Loading...
092208 CC Reg MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD 5735 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SOUTHSHORE CENTER MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; City Administrator Heck; Planning Director Nielsen; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, September 8, 2008 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-063, "A Resolution Establishing an Absentee Ballot Board for the 2008 General Election." C. Approving ORDINANCE N0.453. "An Ordinance Enacting and Adopting the 2008 S-3 Supplement to the Code of Ordinances for the City of Shorewood." and Adopting RESOLUTION N0.08-064, "The Official Summary of Ordinance 453." Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 2 of 17 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Thomas Wartman, 28120 Boulder Bridge Drive, stated he has been a resident of the City for fifty seven years. He was present as a concerned resident and concerned developer who wanted to ask the Council for accountability into the recent Boulder Bridge Farm street seal coating project. He noted he had submitted a letter to the Council (a copy of which is on file) that he would like to highlight. Mr. Wartman explained over the last three years he had repeatedly asked for help in addressing the roadway conditions for Boulder Bridge Drive, Boulder Bridge Lane and Boulder Bridge Circle. He installed Boulder Bridge Drive in 1981 and Boulder Bridge Lane in 1983 to City specifications at his expense, and between their installation and this year's seal coating there had only been one other seal coating applied to those roadways. Because there was a great deal of breakup occurring in the roadways, he had asked City Staff to help the Boulder Bridge Homeowners Association (the Association) address the benefits and cost of a mill and overlay versus a seal coating, and to determine what type of credit the Boulder Bridge area residents could receive against the cost of a mill and overlay should the City and the residents share the mill and overlay cost. The approximate cost was $108,000 for the mill and overlay and $25,000 for seal coating. He thought a mill and overlay would have been an effective way to extend the life of the roadways, and it was a better option than just seal coating the roadways. The only credit the City was willing to give was for the cost of the actual seal coating. Mr. Wartman then explained that prior to the seal coating being done, an extensive amount of asphalt was used to patch areas in need of repair and approximately two-thirds of Boulder Bridge Circle was entirely overlaid with asphalt. He thought there were four to five days of person hours spent on preparing the roadways for seal coating. He thought it would have been appropriate to have included those costs as well as the actual seal coating costs in the credit toward the cost of a mill and overlay. Mr. Wartman stated sharing the cost for a mill and overlay between the City and the Bounder Bridge area residents could have served as a model for future roadway improvement projects. Instead, a "band-aid" approach was used and next spring and fall there will be continued problem areas and continued expenses which could have been avoided had a mill and overlay been done. He asked to be provided with a true accounting of all costs associated with the seal coating of these roadways (e.g., asphalt, labor, and equipment costs for preparing and sealcoating the roadways). He noted that not all of the residents in the Boulder Bridge area agreed that they should help pay for the cost difference to have the roadways overlaid rather than seal coated. Mayor Lizee stated the condition of the City's infrastructure and paying for infrastructure improvements are a concern to the current Council and would likely be for future councils. Mr. Wartman stated sharing improvement costs with residents would allow the City to stretch the City's dollars further. Mayor Lizee stated all costs associated with the seal coating of the City's roadways are public record. James Thibault 4565 Enchanted Point, stated he lived directly across from the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club (UMYC). He was present this evening to ask the Council to stop the UMYC from becoming a marina by taking the case with the UMYC to the next level which he thought was the appeals court. He stated the special use permit the City granted to the UMYC in 1969 referred to sail boats. When the UMYC applied for a conditional use permit [yacht clubs were then allowed as conditional uses in residential zoning districts] in 1976 the number of boats allowed was changed and the word sail was SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 3 of 17 inadvertently omitted from the C.U.P. He stated he had a letter from former Mayor Frasier, who was mayor from 1976 to 1982, which stated the UMYC was intended to be a sailing club and not a marina. He requested Council take the necessary steps to keep it as a sailing club. Mayor Lizee stated Council will be discussing the UMYC litigation during an executive session scheduled for later this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Report on Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission activities by Representative Patrick Hodapp Patrick Hodapp, Shorewood's representative to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) and the LMCC Secretary, provided a brief overview of the LMCC. The LMCC is a joint powers organization with seventeen communities as members. The LMCC's purpose is to administer the cable franchise in the communities; it collects funds which are used for that purpose as well as for public education and government programming. Mr. Hodapp provided a summary update on LMCC activities. He stated during his two-year tenure as LMCC Treasurer (that term ended in May 2008) the LMCC implemented having a full audit each year (it used to be an accounting review) with a Certified Public Accountant, it changed to a new accountant and it upgraded its bookkeeping system. Mr. Hodapp thanked Councilmember Woodruff for his efforts as the Council's representative to the LMCC. Mr. Hodapp reviewed three topics he thought were of importance this evening. The LMCC was studying fibre to the premises, and Councilmember Woodruff was chairing an ad hoc committee doing the study. The LMCC will report back to the member cities on the findings. The LMCC is not recommending fibre to the premises at this time, it is just studying the topic to see if it is worthwhile. The LMCC would like the member cities to approve the LMCC's 2009 budget as soon as possible. If a majority of the member cities do not disapprove of the budget, the budget will be approved by default. The LMCC is approaching the end of its second five-year lease on the building it operates out of; the lease expires on February 1, 2009. The lease rate is reasonable for the modest building. The LMCC is reassessing that lease and other options, but there would have to be very solid benefits for the LMCC to consider moving. The lease will be discussed during an LMCC Executive Committee meeting scheduled for September 25, 2008. Councilmember Woodruff thanked Mr. Hodapp for his efforts as both Treasurer and Secretary for the LMCC. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Vacate Undeveloped Rights-of--Way of Sunset Lane and Orchard Lane Mayor Lizee opened the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Director Nielsen explained as part of her proposed rearrangement of property lines, Karen Petron, who owns the properties at 4845 and 4865 Suburban Drive, has requested the City vacate Sunset Lane and a portion of Orchard Lane abutting her property on the south. He reviewed a graphic showing how the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 4 of 17 areas would be rearranged and the rights-of--way to be vacated. He stated the City had considered the possibility of vacating Sunset Lane before. The City chose not to do so until a decision was made by the owner of the property in question about access to the property should Sunset Lane become the access. The resubdivision sketch submitted indicates Sunset Lane would not be used to access the rearranged properties. Ms. Petron's surveyor also configured the Orchard Lane right-of--way to accommodate the potential resubdivision of the property to the south of Ms. Petron's. The Petron properties, two properties to the east of the Petron properties and the Amesbury Development north of the Petron properties will get portions of the vacated rights-of--way. Nielsen stated Staff recommends approving the vacation of Sunset Lane and a portion of Orchard Lane subject to the applicant submitting legal descriptions for all of the pieces of the rights-of--way that would be conveyed to adjoining lot owners. He explained Staff would prepare a resolution for the vacations once the City had received all of the legal descriptions. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Mayor Lizee opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, directing Staff to prepare a resolution approving the vacation of Sunset Lane and a portion of Orchard Lane subject to the applicant submitting legal descriptions for all the pieces of the rights-of--way that will be conveyed to the adjoining property owners. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Hearing at 7:22 P.M. 7. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held September 16, 2008 Commissioner Trent reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 16, 2008, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Councilmember Woodruff stated he had spoken with Ms. Fish, a volunteer gardener with the adopt-a- garden program, who had related to him that residents near Manor Park would like an additional bench installed in the Park. It is his understanding that the Park Commission is aware of the desire. It is also his understanding that it was proposed to use funds from the Shirley Rice Memorial Fund to partially fund the bench. He thought the request was a reasonable one. He recommended the Park Commission meet with Ms. Fish to resolve this. Commissioner Trent stated he would bring this up to the Park Commission, and he did not have any recollection of this specific request. Mayor Lizee stated the Shirley Rice family had given a very generous donation to the City for the ongoing beautification and maintenance of Manor Park and funds from that donation had been used to install a bench in the Park. Councilmember Woodruff stated they wanted a second bench for the second garden in that Park. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 5 of 17 Mayor Lizee recommended the gardeners approach the Park Commission on this matter. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would appreciate it if the Commission would contact Ms. Fish, as it was his understanding the Commission had already been approached about this. Councilmember Bailey stated the Commission proposed establishing a fee policy for organized sports and activities for tennis of $5.00 per hour. From his vantage point allowing someone to reserve a tennis court for educational purposes was a community amenity and he was surprised the City would want to charge a fee. He understood the fee for organized sports at places such as Freeman Park where there is a lot of wear and tear on the fields. There wouldn't be much wear and tear on the tennis courts. He thought the City would want to encourage that, and he thought even the modest fee may discourage that. Commissioner Trent clarified the fee would be for the organizer of the event, not the individual. The nominal fee could cover some of the cost to reserve the court, etc. Also, charging the organizer some fee may provide the organizer the impetus to ensure the court is reserved and used as scheduled. Councilmember Bailey stated it was a great that people wanted to organize tennis lessons; and, there is no Community Rec Resources time involved and there is no additional wear and tear on the tennis courts. He encouraged the Park Commission to rethink charging a fee. Councilmember Wellens stated he thought a fee would be a good idea because it would be a private organization using public facilities. He thought there would be additional wear and tear on the courts. Councilmember Bailey stated the City did not charge for special events for children which are held in City parks. 8. PLANNING Commissioner Vilett reported on matters considered and actions taken at the September 16, 2008, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Minor Subdivision Applicant: Mike Seifert Location: 6085 Lake Linden Drive Director Nielsen stated Mike Seifert purchased the property located at 6085 Lake Linden Drive, and he proposes subdividing the lot into two building sites. The property is zoned R-1C, Single Family Residential and it contains 63,210 square feet of area. It is occupied by two outbuildings that were left after a fire destroyed the house that previously existed. The proposed northerly lot would be 42,295 square feet in area and the proposed southerly lot would be 20,915 square feet in area. Nielsen explained both of the proposed lots would comply with the area and width requirements of the R- 1Czoning district. The northerly lot would be considerably larger in size in order to create a building pad that respects .the steeper slope on the north side of the lot. It also accommodates the turnaround for a common driveway that will extend northward through the southerly lot. Although a driveway is shown on the northerly lot, due to its grade it is considered only as an auxiliary access to a lower level garage space. The shared driveway would require an easement and maintenance agreement, which will be recorded with the resolution approving the subdivision. Also, the driveway as shown is only 10 feet wide. A condition of approval should be the shared driveway must be a minimum of 12 feet wide with the common portion of the shared driveway no less than 16 feet wide. Due to the location of the northerly SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 6 of 17 building pad, the driveway may have to increase to 20 feet wide with a Fire Code turnaround, unless the applicant proposes to install a sprinkler system in the house. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the minor division subject to the conditions identified in the Staff report which are as follows. The applicant must provide legal descriptions and deeds for drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around each lot. The applicant must provide an up-to-date (within 30 days) title opinion for review by the City Attorney. 3. Prior to release of the resolution approving the request, the applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($5000) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1.200). Credit is allowed for the previous home on the site. 4. Because the division itself does not result in the removal of any trees from the property, tree preservation and reforestation can be addressed at the time building permits are applied for. Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission also recommended two additional conditions of approval. The shared driveway should be a minimum of 12 feet wide with the common portion of the driveway no less than 16 feet wide if a sprinkler system is installed in the house or 20 feet wide if it is not. The applicant should also submit an easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway. Director Nielsen noted that Mike Seifert, the applicant, was present. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen explained the City Code allows one driveway per 120 feet of frontage. In response to another question, Nielsen explained when Mr. Seifert applies for a building permit to construct one or both of the house, the width of the road will be determined based on whether or not the houses are have a sprinkler system. Mr. Seifert commented that his plan is to construct the house on the proposed northerly lot first. Bailey moved, Woodruff seconded, recommending approving a minor subdivision for Mike Seifert, 6058 Lake Linden Drive, subject to Staff recommendations, to the shared driveway being a minimum of 12 feet wide with the common portion of the driveway no less than 16 feet wide if a sprinkler system is installed in the house or 20 feet wide if is not, and to the applicant submitting an easement and maintenance agreement for the proposed shared driveway. Motion passed 5/0. B. Minnewashta Elementary School CUP Applicant: Minnetonka School District 276 Location: 26410 and 26550 Smithtown Road Director Nielsen stated in the spring of 2008 the City approved a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for the Minnetonka School District for the Phase 1 expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School located at 26350 Smithtown Road. At the time the Phase 1 C.U.P. was approved representatives for the School District indicated the expansion was the first phase of an overall plan to add additional classrooms and a new gymnasium on the site. The City noted that lack of adequate off-street parking remained an issue and a parking management plan would be required as a condition of approval. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 7 of 17 Nielsen then stated the School District purchased two properties immediately west of the existing parking lot at the end of June 2008. At that time it began preparing plans to use the lots for an expanded parking lot. The two lots added 1.8 acres of land to the Minnewashta School property, which now totals approximately 23.2 acres. The School District now requests approval of a new C.U.P. for the Phase 2 expansion of the School which would add six new classrooms on the west side of the building and a new gymnasium on the north side of the building. Nielsen explained during the review of the Phase 1 plans two primary issues were cited -parking and drainage. The applicant has modified its site plan to include a substantially improved parking lot expansion, and it should go a very long way toward eliminating the need for on-street parking. Nielsen reviewed the proposed parking lot layout. He explained the proposed new parking lot will have five double rows of 17 parking spaces each plus a single row of 18 spaces on the east end of the new lot. To make the new layout work and to accommodate a proposed rain garden, 27 spaces from the existing parking lot would be eliminated. The net result is 161 additional spaces. Combined with 42 spaces in the newly completed front parking lot, the school property would have 203 spaces, not including the area used for bus loading. Nielsen then explained the parking space dimensions and driveway widths comply with the requirements of City's Zoning Code. The aisles are a little narrow but they do satisfy the Code requirement; ideally the aisles would be 24 feet wide and the proposed aisles are 23 feet wide. The proposed layout indicates the inclusion of landscape aisles, as required by the Code, which should 11e1p people line-up correctly. An area of concern is the dead-end spaces proposed in the southeast corner of the new lot; they are proposed in order to save some large trees in that location. This problem can be resolved by adding a landscape island at the end of the double row of parking, connecting the drive aisle to the exit aisle. This would result in eight fewer spaces. Another alternative would be to reconfigure the southeast corner of the lot to create aback-up for the two end spaces. This would result in four fewer spaces. Nielsen went on to explain the new lot adds one 24-foot wide driveway; it lines up with the driveway for the residence on the south side of Smithtown Road. Nielsen reviewed the landscape plan for proposed parking lot. He explained starting with the south edge of the parking lot, the applicant's landscape architect proposes landscaped berms (per the direction of Staff) approximately three feet high with some type of deciduous trees such as White Oak lining the street and Dwarf Burning Bush on top of the berms. Burning Bush is deciduous vegetation which has a very dense stem structure that provides winter interest as well as a screening effect. Nielsen then explained the plan will be modified to center the proposed dense hedge of Black Hills Spruce within the setback area on the west end of the parking lot. Staff has recommended the landscape berm be extended around the corner somewhat past where the existing house is on the lot. The plan shows that all of the evergreen trees on the site would be eight feet in height; the plan will be revised to propose a mix of six-foot-tall to twelve-foot-tall trees. Planting the trees twelve feet on center would be appropriate because the intent is for the trees to grow close together. Staff has recommended the applicant consider reusing the stand of evergreens located in the northwest corner of the westerly lot; the trees appear to be in good condition and are taller than eight feet, but not so large that they can't be moved. Some of those trees could be planted adjacent to the existing house on the west end of the lot so there would be an extensive and tall buffer right away. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 8 of 17 Nielsen went on to explain the north side of the parking lot abuts a wetland area. The north end of the parking lot would be raised about four feet. The plan shows Emerald Queen Maple trees and White Pines along the edge between the parking lot and the wetland. The landscape architect plans to mix up the evergreen tree mix so there isn't a solid row of one type of tree. The plan labels a point as the edge of the wetland delineation, but does not show the entire edge. This needs to be added to the landscape plan as well as the grading plan. The applicant must maintain the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) minimum 16.5-foot buffer from the wetland. For vegetation in that space that isn't disturbed, Staff recommends existing vegetation in that space should be preserved in its current condition to the extent possible. The slope from the parking lot is currently shown at 3:1, which is the maximum that should be allowed. Nielsen stated the east edge of the new parking lot includes a rain garden to filter stormwater from an existing parking lot. The applicant must submit a detailed plan for the rain garden; it is currently shown as a plan "by others". The landscape plan for the rain garden should provide for pedestrian crossing of the garden. Nielsen explained each of the parking lot islands will have light posts for lighting the parking lot. The proposed landscaping of the islands is shown as Hydrangea. Because Hydrangea requires relatively damp soil in areas that will undoubtedly be hot and dry, tl~e applicant should use plantings more appropriate for a hot and dry areas and which are salt tolerant. Nielsen noted the Phase 1 C.U.P. required landscaping on the east end of the new front parking lot. The parking lot has been installed and it appears that this area has been over planted. The applicant should consider relocating some of the evergreen trees referenced above to this area. Nielsen stated the applicant has provided a photometric plan for lighting the new parking lot. He explained the plan proposes a "shoebox" type of fixture which provides a controlled downcast lighting pattern. The light fixtures are 28 feet tall and the lighting levels are shown at .4 footcandles at the property lines, which complies with City Code requirements. The plan indicates lights will come on at dusk and go off at dawn, citing security purposes. Staff and the Planning Commission have suggested a condition be included in the resolution approving the C.U.P. stating that parking lot lighting be turned off after 10:30 P.M. Any need for security lighting near the building or entrances should be identified on the plans. Nielsen reviewed the conditions of approval identified in the Staff report. The applicant must submit an overall master plan for the site, showing existing and proposed buildings, parking, recreational facilities, wetlands and ponding. (This condition is a carryover recommendation from the Phase 1 C.U.P.) The southeast corner of the new lot must be reconfigured to eliminate the dead-end spaces. 3. The grade of the parking lot and access drives can not exceed five percent. 4. The landscape plan should be revised as follows: a. The Spruce trees on the west end of the parking lot should be centered within the setback area. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 9 of 17 b. Existing trees on the site should be reused wherever feasible. c. An earth berm along the west end of the parking lot should be constructed, particularly adjacent to the home to the west of the lot. d. The plans need to show the delineated wetland boundary. A minimum 16.5-foot natural buffer must be maintained abutting the wetland. e. Disturbed slopes can not exceed 3:1 £ Detailed landscaping for the rain garden and the east end of the front parking lot must be submitted. g. Some other landscape material, other than hydrangeas, should be shown in the landscape islands in the parking lot. Parking lot lighting shall be controlled to turn off at a specified time; the suggested time is 10:30 P.M. All light fixtures shall be hooded as necessary to prevent glare onto adjoining residential properties. 6. The two newly acquired parcels must be legally combined with the rest of the school property. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to Staff recommendations as modified to have parking lot lighting turned off by 10:30 P.M. Engineer Landini explained the applicant proposes using an underground stormwater storage system for the parking lot expansion. The system will include the use of plastic chambers, which in layman's terms would be similar to a bag of rocks with straws in it. The system will fill up with water from the catch basins, and the core spaces between the rocks will be filled. It will be similar to a dead storage type pond situation underground. The outlet is at the normal water level and the space above the outlet will be live storage for the additional stormwater. The stormwater plan satisfies the City's rate-control requirement. He noted the applicant's stormwater calculations did not include the proposed rain garden which is a bonus. Mayor Lizee stated the proposed parking lot drainage system was impressive and it appears it will suit the property well. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Engineer Landini explained Staff has recommended curb cuts be placed curbing for the edge of the proposed rain garden to allow stormwater to flow into that rain garden. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Engineer Landini explained Staff and the applicant had been resolving drainage issues as late as a few hours before the Planning Commission considered this request at its September 16, 2008, meeting. All of the issues were resolved. Councilmember Wellens extended leis appreciation to the School District for the proposed drastic improvement to the current parking lot situation. He stated he also appreciated the work of Staff and the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 10 of 17 Planning Commission. He thought the public safety departments would be pleased with reducing the number of cars that will park on the residential streets for events at the school. Wellens moved, Bailey seconded, directing staff to prepare a resolution for a conditional use permit for the Minnetonka School District for the Phase 2 expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School, 26410 and 26450 Smithtown Road, subject to Staff recommendations including a modification to allow the turn-off time for the parking lot lighting to be 10:30 P.M. In response to a comment from Councilmember Woodruff, Director Nielsen stated at the September 16«' Planning Commission meeting the applicant indicated the new driveway may have to be shifted to the west approximately ten feet because of a light pole; the location of the driveway in relationship to residential driveways will be assessed if a revised plan is submitted. If a new parking lot plan is submitted Council can review that when it considers a formal resolution. Motion passed 5/0. C. Final Plat - Petrov Rearrangement Applicant: Karen Petrov Location: 4845 and 4865 Suburban Drive Director Nielsen stated there are some typographical errors in the resolution included in the meeting packet and they will be corrected in the signed resolution. The resolution being considered will approve the final plat for the Petrov Rearrangement. He explained Karen Petrov owns the properties at 4845 and 4865 Suburban Drive. Ms. Petrov wants to convey a portion of the easterly parcel to her son, John, so that he can build a new home on the property. In order to do so she would demolish the home on the easterly lot and rearrange the property line between the two parcels, creating a new building site for her son's home. As part of the request the City required the applicant submit a resubdivision sketch demonstrating how the remainder of the property can be developed in the future. It is not necessary to develop the property as illustrated in the sketch; this sketch will be incorporated into a development agreement as a guide for when the property ultimately develops. The applicant must submit a driveway easement and maintenance agreement for the portion of the common driveway, as well as a conservation easement over the portions of the property that are wetland. Because no new lots are being created at this time, there are no park dedication fees or sanitary sewer charges being imposed with the plat; those would have to be paid when the property is replatted. Nielsen then stated the Planning Commission and Staff recommend approval of the final plat for the Petrov Rearrangement. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-065, "A Resolution Approving the Plat of Petrov Rearrangement." Motion passed 5/0. D. Setback Variance Applicant: Robert Thomson Location: 5050 Suburban Drive Director Nielsen stated Robert Thomson owns the property at 5050 Suburban Drive. He explained Mr. Thomson's property is located in the R-1C, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 30,864 square feet of area. The driveway serving Mr. Thomson's house also serves the SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 11 of 17 house at 5060 Suburban Drive, and it straddles the property line between the two lots. Mr. Thomson proposes to build a driveway entirely on his own lot. Nielsen related Mr. Thomson has stated that he has been unable to come to terms with the owners, Denis and Michelle Tierney, of the 5060 Suburban Drive property on an easement and maintenance agreement for the shared driveway. He also related Mr. Thomson has stated he has been attempting to market his property and prospective buyers were uncomfortable with the lack of a formal easement and maintenance agreement for the driveway. Nielsen explained because Mr. Thomson's property exists as a "flag lot" with only 16 feet of width abutting Suburban Drive, he is unable to do construct a driveway entirely on his property without a variance to the five foot setback requirement for driveways. Mr. Thomson's request is for two-foot variances on each side of the driveway in order to construct a 10-foot wide driveway centered within the 16-foot wide portion of the lot. Staff recommends the driveway be 12 feet wide which would result in two-foot setbacks on each side of the new driveway. He noted this would require the Tierneys to construct their own driveway. He commented most properties have a driveway on them. Nielsen stated that although the Planning Commission recommended approval of the driveway setback variance because the request complied with the criteria for granting a variance, it did so reluctantly because of the burden it would place on the Tierneys. The Commission strongly encouraged Mr. Thomson and the Tierneys to reach agreement on an easement and maintenance agreement for the shared driveway. Nielsen noted that since the September 16, 2008, Planning Commission meeting the City has received additional correspondence from the Tierneys. They have taken exception with how the location of the shared driveway is depicted on survey Mr. Thomson submitted. Nielsen stated he informed the Tierneys that if that is their claim they could submit their own survey documenting where they think driveway is located; if that is what they want to do this request could be continued to a future meeting. Nielsen stated Staff would need direction from Council to prepare a resolution granting a driveway setback variance. Nielsen stated the Denis and Michelle Tierney were present this evening. Denis Tierney 5060 Suburban Drive, stated he and his wife believe there are a couple of discrepancies in the information provided by Mr. Thomson and the variance request. The survey Mr. Thompson provided gives the impression that the vast majority of the shared driveway is on Mr. Thomson's property; that is not the case. He explained the westerly portion of the driveway is basically located on one-half of each property. A little east of there the driveway had shifted such that approximately 75 percent is on Mr. Thomson's property. It then goes back to an equal split. Essentially the two ends of the driveway are located such that they sit on one-half of each property, and the -niddle is located on more of Mr. Thomson's property. The survey indicates Mr. Thompson's property line goes over a 20-foot section of a retaining wall on the 5040 Suburban Drive property. Mr. Thomson's request was presented as having a two-foot setback from the 5060 and 5040 Suburban Drive property lines. The survey reflects an area that is 15 feet wide between those two property lines in some areas; therefore, the setback would only be one and one-half feet. He explained he had taken a number of measurements off of the retaining wall on the 5040 Suburban Drive property to the survey markers in the ground marking property line between his property and Mr. Thomson's property, and he found the distance to be 13 - 14 feet wide. Based on those SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 12 of 17 measurements the setback would be 6 - 12 inches wide. He questioned how he and the owner of the 5040 Suburban Drive property get their setback protection. Councilmember Bailey asked Mr. Tierney what their proposed solution was. Mr. Tierney explained they have proposed to previous owners and to Mr. Thomson that they would split the cost to have an easement prepared and the cost for blacktopping the driveway, but the only option Mr. Thomson wants is to build his own driveway. Bailey questioned if it would be a permanent easement. Mr. Tierney stated he and his wife would like to have a legal easement, and they did not want to have two blacktopped driveways in very close proximity of each other. Ms. Tierney stated it would place a significant financial burden on them if they had to build their own driveway, they would likely have to take a number of trees down, there would likely be a drainage issue because of the bowl-shaped area on their lot, and some portion of the retaining wall on the 5040 Suburban Drive property would have to be moved. She noted they had approached Mr. Thomson a number of times to try and resolve this issue. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Nielsen stated the Tierneys' solution would be an acceptable solution and it makes the most sense. It was the first time he understood the Tierneys wanted a permanent easement. Mr. Tierney explained that Mr. Thomson had offered to have a temporary easement until such time the Tierneys sold their property; at that time a new driveway would have to be built on the 5060 Suburban Drive property. Ms. Tierney explained Mr. Thomson has made six proposals over the last few months. Councilmember Bailey stated from his vantage point this would not be a good use of the Council's variance authority. Councilmember Woodruff stated the Planning Commission did struggle with this request, and it understood there are a number of critical issues but they are not relevant to the variance request. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if Mr. Thomson's property was 16 feet wide in the area he wanted to construct the driveway on. Director Nielsen stated the legal description talks about 8 feet and 8 feet. He then stated measuring on a survey is not an accurate way to measure. The surveyor should provide actual numbers for the width of the property. The accuracy of the location on the survey of the retaining wall and the driveway seems to be in question. The setback should be two feet from the property line, and if retaining wall is on Mr. Thomson's property so be it. He noted the retaining wall does encroach somewhat. Councilmember Woodruff stated with atwo-foot setback from the adjoining properties there would be no place to put plowed snow except on the adjoining properties. In the past that has not been acceptable. Mayor Lizee stated a number of things were discussed this evening. She noted that a 60-day notice letter has been sent. She stated there has been a request to continue this request. She would like to have the property owners get accurate surveys and reach a solution they can agree on. Mr. Tierney stated it was his belief that he and Mr. Thomson agree with the location of the survey markers, and where the property line is drawn. The only way to resolve this is to have someone from the City come to the property and take measurements off of the survey markers. Councilmember Wellens stated his concern was Mr. Thomson had made six proposals and the Tierneys did not think any of them were acceptable. Ms. Tierney stated one proposal was the Tierneys owed Mr. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 13 of 17 Thomson $29,000 for using the driveway over the last four years. Another was a temporary easement, and at the time of sale of the Tierneys property or major improvements a driveway would have to be constructed on the Tierneys property. Another proposal was to put the driveway up the middle and the Tierneys would have no access to their property. Another proposal was to have an easement and the easement would have a stipulation that no trucks would be allowed to go up to the Tierneys' property, which would result in her hauling her trash cans down to Suburban Drive. Mayor Lizee stated this was an excellent opportunity to use continuance to allow the property owners to agree to a solution that would benefit all. Councilmember Wellens stated he did not think this request should be continued. The property owners have been trying to reach an agreement for some time, but to no avail. Also, Mr. Thomson was having difficulty selling his property because he did not have a driveway on his property or an easement for the shared driveway. He recommended Council take action this evening. Wellens moved directing Staff to prepare a resolution granting driveway setback variances for Robert Thomson, 5050 Suburban Drive. Motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Turgeon strongly suggested the property owners again try and reach a solution that benefits all of the property owners. She appreciated the property owners' concerns. She did not think granting this variance would not be a good use of the Council's variance authority. Director Nielsen explained the Council has to take action by November I, 2008, and its last Council meeting before that date is October 27, 2008. The City would have to receive any additional information by October 17, 2008. Turgeon moved, Bailey seconded, continuing the request for driveway setback variances for Robert Thomson, 5050 Suburban Drive, to an October 27, 2008, City Council regular meeting. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS None. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Change Order No. 2 for Lift Station 12, City Project 06-01 Engineer Landini stated on July 23, 2007, Council awarded the contract for the Rehabilitation of Lift Station #12 Project to Engineering and Construction Innovations, Inc. The project is located adjacent to Christmas Lake on Christmas Lake Point Road. The contractor has installed the vent pipe within the easement at the specified location. The location for the vent pipe was chosen to avoid a conifer tree that has value to the owners of the property located at 5695 Christmas Lake Point. The neighbors around the lift station, including the owners of the 5695 Christmas Lake Point property, do not like the location of the vent pipe and have asked to have it moved. The contractor has quoted the cost to relocate the pipe to a location that is more pleasing to the neighborhood at $2,500; and, it has told the City that although it would take care to minimize root damage to the conifer tree, it would not be responsible for replacing the tree because of root damage. If the vent pipe is moved, the new project cost will be $109,308; there is $110,000 budgeted in 2008 for this project. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 14 of 17 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Adopting a resolution Approving a Change Order 2 for the Rehabilitation of Lift Station #12 Project, City Project No. 06-01. Councilmember Bailey stated he did not think it would be responsible for the City to spend an additional $2,500 on a project that is being done according to plan. Comments from the residents should have been received prior to the work being done. The workmanship done that has been done is not at issue. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if the City had received comments about the project prior to construction beginning. She also questioned if the City would be liable if there was serious root damage to the conifer tree. Engineer Landini stated the residents are unhappy with the aesthetics. There is a north-woods type atmosphere in the area. At the bottom of the hill there is granite driveway. There is belief that the vent pipe draws aesthetic attention to itself. The new location for the vent pipe would be approximately five feet away. Councilmember Turgeon questioned if shrubs could be planted around the vent pipe. Administrator Heck stated he, Director Brown and Engineer Landini had several meetings with the property owners who have the driveway located near the vent pipe. The property owners had the impression that the vent pipe would be installed in a different location. There had been considerable concern expressed about the health and safety of the pine tree located next to the lift station. Staff had discussed the possibility of shielding the vent pipe with plantings. Staff had met with those property owners' landscape architect. The City was very willing to consider landscape alternatives. There was concern that the plantings would be damaged by trucks that back into the area. The residents proposed boulders be placed where the vent pipe is currently located to prevent trucks from backing on to Lift Station 12. He had informed the property owners that the City and the contractor would not assume any liability for any future damage to the tree. He related the property owners' landscape architect had stated the tree's root system was fairly extensive and it had already been traumatized by the installation of the Lift Station, and the vent pipe on the other side of the tree would not result in any additional damage to the tree. Heck explained the vent pipe would be relocated from the front of the Lift Station to the back quarter. Mayor Lizee questioned if relocating the vent pipe would make it more secure. Director Brown stated the current location of the vent pipe provides some protection to the Lift Station. People have already parked over the wet well of the Lift Station which is a concern should there be an emergency problem with the Lift Station. He related that the landscape architect had stated if it was his property he would go to great lengths to move the vent pipe five feet over by the tree. Motion failed 2/3 with Bailey, Lizee and Turgeon dissenting. B. Accept Bids and Award Contract, SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation, City Project OS-04 Engineer Landini stated the bids for the SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation Project were opened and tabulated on September 17, 2008 at 10:00 A.M. The low bidder was Classic Protective Coatings (CPC) in the amount of $378,000. Based on KLM Engineering's estimate, it appears the costs for this project are reasonable. He explained there were irregularities with the bid opening. CPC's bid arrived late by fax (a SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 15 of 17 couple minutes after the closing) and the sealed bid arrived three hours later. KLM Engineering has stated CPC bid is worthy and it recommends the City waive the irregularities as specified in the contract document. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was astounded the low bid is 40 percent over budget, noting the bids were good bids. He expressed concern with the irregularities in the bid opening. He stated it is his understanding that when the City advertises for bids it also advertises the rules for the bids, and the rules allow the City to waive its own requirements on receipt of bids. He questioned if his understanding was correct, to which Director Brown responded yes. In response to a question from Councilmember Bailey, Attorney Keane stated Staff has consulted with him on the topic of the irregularities. Keane explained the City reserves the right to waive the compliance with technical conformities. The City also reserves the right to reject all bids and start the bid process over. With regard to damages, the only remedy available to a disgruntled bidder is recovery of their cost for the preparation of its bid. He thinks the recommendation to accept CPC's bid is good. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had asked Director Brown what the impact would be of delaying the project unti12009, and he asked Brown to share his response with the rest of the Council. Director Brown explained some cellular providers have cellular antennas on the Tower. As part of the rehabilitation project the City asked the main provider (AT&T) to temporarily relocate the equipment it had on the Tower in spite of the City's lease agreement with the provider. That has been done. Staff had intentionally delayed the project to this fall to allow for additional time to address any problems encountered during the winter and early spring months when the demand for water is lower. The cities of Chanhassen and Minnetonka will provide additional water if needed. Councilmember Wellens stated this project has been delayed a long time and the Tower is very visible in the community. Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION N0.08-066, "A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for the SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation, City Project No. 05-04." In response to a .question from Councilmember Bailey, Director Brown explained KLM Engineering thought if the project was re-bid in prime season the cost would increase to over $400,000. In response to another question, Brown explained this project was very difficult to estimate because of the number of variables (e.g., the number of structures, the amount of equipment the contractor has versus the amount of space available, etc.) Councilmember Woodruff suggested Council discuss the additional funding for the project after it voted on this request. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Woodruff suggested Staff prepare a recommendation for funding this over-budget situation for consideration at the next City Council regular meeting. Engineer Landini stated the there is a large enough balance in the Sanitary Sewer Fund to make a loan to the Water Fund to cover the overage, and the Water Fund also has a sufficient balance but he was unsure of what portion of the balance is committed. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 16 of 17 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. City Hall Construction Update Administrator Heck stated the progress on the City Hall Renovation Project has been slow at the start due to unknown conditions that existed when the excavation was started for the drain tile. He noted weekly construction meetings are held on Tuesday mornings at 8:00 P.M. Other Staff Reports Director Nielsen stated at its August 25, 2008, meeting Council approved an Order to Secure and an Order for Removal or Repair of the hazardous building located at 20145 Ivy Lane. The deadline for securing the building has passed, and the property owner was given until September 29, 2008, to either apply for a repair permit or demolish the building. Ason-in-law of the .property owner has secured the property, cut the grass, and removed a van that was on the property. Nielsen then stated he has not able to verify the son-in-laws claims but he will do so the next day and follow-up with an email to Council. The son-in-law had indicated he planned to appeal the motion to request a repair permit or to demolish the building, and the appeal would at a minimum be for additional time. Nielsen then stated Staff was to provide Council with a report on the number of complaints filed against power boaters whose boats were docked at the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) after the 2008 boating season. He has received one call relative to the SYC and it was from Nick Ruehl (an Excelsior resident) who stated there had not been any problems. B. Mayor & City Council Councilmember Woodruff stated he had attended afour-day conference hosted by the National Association of Telecommunications Officials and Advisors (NATOA) along with four other Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC) members. There area a lot of communities and entities that are doing their own broadband initiatives. He will attend a meeting of the LMCC Executive Committee on September 23, 2008, to provide an update on what the ad-hoc committee has found. Councilmember Wellens stated there is an Excelsior Fire District (EFD) Board meeting scheduled for September 24, 2008. One topic of the meeting is to discuss the EFD Fire Chief's request to replace two part-time fire inspector positions with one full-time fire inspector position. Mayor Lizee stated on September 26, 2008, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) will honor citizens and organizations that have made significant contributions to water quality at its annual "Watershed Heroes" celebration. Woody Love is being honored for overall vision and leadership in protecting and managing water resources at the local government level, and for leadership with various organizations. Members of the public are encouraged to attend and join ire this celebration. Mayor Lizee recessed the meeting to an Executive Meeting at 8:5"7 P.M. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES September 22, 2008 Page 17 of 17 12. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION -LITIGATION Mayor Lizee convened the executive session at 9:03 p.m. The purpose of the meeting was for attorney-client discussions regarding litigation matters. The Executive Session was concluded at 9:40 P.M. Mayor Lizee reconvened the regular meeting at 9:40 P.M. 13. ADJOURN The City Council Regular Meeting of September 22, 2008, was adjourned at 9:40 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ristine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Administrator/Clerk