... Subdivision 1 of Section 473.511; ~nd ' /} : - . . ., .,... i I c. ...... " ..1., It..,. (. .J:).'~;C, I' C'(' ,,) t?3~- /7YY . -.' DEe 9 1976. /11 'rrl1n7 '~"-I=:3 F";i-I 8 f ;- .. WHEREAS,I the Conunission; 4esires to assume the ownership I :! . of the interceptof descrlbed in attached Exhibit A'which is owned and operated by the Municipalities~ and has' directed the Municipalities , ~ to transfer to the Conunissionall. 9f i t;.s right , title and interest , . '. ., in said interceptor as of January l, 1977; and WHEREAS, the Metropolita~ Council! has approved the ~ I .. .. I acquisition of the interceptor by the Comn\i~sion; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473~51l, Subdivision 2, also requires that the Conunission, \lP~n assuming ) ownership of any interc~ptor,sh~li be obligated to ~ay the .1 ' Munic~palitiesamounts sufficient to pay wh~n due all remaining t : principal of and interest on bonds! issued by such Municipalities I for the acquisition or., betterrqen't 9f the interceptor taken over, and allows such amounts to be offset against any amount to be' paid to the Conunission by the Munifipalities as required by Section 473.517; and t 1 i \ I WHEREAS, the Municipalit~es has issued all'or part of .t , ! . : I " , the bonds described in Exhibit C~2~which is attached hereto, to ! provide funds to pay costs of 'acqu~sition and betterment of the interceptor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota .; Statutes,: Section 473.511, , I , I . when the Conuni~sion assumes the' Subdivision 4, provides that ownership of any existing intercep',tor,. the Municipalities which J , has paid part or all of the costs bf such facility' shall be . ; entitled to receive a credit again~t amounts to be allocated to it under Section 473.517 based pn tne current value of the interceptor at the time the Conunission acquires it; and . -2- '~ , 1 " " , \ \ \ -~ '~.~,.~' v ... i WHEREAS, Minnesota Statuie~, \Secti6n 473~517 provides for the allocation and payment of the current costs of all treatment works in the metropolibu) disposal system by all local I. " " ! i government units which discharge s~wage into the metropolitan ! ' disposal system. ,; . ~ " NOW, THEREFORE, for and in coilsiderati<;m of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto by and through their governing bodies, respectively, formally covenant, , , . ~ I . . :-- ~j " agree and bind themselves as follows, to wit; . i , Section 1. Transfer of ~ntetceptor. The Municipalities i hereby ~grees to transfer to the C?mmissionifs of I : ' I : by qu~t claim deed all of ,its right, title and' interest in and to th~ interceptor, described ih Ex~ibit A which is attached , "; . . ~' , f l , hereto, and any permits,license~,; easement~ and other property " rights which it has and which are necessary for th~ iocation, operation and repair of such interpept9r, alt of whi~h is i referred to hereinafter as the "in;terceptor" ~ The Municipalities also agrees that it will draft al~ said deeds and ~hat said deeds ~ ~. " :~ .: 1'. '" will be in recordable form. A tab~lation of the necessary sewer easement and fee taking property d.ocum~nts is descriped in Exhibt B which is attached hereto. .~ . ," . . Section 2, Good Title. The Municipalitie~ hereby I ~ . . < represents that it has good title ~o all easement. across private land relating to the interceptor and good title to all easements , .~ and permits across public land relating to the inter~eptor. ,!" Section 3. Indemnification. The Municipalities hereby agrees that should any defect in, the title to the interceptor aris~ and should the Municipalities ref~se ~r fail to correct such a defect , ~. . J within a reasonable time after riotice ,by the Commission, tne Municipalities hereby authorizes' the Conwission to ~ake any action necessary to perfect title to the,interceptor, including, but not , ~ . I -3-' .. 1 . . ' . , . . , , ' , ,.... j':" I 2 I . limi ted : to, purchase, condemna:tion; quiet title action, and title registration, and the Municipaliti~s hereto agrees to indemnify and reimburse the Commission for any a~d all expenses, legal and otherwise, incurred in perfecting titl~ to the interceptor or for , ' l any other damages inqurred by reas~n of such defect in title. . ' ~ . \,'" ,'~ I This agreement shall survive the passage of .;iny conveyance or . . ',: . ~ '.' : deed and shall not merge with any instrument of conveyance or \,' ,', deed. Section 4. Financing Capital Costs. 4.01 Municipality's Obligat~on. The Municipalities , " hereby agrees to continue to pay 'atl p~incipal of and interest on '.... .~ all outstanding bonds of the issuetdes6ribed: in Exhibit C-2 which is attached hereto. ~'... . . 1 . 4.02 Commission's'Qbligation. Subject to~adjustment as hereinafter provided, the Co~i$sio~, upon assuming ownership .\ '. , , , , of the interceptor, shall become 'oblig~ted to pay to. the Municipalities the amounts described in Exhibit C-l,which are " (. I. : .... sufficient to pay % of the principal and interest coming due on or after January 1, 1977, on all outstanding bonds of the 'j , . .'.. ': . issue described in Exhibit C-2. ~pis percentage is intended to , \ be equal to that percentage of th~ pr06eeds of th~ bond issue expended on the interceptor,andi.;f uppn further audit it is ] , ! determined by either party th~t a ~reater or! lesser percentage in this section and the principal ~and interest amounts set forth , " in Exhibit C-l shall be adjusted dccordingly by a written amendment to this Agreement. The Con~ission may' offset amounts due to the ,i Municipalities in any year under this Sectiop against amounts allocated to and due from the municipality to the Commission . .. . ' as provided by Minnesota Statutes,: Sec:tion 473.517. ~. 1,- . Section 5. Interceptor .~Cost,s. 'l'be, Commission wi 11 ,', 01 . ' include in its annual bud~et for ~977 and each year thereafter ,.: .. -4-; ~ ti :.:' , , , , " , 1M ~ . . '. the debt service costs and costs ot operation and maintenance of 'j . ' the interceptor and of all otherf~cilities of the metropolitan disposal system incurred on or aft~r J~nuary 1, 1977, and will I . allocate such costs to the Municip~lities and other local government " ' " ~ . .. units in ~he metrqpolitan area in acco~dance with Sections 473.517 ,. , to 473.549., Section 6. Original Cost and Current Value. The balance of the interceptor price shall be credited to the Municipality as provided by Minnestoa Statutes,~Section 473.511, Subdivision 4. . . Exhibit 0 indicating the original post: and current value of the . I interceptor for the purposes of Minnesota. Statutes, Section .' , 473.511, Subdivision 4, is hereb~ ~ncorporat7d and made a part of this Agreement. . .. r " " ''It .~ ,--',. ., " Section 7. . Binding' Effe'ct. The Agreement shall ~nure " , to the benefit of and shall be bin,ding upon the Municipalities and the Commission and their respecti~e supcessors and assigns. Furthermore, this Agreement shall ;not merge with ~ny: instrument of convey~nce or deed. .... ,. , "", " Section 8. Severability. In the .event ,any provision of this Agreement shall be held irivalid or unenforceable by any cour~ of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate . t. l ' " . " , , .. i or render unenforceable any other 'provision hereof. I' I . ,.. t r Section 9. Amendments, ;Changes and Modifications. This , Agreement shall not be amended, cijanged, modified or altered without the concurring written consent by and thrQugh the governin~ bodies of the Municipalities and 1;he Commission, reSpectively. . , .'*, .", Section 10. Execution of Counterparts.. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in~sev~ral counterparts, ,each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute by " one and the same instrument. -57 . . ,.' , ." . " :" . . . , ,',J. t. .. . '. . . ' . . . , I , IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipalities and the,Commission i I by and through their governing bod~es,respe9tively, have caused this Interceptor Acquisition Agreement, to be executed in,their , , . , names and on their behalf, respeqttvely, and their, corporate seals to be hereunto affixed and attested by:-their duly authorized . officers, :tespectively. ~City of Greenwood and ,the : City of Shorewood [Seal] Attest: : By , 1 ) Mayor '. Clerk By Mayor ~... \ ; Metropolitan Waste Control Commission [Seal] Attest: By .;Joseph D. ,Straus, Chairman' f \ r r ~. , t Secretary By Richard J.; Dougherty, Chief Administrator I' . . " " ., ; , , ' Approved as to Form by Legal Council ,... . . .~~ \ .. Holmes, Kirc~er '& Graven ,., ',' t ~ ,,-' ..._-...~.... - " -6'- .. ~ , . ," .'~~ ,.... -. .>('. ~ J-..$.S. ::'t',. '. ..).;~ . S!?}\ .~ A EXHIBIT A GREENWOOD-r1ANOR ROAD INTERCEPTOR 6-GW-649 - The facil ity consists of a 400 gpm 1 ift ,station and .approximately 800 lineal feet of 8-inch forcemain located on.f4anor Road and connecting to our 24-inch forcemain (Shorewood II Interceptor). :i- '~. 1~ Q ~~~~ ~'1 @..+ !:'~~ j 5 ~ ;e;.~~,,!~. 2: '\'\. '1L-.A ---@- ~: '~~ .' ST. A,BANS 8AY ~ ..- ""tl-~ y.;t\S~ \ c; . -.... \..~\l.'t. _~R~~_~~~~ -. SUoREw64 O_..8oUND14RY 'iN ',i977':UFT' STATION: NO: 7 AND ;' FORCEMAfN .. BECOME ; PART.-~OF..: Mwt:C ~~JNTERCEPTOR". SYSTEM:? . .. - .----.--..;....:"..... ~ ...:... .~....r.:s." SCALE: In = 600' LEGEND .. 'l' · - --- 'EXISTING SANITARY SEWER --....-.-. p~OPOs~o SANITARY SEWER -e- _ _ P~OPOSED STOR),IS~ WER ........ ............ FOJtCE to4AIN - "rNrEIU..ePr61 )AETk"')POL1TAN SANIT.\RY. SEWER DISTRICT (MSSD) TRtfNK FOF/yE. MAIN PROPOSED SHOREwOOD SANITA~r__SEwEFt . -----. ----.- .- -C> ~ C!) CRAwlNG NO. o LIFT ST.lllON t LS - I ; ~.......~~..-.._'..~--~ ~ .. .'" tolETROP , ,,@. ,":;:~1~J;'J1!~H~'"';':',!ny.},;f;1;l,~.~~!;,1~;":"';;.,<<.,:,'\',:..:; -.~l ~";'l ", ' f::::, . .. "",'i' . '; i'1"","''';'1'')"';'' '1'\1,;;\,1',;(' " '\ ..' " o L \l':-ii Il'llllll, A 5 T [: c O~' r'R;OL' '1.15:5110 II . ' . ," .. ' ~ , \ LOCAL GOVERNt-\ENT DE~T' SER'JlCE 5HOREllOOD (G reen",ood -1-1a nor Roa d \ n te fc ep to r a cqu ; red 1-1-7] 1 Service Area' 4 ._," _~:" ._.......,..~i~.~r"':~.7.~,~1~,.:~...>:..;~:::,ff;:'~~;:>.::::;:/::.:::: <:;,.::;:>~::: /.:. - ' J. '. .. , NET K 0 POL 1 I,l W A 's TEe' 0 ~I! T R 0 l ":l IllS S I 0 II .. . LOCAL GOVERNf'IENT DEsr SERVICE f GREEm-iOOD (Greenwood-Nanor Road Intf:rlceptor acquired 1-1-77) Set"vi ce Area 4 - , ; : (2' -:-1 .-.---...-....-.-- Yec1r Principal Interest Total 1977 1,962.55 1,701.03 3,663.58 . 1978 19,96.55 1,607.81 3,570.36 1979 1,962.55 1,514.59 3,477.14 1980 1,962.55 1,418.92 3.381.47 1981 1,962.55 1,320.79 3.283.34 1982 1,962.55 1,222.67 3,185.22 1983 1, 962.55. 1,122.08 3,084.63 1984 1,962.55 1,0~9.'O5 2~981.60 1985 1,962.55 914.54 2,877.09 1986 1,962.55 808.57 2~771.12 1987 1,962.55 701. 61 2~664.16 1988 1,962.55 593.67 2,556.22 1989 '1,962.55 485.73 2,448.28 1990 1,962.55 \ , 377.79 2,340.34 . : 1991 1,962.55 269.85 2,232.40 1992 1,962.56 161.91 2,124.47. 1993 1,962.56 53.97 2,016.53. L_~_ _._ . , .--..--.. . TOTAL --._------- .. 33,363.37 - :I 5,294.58 . 48,657 :95- -----.. . ." .". ~ >. . -, 'If .. EXHIBITC-\o2 fl.. GREENWOOD-MANOR ROAD:INTERCEPTOR ) . $900,000 General Obligation Improvement Bond - Date of Sale Janua;-y 4, 1972. $160,000 Temporary.":"Improvement Bond- Date of Bond Sale - January 4, 1972. # '. ", , -~, ~ ' ~EENWOOD"W\llOR I!OAD INTERCEPT~.:...,:.. . . '. 6-G~~-649 . ~~~: . -' 1. Interceptor Construction Cost Contructor Cost land Cost tosts as a % of the Project 70-1 41,a97.S3 '1,800.00 Bonding Cost during Construction Printing legal Engineering Soil Borings, Read Repairs? etc. ,Bond Consultant Easement Solicitors .. PIi.S~p~f., //V-.. 214,810.60 x 41,897.58 = ~11,640.19 . 773,187.31 $55,337.77_~ 45,790.71 119.70 30~893.05 120~864.07 8,601.16 6,267. 2,274.91 2. Bond L :--- Interceptor percentage of the $1,060,000 prinicip,al 55,337.77 = 5.2205% 1,060,000.00 Interceptor Outstanding Prinicipal (as ff January 1, 1977) . 765,000 x 5.2205% = $39,937 " 3. Trend Factor Constructed from January; 1972 to January, ~973. Average construction date - June , 1972 - ,. '/ . --EPA'ConstructionCost-Index '.. National ;Val u~s- (Base 1957 - 59 = 100) . ; Trend Factor = 1976 (September) = 276.9 = 1.491 1972 (June) = 185.7 ---.."---- _.._------,- 4. Condition Factor / Depreciation per Annum (4 Yr. - 6 110.) 1.25% = 5.62% or 94.38% 5. Current Value U~termination Interceptor Construction Cost Government Bonds Out5tanding 8~nds Original Cost Trend Factor Replacement Cost Condition Current Value = SJJ,338. o 39,937. 15,401- 1.491 22,963. 94.387. 21,672. = x = x e e AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1982 by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota Municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City" and Eugene E. Of stead and Ronald F. Of stead, as Trustees under Trust Agreement dated July 20, 1976, owners of property hereinafter referred to as "Of stead". follows: That part of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter distant 214.5 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence South parallel with the East line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 924.61 feet; thence East parallel with said North line to said East line; thence South along said East line to the Southeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence West along the South line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 554.5 feet; thence North parallel with said East line a distance of 948.4 feet; thence East parallel with said North line a distance of 100 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A"; thence North parallel with said East line to said North line, and said "Line An there ending; thence East along said North line to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, Ofstead has made application to City for a simple lot division of the above described property into two (2) lots; and WHEREAS, the C,i ty now finds that it is in the bes t interes t of the community to allow said si~ple lot split; and WHEREAS, in return for said agreement on the part of City, Ofstead has made certain assurances to City. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION, of the foregoing premises and acceptance by the City of this subdivision, City and Of stead agree as follows: 1. City does hereby approve the division into' two' parcels, described as follows, to-wit: WHEREAS, Of stead is the owner of certain land described as PARCEL I That part of the South 425.86 feet of the North 437.86 feet of the Northwest' quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying West of a line drawn South parallel with the East line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter from a point on the North line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter distant 214.5 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, and lying East of a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet East, measured at right angles, from a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A", said "Line A" being described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence West along the South line of said North- west quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 554.5 feet; thence North parallel with the East line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 948.4 feet; thence East parallel with the North line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 100 feet to the point of beginning of said "Line A"; thence North parallel with said East line to said North line, and said "Line An there ending. *-9 ... ., . e e PARCEL II That part of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 32, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the North line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter distant 214.5 feet West from the Northeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence South parallel with the East line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 924.61 feet; thence East parallel with said North line to said East line; thence South along said East line to the Southeast corner of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence West along the South line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter a distance of 554.5 feet; thence North parallel with said East line a distance of 948.4 feet; thence East parallel with said North line a distance of 100 feet to the point of beginning of a line hereinafter referred to as "Line A"; thence North parallel with said East line to said North line, and said "Line A" there ending; thence East along said North line to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part of the South 425.86 feet of the North 437.86 feet thereof lying East of a line drawn parallel with and 50 feet East, measured at right angles, from said "Line A"; ALSO EXCEPT that part thereof lying within 12 feet of the North line of said Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter. 2. That Ofstead has submitted a proposed redivision sketch for Parcel II. It is, however, understood by the parties that said redivision sketch is not a preliminary plat and must be considered by the parties as a guide for future development only. Any future subdivision of Parcel II must meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning District at the time the property is subdivided. There is no intention on the part of the City Council at this time to grant any variances to the subdivision or zoning ordinances. 3. That Of stead agrees to grant to the City an easement for public road right-of-way and the right to ~ross, excavate, construct said public highway at any time the City deems' fit across the northerly 18 feet of Parcel I. 4. Ofstead further agrees to grant sewer, water and storm water utility easements along the south 10 feet of the north 28 feet, the east 5 feet, the west 5 feet and the south 5 feet of Parcel I. 5. That Ofstead for himself, his heirs, successors and assigns agrees that when Parcel II is subdivided, the entire parcel will be subdivided by platting in accordance with requirements of any existing subdivision ordinances of the City at the time of the subdivision and that the developer at that time will pay full cost for the development and improvement of all public utilities and streets as required by City Ordinances and will perform all work and furnish all materials and pay all costs in connection with the installation of any street grading, stabilization surfacing, storm and surface water drainage facility, sanitary water and sewer line as may be required by the subdivision ordinances and Of stead acknowledges and agrees that the cost of the same or any portion thereof cannot be assessed by the City against Parcel I. -2- .. '. .. .. e e 6. That Of stead agrees that the buildings presently located on Parcel I may preclude future resubdivision of said Parcel I and that the City does not herewith anticipate granting any variances to lot size or setback requirements should the owners of Parcel I decide to resubdivide the same in the future. The area of the road easement may not be used for computation of square footage for zoning and subdivision purposes. the Ci ty all co the ~ 8. That Parcel I may not be resubdivided until such time as a publicly dedicated street is constructed along the western boundary of Parcel I leading to Parcel II. CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Robert Rascop, Mayor Eugene E. Ofstead Ronald F. Of stead Trustees under the Trust Agreement dated July 20, 1976. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this day of ~98l. ... NOTARY PUBLIC THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: penberthy & Larson, Ltd. 264 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 -3- e ~~,,.~ ,i>.,.,., , ,.....,.. e Consulting Engineers Land Surveyors ORR.SCHELEN. MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Division of Kidde Consultants, Inc. April 20, 1982 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, .MN 55331 Attn: Mr. Doug Ohrhammer Administrator/Treasurer Re: Boulder Bridge Farm pumphouse Project #80 WTP-2 Gentlemen: We are attempting to final out Project t80WTP-2, the Boulder Bridge Farms Pumphouse. As part of the process, we require lien waivers to protect the City from any future claims. Some of the suppliers and the electrical su~contractor have recently con- tacted us due to not being paid by the contractor, Mac-In-Erny, and are therefore unwilling to give lien waivers. To insure payment and obtain lien waivers, the bonding company, State Surety Company, Des Moines, Iowa, has suggested i~suing joint checks to the contractor and suppliers/subcontractor as the case may be. We have received notice of amounts due f~om the following companies: . COMPANY AMOUNT 1. Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. 2. Mike Paul Electric~ Inc. 3. Armor Security, Inc. 4. Glewwe Metals $ 7,630.00 8,071.60 394.00 806.00 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE $16,901.60 The problem that exists is the Total Amount Due of $16,901.60 -- exceeds the amount left in the contract which is $11,857.25. This amount is made up ofthe5_%. retained percentage of $7,400.80 (original contract $148,016) and Payment Voucher No. 7 ($4,456.45) approved January 11, 1982 not paid to the contractor due to lack of proof of payment to the suppliers, Bergerson- Caswell, Inc. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue. Suite 238 . Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 612/331-8660 TELEX: 29-0948 4\=lO e e Page Two City of Shorewood April 20, 1982 Percentage retained - 5% Payment Voucher No. 7 $ 7,400.80 4,456.45 $11,857.25 Amount Left In Contract At the time of preparing PaYment Voucher No.7, January 6, 1982, we were aware that only Bergerson-Caswell, Inc. had not been paid. This was the reason for stipulating at the January 11, 1982 Council Meeting that Mac-In-Erny not be paid Voucher No. 7 until: 1. Proof of' payment to the supplier was provided; and 2. A semi-final inspection be set up. Proof of payment to the supplier was never provided, however a semi-final inspection was held Wednesdayt' February 24, 1982. Upon completion of most of the punch list items from that inspection, a final inspection was held March 24, 1982. To date, all the punch list items have been completed except for the replacement of the electrical line from the transformer to the control panel damaged when the gas line was installed. t \ ' Not being aware of lack of payment to the other suppliers and the electrical subcontractor, we did not withhold additional monies other than the 5% retainage and the non-payment of Voucher No.7. At this time, the total amount due of $16,901.60 exceeds the amount left in the contract, $11,857.25, by $5,044.3~'. Total Amount Due Amount Left in Contract $16,910.60 11,857.25 Difference $5,044.35 We have tried contacting Mr. James C. Beck, Vice President of State Surety Company who is handl'ing this project. However, due to a death in his family, he is unavailable until Wednesday, April 21, 1982. At this time, we recommend the City Attorney be directly involved in any future dealings with the contractor, Page Three City of Shorewood April 20, 1982 e Mac-In-Erny and his bonding company, State Surety Company. ,To date, we have kept the City Attorney current on these past problems. Joint cooperation between the City Attorney's office and the City Engineer's office will be necessary in the future to final out this project. Copies of the amount due from the various suppliers and the electrical subcontractor are attached. If you have any ques- tions, please contact us. Respectfully, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES~ INC.- t. ~r1~: City Engineer JPN:nlb -J cc: Mr. Gary Larson, Penberthy & Larson Mr. James Beck, State Surety Company ~,MHb,. e $,:::' ~ 511 5 ......riel It..... Mep/e ".i,,_ Mi".....t. SlUt .".1121 "... C" "2 Mlc-In-E"'1 IIIe. Route 2. Box 227E Maple Pl.il... 55359 H49516 9/8181 Ship To: p:'~" ~~ $30.900.00 713.00 $30 .187.00 Dedlct for ftnt est1_te dated 8/10/11 - .t paid -. .2.a;;-;' $22. . Invoice $30,187.00 Paid 22,687.00 $ 7,500.00 due plus interest This ;s only 24.8% of what is owed us - he has been paid up to 5% . I /"" III i;'.;,~: - I:~ ~-~ . ; . /L.. ".. .r'i(;- ~ 1~F'~q LJ~;J..-,:1 o RECEIVED DRR-iCKDI!O-MAYERON & ASSQC. COM'M. L .3Y37.t)/ ~ 1 2 1982 ' ~~ p . . i.__ L .. . ".-" ,. . ...r.9"~.'''''''.''' -~-...........,,-." ...... ~r-'W .'. ..11..... J<.. ,r., ..~~.~... -, ... -,-, ...- ,- ~............ .,- ,........ ..~ ..~... ..,.... ~. ~.~~ "..-;. ~'~... .~-... ......,....,....,.-. -.... -~..: - .'-,- r, .....'.. .-_;-........-.." e ~<<JeIIIm% e . . . . _~I M1c.I....Ef'Q IK. IIMate Z. lox 227E Mlpl. Pl.1n... 1U19 fun1l" 1001 FluOr'de Crystal. @ ~:. ~<.' "" In4u..rial St.... Ma~. "aift. M;nMMt. 55'" .7'.)121 A... eMe 612 649663 11/16/81 / // $130.00 RECEIVED ORi\..sCIiE1EtHv\.~YERON s. ASScc. eOMM. .. APR 1 2 1982 -. -1'61 .. .-. ~ ..,... _,,' c.I....r......~... ~ ''';i'''':-",",''i7~.''..:'~.~/';~:' ,J"CQ"'fI.W ~UNJUk e ~ '11' .....triel St.... .... Plein. ~. '51" .7'-JI21 A... eMe "2 Mac- In-Enay Inc. Route 2, Box 227E Ma,le Platn. MN 55359 H 49446 8/10/81 1480 Furnish ud i.tan ._ (1) Iyr_ JKuOR vertteal line shaft ,..,. Installed wet of JIIly 17. 1981. $7,500.00 /' e1~. RECEt~ED 'ORR.SCHELEN.rr:AY~RON & ASS~ tOMM. f. . 6:. . ~,. .APR 1 2 198P. L"--1_ I ! I !! Ii u . . ~~P...._....,....... '....-r:9'...-......':W..,r._.. "".,..r?"~'."'*'" ~-.-~'.~",f-r:";(-.$''''-: .....-- ~'\,,-"".-.1lI.,..';.*~.':~.'" .:.z.",..CO"'Io......I'........ ,."... ...........r ,,c.,,,'. '- . e e MI~I: 1)4UL I:LI:()T~I(). I~C. (" . . . . . . . 899 RANDOLPH AVENUE ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102 April 9, 1982 Mr. James Norton Orr-Schelen-Mayeron and A~soe. 2021 East Hennepin Ave. Suite 238 Mpls., MN 55413 Re: Boulder Bridge Fann Pumphouse Shorewo.od, MN Mr. Norton: The following is our breakdown of billing to date to the general contractor Mac- In-Erny, Inc. for the electrical work at the above mentioned project. * Contract of March 9, 1981 $41,650.00 i Application No. 1 Aug. 28, 1981 34,178.40 Application No. 2 Sep. 23, 1981 3,306.60 Appliaation No. 3 Nov. 16, 1981 4,165.00 Amount Received Nov. 19, 1981 34.178.40 Balance $ 7,471.60 Repair conduit and cable damaged by others 600.00 T<Yl'AL DUE $ 8,071.60 , If further information is requested please feel free to call 222~2771. Sincerely, MIKE PAUL ELECTRIC, INC. mas R~CE\VEO Olr'.SCHEL~i"\'MA'{~RON & ~ h ~J 37-01 (:OMtL . ~PR 1 2 \982 lW - Rcrf t~ Roger E. Strantz Secretary ~~ I - I I __ SECURITY INC. ~.. 2313 Hennepin. Minneapolis. MN 55405 .(612) 374"1lifr- ~} 42 Water Street. Excelsior. MN55331.(612)474-521n t. eEl V E D ORR-SCHELEN.MAYERON & ASSOC. COMM. .. e March 4, 1982 Attn: Sammi Deeds Mac-In-Erny Inc. Route 2 Box 227E Maple Plain, Minn 55359 \ APR 1 2 1982 ;IE . - Dear Sammi In response' to your memo s~nt February 16, 1982 regarding the amount of credit given to Mac-In-Erny, Inc. for returned lock hardware, I am writing you this letter to help clarify the situation. I had discussed the issue at length with Bill Maclnery approximately six weeks ago and was under the impression that everything was understood as Bill did agree to send us a check for the total amount of the bill - $394.00. Apparently there is still some confusion as the bill has not been paid since our conversation: I will be happy to explain.: the situation again for you. ~ On October 8, 1981 we received a phone call from the city of Shorewood (Don) requesting that lock hardware be installed at the Boulder Bridge Pumphouse as soon as possible. It seems that one of the city employees had found some young children playing inside the pumphouse and in lieu of the portential danger, had called us and ordered that locks be installed immediately on the two entrance doors. We sent our serviceman to the pumphouse that very day and found two brand new metal doors prepared with mortise lock openings but without the locks. As we do not normally stock mortise locksets'due to their high cost, the serviceman was unable to do the installation that day. However, he did order the locks from our supplier and he installed them the very next day, October 9, 1981. Since we were not given any specifications for what brand of locks to install we put in Russwin 85048 Mortise Locks, as these are the only mortise locksets that our supplier, Doyle Lock Co. carries in stock. The total bill came to $394.00. $302.00 for the two locksets and $92.00 for service and labor to install. This bill was then sent to the City of Shorewood as they were the ones who had called us. It was later learned that Mac-In-Erny, Inc. was to be billed for the work as they were the contractors for the Boulder Bridge Project. This, in turn, was done. Approximately three to four wee~s later, Bill Macinerny called me to have additional work done at the pumphouse. He said that he wanted some type of lock hardware installed on an interior door inside the pumphouse. He was not concerned with whether the hardware had a locking function or not as long as it would make the door latch in the closed position. Again there was no type or specification given, so our judgement was used in what type of hardware to use. The same serviceman from the previous installation did the work on the interior door at the pumphouse. The metal door was prepared the same way that the other two doors were, but because it was interior door and because the hardware had not been specified, the serviceman did not deem it necessary to install another $151.00 Iockset. Instead, he installed a Weiser Passage lock and a M.A.G. wrap-around plate for $26.50, considerably less than the mortise lock. ~~. continued.......... o Mobile Locksmith Service o Rre and Burglar Safes o Central Monitored Alarms o Electronic Lock Systems ..... -_......_..........._ -.,. ........-..,. -.... .._....... .--.. ~.. - -....Z""'j-.'.......,--: .....-................-.....-...... ....~...._-. ,...,-~~...,.~....,....T't."i... ...:..,t::r-.ao:-:-.-I'....-. -,.-, ..--. - ......-.. -.--.. .......-..~~ ~-.... .....-. ." "t. a. a. a. , ,. .,.. ~. .. .. e e ,,; At this point we wera called by Mac-Iu-Erny atating that the wrong ~rdware .,~> had been installed and that it would be aent back to ua for credit. It waa ~~~,: aent back and credit was given to the a.Gunt of $23.85 (15% restocking chafge) I hope this letter clarifies any doubts regarding your obligation on this matter. We would appreciate proapt cona1deration and a check to pay in full the 8I!lOunt due. . If you have any further questions feel free to call me at 374-1826. Yours truly, Larry Lundberg Service :~r:.af'er LL:cz ~: ...... ~_:~ . . ~'.' . ~;~ ~-. I .., oj"" ~: N >0 ~. <( ~ -_c ,- ,Ii.5 "" lEl .;.J i..co A. E:a"':' .. Co" :IE :r ~::; MC _C ~~ .' ..:--.. -.- '.'-~. 'l .~ ,,~.- r . . ~ ~"t~' . .1D(7) i .n2N 4( ~:::Eon W ~~~ a: ~.-.. r-o'" 4( ..~ Ul 1.' '. t ' t:;'. \~~.~, -.1_. ;" w ...~ o C-ia.r. t .."l", =- VlZ- =- t:::E~ <( ~~.. ~ Wa: ~ ,2 .. N~ 4( .. ~ Ul k. ~ ~ '(:.... \!..~ ~..,.,..- ~ '.....:. '~ I 11.[ .. .s.,<.,.--.-..-...... e . > t:: a: :J U W C/) -_._--~..__.~------_#- T-~~ , '~',. - j;~~~~' '-1-~;.':, ~~~ .~(';~f :~ti:"'" ...~ J 1:"- If~ it:"''! f6 ",t - ....--------' ~ . .... I u z > l- et :J frl (/) ~I \ /1. cr: ~ ~ ~ 4q ; s:i ~ IN ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I J~ _ ~~ ~___~~-- L_ a:~~8~~ :;:f: i ~ .. e /1.1 n~:J--'1iC, i~ ~ \V) i ~ ,;~ ~:Ii~~;',' \'~ i :; en 0.. 10 <( Q. , · E :f _~ l- I ~ .. _ z 0 ,,,, I r:-.. ci ,~(\1! ~ L:~ \ I~ .' ...~. ~Uj W L~ -I~I ~ \\~ i~ i ~.3 ~~' ~ <i) '~, ;~ ."'1 !~".~ "!:: ~i ' ! ! III I ~ ~ '/J) '." ~ ~ ~ ti~..~. \ I \~ \ '~'., ll;.! . ...."- ~ l i. ~\R~ r:f0.~ :'-'>~ d ~ ~ I',: I.~ ~' ~ n'. . o O~ \)1 ~~;:: \~ i I ~: ~ o I' 0: · I . ; ,~\' : \!~ ~Ti..-:---;-~~ '" .,x.,~ ~ I~I' ,I' :< 'N . III ;z\............'., a::i 10 ~ :':t ,':> ; <( ." "-'. t w t/I .......0 1::J1' .' _ ,lu I!!: ;0" I , I , ~ t- Jl lz t; z ~ :i I !s ~ '", ~;..: 1- ~ i ~ i~ ~: ~r ~!; ~ = c~; ~ =;,;.t: . . .:;) w ~ ,J c.,' u' ~~3t ! i en I ~ ~ ~:;i s::~:1 , )( ; C ' .... ....'0 ,. ......" Il ~~ ;: . : ;: ~ ! . : -; t !. ; i; . 'I' Ei 1 : ~'5 . _ ':Z:: _~-; : CI') ~~ . . 1; r:: -" ; E ~w B i; t1 os: ~l f. ... " !" ~ . 1; d ~~ =~~, '>s~ _.:,:~ pt. tj,., ..,. !- .., -:;; ... J.;f.: ..-......t. .'Q... t'" j i/~ ! 01 ~ j Z::;; ,!>,'. :1;.\" .,' ._~ . :$!i.~~ ,~ ..;fJ < ~ .:.- .;.:'~'~" ... ,......... - ,;- --: " :) .. '_'~.t' ....~:. ;: ",;:':, , .".. .'~ ~ ..:.~: ... ~ . '1 . '.r ,:,"" . ',e ... . 6284 Claude Way E. Inver Grove Heights, Minn. 55075 Ph 612.455-1656 April 13, 1982 O.S.M. 2021 East Hennepin - Suite 238 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Attention: Mr. Jim Norton Subject: Boulder Bridge Farm Pumphouse Old Dayton Farm Shorewood, Minnesota Dear Mr. Norton, ~::. Per your request, we are confirming the status of the above project. The outstanding invoices total $1,200.00 of which we have authorized a credit for $394.00 to be taken against an Armor Security invoice for the purchase and installation of locks on this project. The total amount due us on this project is now $806.00. We understand you are having difficulty with finalizing this project and we appreciate your cooperation. We also understand that you are having a double named Check being issued and upon receipt of the $806.00 check, we will gladly issue a final lien waiver. Thank you. Sincerely, TJG/sf RECEIVED ORR.SCHELEr.:: " ~:':\:,N & ASSOC. c.;OMM. ,.. 3/, .7 /)1 APR 1 4 1982 r:: ~ . .. ---- -'-~~~~~ - ~~r--~.~_~_;"""".'lI':"-"" ......-:-rrJ....i~.. ;..~....,.......ty~~~~.,.........,~~r....~~..~...~..~~..~<-'..~.....-:-.:..,~~;.,~~..~.tI'......,.."" - .;....~.---'r.-.,~' ,. -. ....r.. ','"