The URL can be used to link to this page

08-24-20 CC Reg Mtg MinutesCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 24, 2020 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Zerby called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Zerby; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, and Sundberg; City Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Budde Absent: None B. Review Agenda Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Zerby reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. City Council Work Session Minutes from August 10, 2020 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes from August 10, 2020 C. Approval of the Verified Claims List D. Accept CenterPoint Energy Grant on behalf of SLMPD E. Approve LMCC Budget, RESOLUTION NO. 20-084, "A Resolution Approving the Proposed 2021 Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission Budget." F. Multiple Dock Licenses for Shorewood Marina G. Accept Hennepin County Recycling Grant, RESOLUTION NO. 20 -085, "A Resolution Accepting 2020 Hennepin County Residential Recycling Grant." Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 2 of 26 4. PUBLIC HEARING A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and PUD Concept Plan for the Villas of Shorewood Village for Stoddard Company for the vacant parcel north of Highway 7 between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive. Planning Director Darling noted that this item is on the agenda in two places and explained that she would only be making one presentation. She gave an overview of the project proposed by Stoddard Companies on property located between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive north of Highway Seven. She stated that the project would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and a PUD to develop the property for fourteen homes in a planned community with shared maintenance to be called the Villas at Shorewood Village. She stated that the property is about seven acres and is currently vacant and privately owned. She explained that there are three wetlands on the site and noted that with development, wetland buffers would be required. She stated that the site does have many significant trees and the tree preservation ordinance will apply to this project. She reiterated that the proposal is for fourteen homes clustered around a cul -de- sac, which would be a density of 2.4 dwellings were acre. She stated that looking at the adjacent streets, the existing streets can absorb the additional number of trips that this development would bring to the area without intersection improvements at the Highway Seven /Eureka Road intersection, however there are expected to be backups at peak times. She noted that at this point the applicant has not yet submitted a traffic study. She stated that the applicant is also proposing that this development be rezoned to PUD which would allow them to cluster the homes and preserve some open space which would help save the existing trees. She gave an overview of the concept level review of the proposed project and noted that at this point, it is a high -level review and many of the details will come later. She reviewed the proposed lot areas and setbacks. She stated that the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their August 4, 2020 meeting and voted four to one in favor or recommending approval of the request. She noted that the Parks Commission reviewed the plan at their August 18, 2020 meeting and recommended approval of park dedication fees rather than parkland and that the open space be owned privately. She stated that the City has received feedback regarding this application which were included in the packet. Mayor Zerby opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Sandy Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive, stated that she has lived in this location for thirty years and noted that one of the things that drew her to the area was the lot sizes because they were required to have an acre before they could build. She stated that this proposal is the third proposal for a development at this location and both of the other times it was decided that it did not fit the area. She stated that if you look at all the property to the north and the east, all of those lots continue to have about an acre of land. She stated that she feels this proposal does not fit the area and the only difference in the local area is the senior facility off of Eureka which is in the park area and not this location. She reiterated that this development does not fit into the area. She stated that if the Council decides that it does fit, she would like to share a few concerns. She stated that she would ask that the homes be as far to the south as possible on this property so there is a big enough buffer for trees between the acre lots to the north and these smaller lots, so people do not have to see them in their front yards. She stated that in order to do that, the sidewalk that is proposed would have to be removed. She stated that if this proposal moves forward there needs to be a way to not increase the traffic on Seamans Drive and Mann Lane. She stated that she CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 3 of 26 would propose a through street rather than a cul -de -sac, so individuals that live on that property have the option of going directly out onto Yellowstone. Robert Finke, 6060 Seamans Drive, stated that he is totally against this project and does not think it fits the neighborhood. Kim Koehnen 6115 Seamans Drive, stated that the proposed cul -de -sac would come out across from her driveway. She stated that she had also spoken at the Planning Commission and would like to clarify her comment reflected in the minutes. She stated that her comments should state that she likes that there is not as much density as was proposed in the other recent plans. She stated that she feels that a street going through to Seaman's Drive is not appropriate. She stated that the transition from lots that are almost an acre in size to this density does not provide a smooth transition. She stated that she supports the use of a cul -de -sac. Mike Steadman 24505 Niblick Alcove, stated that he is in one of the detached villas in Minnetonka Country Club. He stated that he believes there could be a very strong project in this location for people looking for an empty nester, maintenance free environment. He stated there is a strong demand for the villa type homes and could be a real asset to the area. He reiterated that he feels this would be a strong project and would be well received by the marketplace. Bill Stoddard, Stoddard Companies, stated that he had decreased the proposed density of this project from the originally proposed twenty units down to fourteen units. He stated that they have held one formal neighborhood meeting as well as one informal meeting. He noted that he is open to continuing to meet with the immediate neighborhoods and hold smaller group gatherings, Zoom meetings, or even one on one meetings. He stated that the traffic plan and the landscaping plan will come during the next phase of providing more detailed plans for the City. He noted that the landscape plans will show lots of buffering and berming especially near the north and east lot lines. He stated that he did not propose the sidewalk and believes that came more from the City and would rather not include a sidewalk and does not think it will be utilized that much with only fourteen units. He stated that they have considered a through street versus a cul -de -sac and are requesting a cul -de -sac. He noted that the City Engineer had suggested that they construct the cul -de -sac, but have an easement in place in case there would ever be a through street sometime in the future. Joe Quillen, 6100 Seamans Drive, stated that he moved to this location two years ago and paid for the neighborhood they wanted. He stated that if the City continues to allow this type of development they will look like every other suburb around Minneapolis because they will lose the woods and the big feel. He stated that while he appreciates Mr. Stoddard being willing to meet with the neighbors, he would like to request that the City keep the zoning the same, with one house per forty thousand feet. He stated that the rules that they bought into when they moved to the City two years ago are what he wants to keep in place within the City. Kip Knutson, 24820 Glen Road, asked if the Council would be taking questions later in the meeting regarding the Glen Road reconstruction project. Mayor Zerby stated that it is not a requirement, but the Council can accommodate public comment later in the agenda. It appeared as though there was a participant who "raised their hand" to speak, but who was unable to be unmuted. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 4 of 26 City Administrator Lerud suggested that the participant call Communications Director Julie Moore's phone number and she would connect them to the meeting. After a few minutes delay, Communications Director Moore noted that no one had called her phone. Mayor Zerby closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Stormwater Letter Response City Administrator Lerud stated that the City had received a letter from a group of interested citizens regarding stormwater questions. He explained that the City had prepared a response and this item was included on the agenda because he felt others may be interested in the response to those questions. He stated that it does not require any Council action. City Engineer Budde explained that many of the questions were related to stormwater and concerns with projects. Mayor Zerby noted that the response has been posted to the City website and asked if there were additional questions from residents. Mike Deneen 25080 Glen Road, asked if the drainage proposed is tied to the full road reconstruction or if they are, they two separate things. City Engineer Budde stated that the drainage in the Glen /Amlee /Manitou area is directly tied to the road reconstruction. He explained that they are adding a small amount of impervious surface and to meet permitting requirements there are volume and rate control requirements related to stormwater. He noted that more detail on that will be shared later in the agenda specific to this project. Councilmember Johnson asked about the tree surveying that is being done in conjunction with the larger project. He stated that when people see a ribbon around a tree, sometimes the public sees that as a signal for removal, but he does not think that is the case in this situation. City Engineer Budde stated that the tree surveying is in conjunction with the Smithtown Pond and the Strawberry Lane project. He explained that the surveyors were out in the spring and summer months gathering information. He stated that they would put a yellow ribbon on trees which marked a boundary of where they would need to yet survey. He stated that the ribbons will be removed after the survey is completed. He asked residents to let him know if there are ribbons lingering and still in place and he will follow up and ensure that they can be removed. He stated that ribbons on the trees are not an indication that the tree will be removed or saved and are just a marker of the boundary while they are gathering information. Public Works Director Brown noted that the City had held off doing a detailed tree inventory until the final design. Councilmember Sundberg suggested that both the original letter and the City's response be posted on the website. She stated that she wants to make sure that people get accurate information. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 5 of 26 City Administrator Lerud noted that each project has its own project page on the City's website and if they cannot figure out how to sign up for notifications, they are welcome to call City Hall and get added to the list. Councilmember Sundberg suggested that residents are always welcome to contact members of the City Council as well as City staff in order to have a fuller understanding of any of the projects in the City. Councilmember Johnson stated that he would like to echo Councilmember Sundberg's comments encouraging residents to contact the Councilmembers if they have questions or would like to have a fuller understanding of things going on in the City. 6. PARKS A. Report by Commission Chair Mangold on August 18, 2020 Park Commission Meeting Park Commissioner Mangold gave an overview of the August 18, 2020 Park Commission meeting as reflected in the minutes. B. Accept bids for stonework at Badger Park Planning Director Darling explained that Badger Park has been completely renovated including a new playground with a poured in place rubber surface and a new restroom building. She stated that the shelter is up but it still needs stonework around the pillars to be completed. Staff recommends approval with the funds to come from Fund 402, Park Dedication Fees. Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20 -086, "A Resolution Accepting Estimates and Authorizing Stonework at Badger Park at 5745 Country Club Road." Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commission Chair Maddy on August 4, 2020 Planning Commission Planning Commissioner Maddy gave an overview of the August 4, 2020 Planning Commission meeting as reflected in the minutes. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning and PUD Concept Plan for the Villas of Shorewood Village for Stoddard Company for the vacant parcel north of Highway 8 between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive Planning Director Darling suggested that she answer some of the questions that were brought up during the public hearing that were not already addressed. She stated that there was concern about room to construct a sidewalk. She stated that the sidewalk that staff is recommending is a five - foot -wide sidewalk and there is adequate room within the right -of -way. She explained that the proposed street is twenty -four feet from back of curb to back of curb with a cul -de -sac. She stated that the road right -of -way is fifty feet which will leave enough room for the sidewalk, plus five feet of separation between the curb and the edge of the sidewalk. She stated that a resident CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 6 of 26 mentioned that they would like to see the homes clustered on the south end of the development so there is more space, however there is a large wetland on the south corner of the property which makes it difficult to push the homes any further south without impacting the wetland. Mr. Stoddard stated that he believes the homes could be pushed a little bit further to the south and will look at that a bit more after their next meeting with staff. Mayor Zerby asked for an outline of the process so they understand how applications are submitted and reviewed by staff and the various Commissioners. Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the application process and noted that this is currently at the highest level of review process called the Concept Plan. She noted that the Concept Plan stage is followed by the development stage and the Preliminary Plat stage which goes into much more detail than the Concept Plan. She stated that the Final Plat stage will produce the highest amount of technical information including the stormwater management plan and road construction. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she feels the merits of this proposal deserve a deeper dive into the specifics. She stated that she thanked the citizens in the area who spoke up at the public hearing who shared their concerns because that kind of input is very helpful to the Council. She stated that she would like there to be more discussion on whether the street should be a cul -de- sac or a through street. She asked if a traffic study would be part of the next development stage. Planning Director Darling stated that the way the resolution is currently written for Council approval is that they would need to submit a traffic study with the next phase, however, the Council could direct the developer to provide that information now, if they chose. Councilmember Sundberg asked what the other Councilmembers thought because she thinks the traffic situation is a significant question. Councilmember Johnson stated that he doesn't take an application like this lightly, so he wanted to do as much research as possible into what this is going to look like for the adjacent properties. He stated that he knows one of the neighbors and asked if he could go into their backyard and see what the impact would be. He stated that homeowners bought their lots as R1A and the assumption was that they would not be looking at the back of houses from their yards. He stated that while he was in the backyard, he noticed how many trees there are as a buffer, but in order for him to really throw support behind this project, he will need to hear more ways that the developer can ensure that buffer through berming and landscaping. He commended Mr. Stoddard for reducing density after hearing the neighbor's concerns and addressing them head - on. He stated that he believes a cul -de -sac will make the most sense. He stated that as he read the staff report, it noted that the area drains to the south but noted that when he was in the backyard of the adjacent neighbor, they suggested that the water drains north through their property and underneath Eureka to what they believe is an undersized culvert over to Shorewood Ponds. He stated that he is hopeful that through the development process this project may improve some of the drainage concerns that the existing residents have. Councilmember Labadie stated that while she appreciated Mr. Stoddard taking the Council comments into consideration and reducing the density of this proposed project, she will still not vote in favor of it. She stated that she shares Planning Commissioner Maddy's concerns and feels it will create additional traffic concerns in the area. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 7 of 26 Councilmember Siakel stated that overall, there have been a number of proposals that have come before the Council regarding this parcel. She stated that she likes that the total number of units have been reduced and likes that they are villa style homes. She stated that she agrees with Mr. Steadman's comments that the villa style homes will sell quickly and are in demand. She stated that she also feels that a cul -de -sac is a good idea. She stated that she believes the current proposal is a good compromise for the City from other proposals they have seen in the past. Mayor Zerby stated that he is leaning towards agreeing with Planning Commissioner Maddy and Councilmember Labadie and feels that the density is too high for the area. He stated that when people move into an area and look at the zoning maps say, it is kind of a contract with the City that will be how the land is going to be developed. He stated that he has some questions about the way it is being laid out because there appears to be a plenty of room to move them closer to the highway and further away from the neighbors. He stated that he understands that villa homes are in high demand, but would like there to be less as well as more done with buffering from the existing neighborhoods. He stated that he is not in favor of this density, but doesn't know what the number should be. He asked if there was anyone from the public who wanted to weigh in with any comments. Ms. Koehnen asked if Councilmember Johnson wanted the cul -de -sac adjacent to Eureka. Councilmember Johnson answered he did not and noted that he does like the idea of pedestrian access from Seamans through the street to have the ability for families who live on Yellowstone to get to Freeman Park more quickly and safely than traveling down Eureka. He stated that as there is development around Highway 7, there is still the concern about the ability to get onto Highway 7 traveling eastbound. He stated that he would also like to have a discussion perhaps in partnership with Chanhassen about the possibility of a roundabout in the area of Church Road and Minnewashta Parkway as a way to slow down traffic and provide an easier access onto Highway 7. Sundberg moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20 -087, "A Resolution Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Property Located North of Highway Seven Between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive ", ORDINANCE NO. 573, "An Ordinance Amending Section 12.01.09 Subd. 2 of the Shorewood Zoning Code — The Shorewood Zoning Map (The Villas of Shorewood Village PUD) ", and RESOLUTION NO. 20 -094, "A Resolution Approving a PUD Concept Plan for the Property Located North of Highway Seven Between Eureka Road and Seamans Drive." Councilmember Johnson asked Mr. Stoddard if he could comment regarding additional berm and buffering between the residents on the north side of the property line as well as the thoughts on shifting houses south. Councilmember Siakel stated that if the Council approves this many of these details will be further fleshed out because they will have to get feedback from the watershed and other entities. She stated that the plans may change from what they are today due to the factors that are needed for the PUD. Councilmember Johnson stated that he understood but is trying to determine the willingness of the developer to hear the desires of the adjacent residents because they will be greatly impacted and this is a big change in density. He stated that he thinks this is moving in the right direction, CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 8 of 26 but wants to make sure, if the City takes this important step, that there are parties that are willing to communicate. Mr. Stoddard stated that they intend to buffer and berm the north and northeast corner extensively. He stated that the landscape plan is kind of the next step to bring to the City to dissect. He stated that they are proposing one of two concepts and that will be winnowed down by the next meeting. He stated that the first concept is a villa home that is one to one and a half story slab on grade house and the other is up to a two -story house, but reassured the Council that it would not be two and a half stories as mentioned earlier. He stated that there were also comments on the outlots and they already got some guidance from staff about the possibility of eliminating some of them in order to make certain lots wider. He stated that to address the comments on the through street versus a cul -de -sac, they get guidance from City staff and their own engineers. He stated that there is some flexibility on this issue on their part, but they would prefer to have the entrance off of Eureka where it is proposed and prefer a dead -end cul -de -sac on Seamans. He reiterated the suggestion by the City regarding leaving additional right -of -way at the end of the cul -de -sac for a future road connection in this location. He stated that the issue of density keeps coming up and he understands the concern but their proposal will get this to low density. He explained the reasons that he thinks this proposal is better for traffic and safety purposes than a conventional plan that would require one home per forty- thousand square feet. He reiterated that he believes they can shift the houses a bit to the south but will have to work with the engineer. He stated that if the sidewalk requirement is removed, that will give them five more feet. Councilmember Johnson stated that as he thinks about density, one of his concerns is if Stoddard Companies decides they are not interested in this project anymore. He asked if it would end up coming back to the City as something like a senior living facility since it is adjacent to Highway Seven. He stated that as he stood in the backyards and thought about it, at one and a half stories it seems like the impact is as minimal as it can be given the increased density. He asked Planning Director Darling whether Council is getting ahead of themselves in trying to nail down these details. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks the Council is getting ahead of itself and stated that many of the details being discussed will be coming during the next phase. She reminded Councilmember Johnson that there is a motion on the floor. Roll Call Vote — Ayes (Johnson, Siakel, Sundberg,), Nays — (Labadie, Zerby). Motion passed 3/2. C. Variance to front setback for 5840 Strawberry Lane for Elizabeth Witchger and Gerry Trainor Planning Director Darling stated that this application is for a front setback variance request to allow for a deck to be constructed forty -five point seven five feet from the front property line where fifty feet is required. She explained that the Planning Commission voted four opposed and one in favor and cited the lack of practical difficulties. She stated that after the meeting the applicant submitted a new narrative elaborating on the points they had brought up at the Planning Commission meeting regarding the six and a half feet grade change between the entry and the driveway. She stated that staff agrees that this could constitute a unique circumstance and does provide a practical difficulty. She reiterated that this is new information that the Planning Commission did not have at the time of their meeting. She noted the letters the City has received regarding this application were included in the packet. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 9 of 26 Elizabeth Witchger thanked the Council for reviewing this and noted that how much they have learned throughout this process. Councilmember Siakel noted that she was the liaison to the Planning Commission meeting where this was discussed. She stated that the Planning Commission had a lot of discussion on this item and she would be in favor of approving this request because it is a minimal request. Councilmember Labadie stated that she went to the property and spoke with the property owners and she agrees with Councilmember Siakel that this would be an improvement to the property and would make entry and exit from the front door much easier and will vote for approval. Councilmember Johnson stated that he had also gone to the property and was able to see the practical difficulties. Johnson moved, Labadie seconded to approve RESOLUTION 20 -088, "A Resolution Approving the Variance for the Front Setback for a Deck for Property Located at 5840 Strawberry Lane." Mayor Zerby suggested that the Planning Commission revisit the City's front porch ordinances because he feels front porches are needed now, more than ever, for socializing and neighborhood appeal. Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. 8. ENGINEERING /PUBLIC WORKS A. Update on Cultural Resources and Drainage Options for Glen Road, Amlee, Manitou Street and Utility Improvements Project and Authorization to Prepare Plans and Specifications, City Project 18 -08 City Engineer Budde gave an overview of the timeline of the project on the Glen Road, Amlee and Manitou Street. He reviewed the Cultural Resources update and noted that it is called the Gideons Bay Mound Archeological Site. He noted that the mapping has been updated and found that burial mound sixty -nine is in close proximity to the Amlee cul -de -sac which will require some precautions during the design and construction so there is as much separation as possible to minimize the potential risk for disturbance. He explained that the Peter Gideon Farmhouse is included on the State historic list so the project will also be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation office to make sure that the City is maintaining the same characteristic of that property. Mayor Zerby asked if an updated map was going to be shared later in his presentation. City Engineer Budde stated that it was not part of his presentation. He explained that this information is considered sensitive and should not be shared with the public. He stated that if anyone would like to have access to that information, they can contact the State archeologist. He moved on to review the storm drainage update options. He explained that staff had looked at three options. He stated that the feasibility study included narrower streets than the City standard, created less impervious surface, and required less stormwater quality and volume treatment. He stated that it would be just under four thousand cubic feet per new MS4 permit requirements. He CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 10 of 26 gave an overview of the three options that they considered: Option 1 — Wedgewood Wet Retention with Filter Bench; Option 2 — 5490 Manitou Lane Bioretention Basin; Option 3 — HCRRA Bioretention Basin. He noted that all the options generally provide the same amount of treatment and reviewed their pros and cons. Councilmember Siakel asked whether an easement would be required regardless of which option is chosen. City Engineer Budde stated that in order for the City to get stormwater from Glen Road up to the trail, easements will be required because they do not currently exist. Councilmember Siakel asked if there has been any indication of residents who would be willing to grant the easement. City Engineer Budde stated that he has only spoken with one of the six along this area, so he does not have any feeling about their willingness to grant the easement. He stated that staff is looking for authorization from Council to prepare final design and noted that their recommendation is to pursue Option 3, the HCRRA Bioretention Basin. He stated that part of the next steps will be to reach out and communicate with residents to clear up any miscommunication and give them a clear vision of the process moving forward. He stated that he would like the residents to know that he is happy to meet with them one on one and even walk their property in order to share with them the most current information. He stated that if the Council provides authorization to move forward, the proposed schedule would be to approve plans and specifications during the winter of 2020/2021 and for construction to begin by the summer of 2021 with complete in the fall of 2021. Mayor Zerby asked if there was anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item. Richard Eng, 25170 Glen Road, asked City Engineer Budde stated that the options he showed the Council only accounted for twenty percent of the drainage and asked what would happen with the other eighty percent. City Engineer Budde explained that the other eighty percent will follow the path that it currently takes and noted that most of it goes to the larger basin on the south side of the trail. Mr. Eng stated that the 1988 hydro report for the Glen Road subdivision shows that the entire subdivision is 116 acres of watershed of which 102 are in the City. He stated that Tonka Bay has 14 acres of it and Glen Road alone has 88 acres with three sub - watershed districts. He stated that the City is designing this for the bare minimum to meet the permitting process. He referred to the 2001 Gideon Bay engineering report that shows water is coming from Christopher and Star Lane and directed to the north towards Glen Road. He asked if there has been any 100 -year tributary design for the project. City Engineer Budde stated that has been run through in some concept options and will be refined in great detail during the final design process to meet all the permitting requirements. Mr. Eng stated that he went through City documents in 2007 with Public Works Director Brown and former City Engineer Landini and noted that the City never did a cost - benefit report. He asked if one has been done now and if so, asked for it to be made public. He stated that if one has not been completed, he would like to know why. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 11 of 26 City Engineer Budde stated that they have not completed a cost - benefit for this and noted that it is a not a requirement of the project. He stated that they have completed a more recent feasibility study that was approved at the November 25, 2019 Council meeting which contains the most current cost estimates. Mr. Eng stated that on November 25, 2019 when the feasibility study was recommended, Mayor Zerby directed staff to come up with a second option that was less obtrusive. He asked if there was still a plan to go with a smaller impervious surface plan. City Engineer Budde stated that his understand of what was approved by the Council was the feasibility study which included a 22 -foot roadway width from Glen /Manitou intersection to the west and everything else would be a 24 -foot roadway. Mayor Zerby noted that this is less than the City standard which is what the Council had directed staff to do to minimize the project. City Engineer Budde explained that the City standard is 28 feet everywhere. Elizabeth Van 24710 Amlee Road stated that she had read the report and the study from City Engineer Budde. She stated that she assumes from what she read in the report that specifically mentions her address that Mound 69 is close to their property. She stated that she would like to know how close and has expressed concern about the plans. She asked if this project was saying that a watermain is a given. City Engineer Budde stated that the mound is in close proximity to Ms. Van's property. He stated that the archeologist pointed out that there is an existing culvert that discharges on the west edge of the property and they indicated that the best way to manage risk is to avoid those areas. He stated that the strategy in the design is to largely avoid those areas because of these potential complications. Ms. Van stated that the existing basin is flooding their backyard and has been getting worse over the last few years. She stated that the water cut through is happening because of the quantity of water moving at a faster rate. She explained that the water is cutting into the hillside and endangering several of the trees. She stated that she has not heard how the properties in the area can stop taking in eighty percent of the water. She stated that she is also curious about the location of the mound and whether it will eventually be impacted by their continuing to take on eighty percent of the water in the area. City Engineer Budde explained that one way to relieve the amount of water that is coming to this particular culvert is to put in curb and gutter and storm sewers so it can be captured and routed through a different location. He stated that this will all be a process because the City does not know exactly where the storm sewer will go. He stated that part of the final design will be laying out where they are directing water versus where it went in the existing condition. Ms. Van asked when the City will be able to do that with the potential impact to Mound 69. She asked if the City will be able to do curb and gutters and keep the road the same size as it currently is. City Engineer Budde stated that it can be done on the smaller road. Councilmember Siakel asked if Mound 69 was located behind Gideon Woods Townhomes. City Engineer Budde stated that Mound 68 is in that location. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 12 of 26 Mayor Zerby explained that what in front of the Council tonight is a request to authorize preparation of plans and specifications. He stated that part of that process is design and research that will address many of the resident's questions. Ms. Van stated that according to the schedule that was sent out a year ago there was to be a third neighborhood meeting in October of 2020. She asked if that was still the plan even though it will have to be held virtually. City Engineer Budde stated that they are still planning another neighborhood meeting and staff is looking at the best ways to reach out to residents knowing that they have to abide by the new COVID -19 policies. Mayor Zerby noted that the City had not made any decision yet on including watermain, but the Council may ask for it to be included in the plans and specifications as an option, so they can get more detailed information to consider regarding moving forward or not. Jason Arvidson 24770 Amlee Road, asked if there was any consideration given to dredging the existing ponds because there are plans to use them as part of this project. He stated that he would like to see the sediment removed so they can hold more water like they used to before the neighborhood was fully built up. He asked if this will allow the City and County to repair the drainage pipe /culvert that was supposed to be repaired but was put on hold while the City sorted out what they wanted to do with this project. City Engineer Budde stated that the found out from the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority about two weeks ago that they do plan on replacing this culvert and a few others along the trail corridor sometime this fall. He stated that they can look at cleaning the wetlands and ponds but noted that these are unique in that they are called ponds but he does not think they were originally designed to serve as true stormwater ponds. He reiterated that they will look at possible dredging and noted that they are requesting that the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority clean their ditches because that is one of the ways to help convey the water through the system better. Kip Knutson, 24820 Glen Road, asked if the vote tonight to authorize preparation of plans sets in motion the creation of detailed plans based on the feasibility study. He asked if that means the road width, as defined in the study, is set in stone. He asked if a further reduction in road width was off the table. Mayor Zerby stated that he would not say it is off the table, because the Council can modify or change the direction that is given to staff, but noted they had received good guidance from staff as to why the roads need to be that width. Mr. Knutson stated that will all of the questions surrounding this project with regard to the storm sewer locations, easements, burial mounds and everything else he asked how the City can be confident that the budget is going to be adequate. He stated that to him, it seems like there are a great deal of unknown factors and questions how the City has any confidence that its budget is adequate. City Engineer Budde stated that he has reviewed the feasibility study and feels that there have been adequate funds accounted for. He stated that tonight, staff is trying to get clarity from the Council to pursue one direction or the other so that they are not preparing multiple options going forward. He reiterated that he is comfortable with the budget allocation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 13 of 26 Mr. Knutson asked what would happen if they get into the project and roads are torn up and there are remains found. City Engineer Budde stated that he is not an archeologist, but has had a number of conversations with them about some of these hypothetical situations. He gave the example of getting too close to Mount 69 and finding remains which would probably put a stop to the project. He stated that the archeologist would have to come and do additional exploration, but he does not know how long the project would be stopped because it depends on the impact and what they are encountering. Mr. Knutson asked what the level of confidence is by the City that the only area of concern is on Amlee because it seems to him like this whole area is potentially an area of concern. City Engineer Budde stated that the archeological summary goes back and looks at any known records. He stated that as far as the known information they have, they are very comfortable and confident in what they have and noted that it will all be reviewed by the State archeologist and others as this moves forward. Mr. Knutson asked when residents can expect clarity on the exact location of the road and details of drainage. He asked if there would be an opportunity for residents to give input to alter those plans at a future time. City Engineer Budde stated that there is about two months of design effort to define the road profile and understand the impacts which will help determine the drainage and where storm sewer pipe can go. He stated that prior to this, he will have a number of conversations with property owners about identifying easement locations. Mr. Knutson stated that he is referring to the placement of the road because there has been information floating around about the road deviating from its current location. Mayor Zerby noted that if information does not come from the City, he would be highly suspect of the information. He stated that the City is hoping to have the final plans and specifications by October and that information will be shared with residents. Mr. Knutson asked about the possibility for resident input and the ability to change direction if the residents are opposed to portions of the project. He asked if that would still exist prior to approving a final design. Mayor Zerby noted that typically the City has looked for resident input in the plans and specifications if there was anything missed, but to go back and redesign it is highly unlikely. Councilmember Siakel asked if there was something specific that was on Mr. Knutson's mind that he would like to share with the Council. Mr. Knutson stated that there has been a lot of concern in terms of tree loss and impacts to people's property and the efficacy of the drainage plan. He stated that there are still a lot of questions that he feels many residents don't have adequate answers to yet. He stated that what it sounds like the City is saying to them is that it will be figured out in the final design, but then by that point it is a final design and the residents can no longer have input. City Engineer Budde stated that the existing right -of -way in the area is very narrow, and the roadways reflect that. He stated that he would say that if it is in the right -of -way, it will get disturbed. He stated that they will not necessarily be taking trees out, but the project will be grading right up to the edges of them and people should have that expectation. He stated that this is an extremely tight corridor and the City will do the best they can to save what they can, but if it is located within the right -of -way, the City has the right and ability to impact those things. He stated that it is a different discussion once it gets onto private property. He stated that residents will have more influence in the private property areas than they do in the City right -of -way. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 14 of 26 Mike Deneen 25080 Glen Road, asked if it would be possible as part of finalizing the plan to tag the trees so the residents could see which ones will be cut down. City Engineer Budde stated that there is absolutely a way for the City to tag those trees, but there needs to be a lot of design work completed before they know which trees will be impacted. He stated that the earliest the City could confidently tag the impacted trees would be October or November. Dave Gerton 25110 Glen Road, stated that his question is regarding Option 1. He stated that he thinks a lot of the reluctance that happened from the November 2019 meeting was when the existing pond was shown in the plans, it looked like Lake Superior. He stated that he thinks the new strategy of managing the minimum is a reasonable strategy. He stated that he would encourage the City to understand that Option 1 involves land the City already owns. He stated that the concern they have about the bioretention pond on the south side is that as that water goes somewhere it is very likely to stay on the southside and continue to add challenges to the residents along Amlee. He asked whether the City was sure Option 1 should be taken off the table. He stated that he recognizes that it is more expensive but it seems like it is already set up to be what is needed and is a little bit smaller than it was last November. He stated that a second concern with the bioretention pond is that from what he has been able to understand is that it will require some maintenance. He stated that the fear is that as the years go by, maintenance issues like this can fall to the wayside. City Engineer Budde stated that every single one of the basins will require a certain amount of maintenance. He explained that Option 1 will look more like a traditional stormwater pond and have standing water in it, but as mentioned earlier, because of its elevation and the surrounding topography, it would have to have an iron enhanced filter bench on it and those, in his experience, have involved more maintenance to make sure they function correctly than the other two options. He stated Options 2 and 3 will largely look like infiltration basins where they would hold water for twenty -four to forty -eight hours and then they would draw down and just be vegetated at the bottom. He stated that they do also require maintenance because they do collect sediment which is exactly what they are intended to do. Elizabeth Van, 24710 Amlee Road, stated that that statements being made that all the options require some type of maintenance surprise her because the current basin in her front yard has not been maintained or looked at. She stated that the water flows to a wetland and not a holding pond. She stated that she likes the idea of maintaining them but would like it noted that the current situation has not been maintained. She stated that residents have called the City and reported that they were seeing construction sand and dirt which has not been taken care of. She agreed with the earlier suggestion to dredge the existing ponds and would like the City to add that this is not just about directing future water but is also about the current system. She reiterated that the current system is not working great. Councilmember Siakel stated that in looking at the options and based on the feedback, she feels it is best to choose the option that would solve the problem with the least amount of impact, which to her, seems like Option 3. She stated that ultimately, her goal with this whole project is to make things better. She stated that she recently rode her bike in this area and saw a lot of stagnant water that doesn't smell or look very nice. She stated that just maintaining, preparing and treating this water before it goes downstream further makes sense to her. She reiterated that Option 3 makes the most sense to her because it solves the problem with the least amount of impact. Councilmember Johnson stated that he agrees and his understanding is that when Hennepin County Railroad Authority repairs that culvert in the wetland that should improve some of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 15 of 26 existing conditions. City Engineer Budde stated that the hope is that the repair will help with some of the existing conditions. Councilmember Siakel noted that Indian burial mounds are not unique to just this one part of the City. She stated that the City has dealt with this on other projects as well and feels the City has experience and are sensitive to the issue. Councilmember Johnson stated that he is proud of the work that Council and staff have done together to create such a comprehensive Capital Improvement Plan that directly remediates all the different drainage hotspots that have been identified around the City. Councilmember Labadie stated that she would also like to compliment the City staff and thanked City Engineer Budde for his presentation. She stated that she would also like to compliment the residents on the way they presented their concerns and differences of opinions in such a productive, civil manner during the meeting. She stated that she feels this is how everyone will be able to get through this and have it be a good project for the City. She stated that she is glad that the City is planning to have another neighborhood meeting and stated that she feels meeting via Zoom is a very accessible avenue in order to meet. Councilmember Sundberg expressed her appreciation to the residents and stated that their input makes an enormous difference. She stated that as a Council, their responsibility is for the overall good of the community. She stated that she agrees that Option 3 is where the City's attention should be focused. Mayor Zerby stated that he is very pleased with what staff has brought before the Council. He stated that this is not an easy project and there have been many complications, but the Council has the responsibility of serving the public and have the roads and drainage issues taken care of. He stated that he also supports Option 3 as the best option moving forward, but would not rule out Option 1. Mr. Knutson asked what the minimum permitting requirements look at in terms of capacity and questioned whether Option 3 would address the current trend in rainfall that Councilmember Siakel had touched on. He asked if this design would handle the kinds of rainfall the City has been seeing lately. City Engineer Budde stated that all three options are designed to just exceed the minimum and explained the standard of looking at a two, ten and one - hundred -year storm event. He stated they are using the most current rain date, Atlas 14, that was updated in 2014 for their calculations. Siakel moved, Zerby seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20 -089, "A Resolution Authorizing Preparing Plans and Specifications for the Glen, Amlee, Manitou Street and Utility Improvement Project, City Project 18 -08, with a focus on Option 3." Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Zerby called for a brief recess at 9:54 p.m. and reconvened at 10:00 p.m. B. Timber Lane Access City Administrator Lerud explained that the property owner of 175 Brentwood Avenue in Tonka Bay has been accessing Timber Lane in the City for their personal use. He explained that the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 16 of 26 owner had applied for an incidental use of right -of -way permit for access in 2016 and that application was denied by the Council. He stated that based on recent complaints from residents, including the letter that was included in the packet, staff has re- examined closing access along the west side of Timber Lane. He stated the property is located within Tonka Bay and is subject to their regulations. He explained that it is staff's understanding that the property is permitted one driveway which is off of Brentwood, but not a second driveway, regardless of the jurisdiction. He explained that staff has examined options to control access and is recommending installing bollards or Jersey barriers along the west side of Timber Lane to prevent access from properties in Tonka Bay. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like the barrier to be something that is not super obstructive, but is clearly a barrier that would restrict motorized traffic moving in and out. Mayor Zerby asked Public Works Director Brown to weigh in with his opinion. Public Works Director Brown stated that any barrier option will present a challenge to snow plowing, however it is not something that they will not be able to work around. Councilmember Siakel suggested that they consider the type of bollards that collapse when Public Works would need to access the area. Councilmember Labadie stated that she does not want to see the barrier turn into an absolute eye sore that sticks out. Boris Parker, stated that he is the attorney for the Ugorets family, the property owners at 175 Brentwood Avenue. He stated that the Council has had a lot of good discussion at tonight's meeting on other topics and hopes that the Council will have that same kind of in -depth discussion regarding this issue. He stated that he has only had discussions with City Attorney Keene and there is no dispute that that the Ugorets have a clear and direct right to access the public street, which is Timber Lane. He stated that the action that the Council intends to undertake is in clear violation of existing law. He asked if the Council had a chance to review the letter that he had provided to City Attorney Keene regarding this issue. He stated that this property has been owned for eleven years and is unique in that is has access to both Brentwood Avenue and Timber Lane. He stated that this access cannot be taken away or denied without some kind of just compensation. He stated that he feels there is no reason to eliminate the access off of Timber Lane his client is rightfully entitled to this access. He stated that he does not understand the basis on which the Council is proceeding to take that right away. He asked whether this was an isolated discriminatory act against his client or if there a public good that is intended. He asked that the Council reconsider their decision or at least have a valid discussion about the issue. He stated that the fact that it appears that Tonka Bay does not allow two driveways has no bearing on this decision. He stated that they only received noticed that this item was on the agenda on Friday. Mayor Zerby noted that the agenda is always published seventy hours before the meeting and posted on the City's website. Mr. Parker stated that he understands that but in listening to other agenda items, Councilmembers shared that they had gone out to the area and walked through yards to assess the situation and held neighborhood meetings. He stated that none of that has been done in this case. Councilmember Labadie stated that is incorrect and noted that Councilmembers have gone to the site and looked at this property from Shorewood streets. She stated that she personally has gone to the site on numerous occasions. Councilmember Siakel stated that she has visited this site CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 17 of 26 twice, one of which was last Thursday. Councilmember Johnson stated that he has visited the site too many times for him to count. Mr. Parker asked what they had noticed at the site. Councilmember Labadie stated that they had noticed repeated violations have occurred from an order relating to an October 24, 2016 meeting where the Ugorets were denied an application for incidental use of the right -of -way and it has continued. Mr. Parker stated that was not what that application was about. He stated that the City did not address their right to access the property. He stated that the application dealt with a different issue than what is being addressed today. Councilmember Siakel asked for City Attorney Keene to weigh in. City Attorney Keene stated that Minnesota law is very clear that property owners are entitled to be accorded reasonable access to their property, which does not mean access from every street that abuts the property. He stated that it is reasonable access to their property consistent with their use. He explained that this parcel has full and unrestricted access to the right -of -way that it fronts in Tonka Bay and Minnesota law does not require multiple points of access to a property, only reasonable access to the property. Mr. Parker stated that the law says the access is to a public street that abuts the property and this is a public street that abuts their property. He stated that the property was constructed in a manner that can be accessed from both streets. He stated that there is a large portion of the back yard that is used, sporadically, to store their parent's vehicle while they are out of State for the winter. He stated that the question City Attorney Keene did not answer was what the application was about in 2016. He reiterated that the application in 2016 has nothing to do with what the Council is deciding tonight. He stated that in his opinion the City is blocking off access for no justifiable reason to a family that has the right to access Timber Lane. He asked what the City's rationale was for blocking this access, because it creates more problems from a maintenance standpoint. Mayor Zerby asked about the comment Mr. Parker made that the house was designed to utilize access from both Tonka Bay and Shorewood, which would be disregarding the Tonka Bay requirement of one driveway. Mr. Parker stated that this is a unique property and they are not trying to create a problem. He explained that they are trying to maintain their access. He stated that the way the house was built is that there is a garage that is only accessible from the back. Mayor Zerby stated that this was permitted by the City of Tonka Bay. Mr. Parker asked what the City would do if his clients went and got approval from Tonka Bay for a second driveway. He stated that if the City wants to put up barriers to create parking, they are just asking for them to leave twelve feet of access for his client. Mayor Zerby asked what the side setback is for this property. Mr. Parker stated that he believes it is six feet and suggested that Mr. Ugorets could answer that question. Mayor Zerby asked if that was a typically setback in Tonka Bay. Alex Ugorets, 175 Brentwood Avenue, stated that the house was built with the proper permits and everything was legal, but due to landscaping, you cannot get to the back of the house through the front of the house. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 18 of 26 Mayor Zerby asked if there was a variance granted for that narrow of a setback. Mr. Ugorets stated that there was no variance and was not needed because everything was built per legal standard for Tonka Bay building code. Mayor Zerby asked if it was the landscaping that is preventing Mr. Ugorets from using the side yard to access the backyard. Mr. Ugorets stated that the landscaping makes it too narrow. He explained that they can get a lawnmower through the side yard but cannot get a truck through it. Mayor Zerby stated that the landscaping was installed by the choice of Mr. Ugorets. Mr. Ugorets agreed that it was his choice, but there is no way to drive a landscaping truck full of supplies from the front to the back. He stated that if it was possible, he would not be here talking to the Council. Mayor Zerby reiterated that it is not accessible because of the landscaping. Mr. Ugorets stated that even without landscaping it is very narrow, there is a retaining wall as well as grading changes, so there is no way of driving through there for anything bigger than a lawnmower. He stated that there are trees in the back yard that are falling down and will need to be removed and they cannot do that without getting equipment in there. He stated that this is a public street and is not a private road and their property abuts a public street and he does not feel the City should be taking the access away from them. He gave examples of how seldom he uses the access off of Timber Lane and explained that it is just a few times a year. He stated that he does not understand why the City is doing this other than if it is pure discrimination. He stated that he is trying to be a good citizen and the people in the area have been on their butts for a long time and have done nasty things to them. He stated that they are trying to be good citizens and people in the area purposefully park their cars to block their access. He stated that they have been there for eleven years and all of a sudden someone builds a house and has guests over every weekend and they need a place to park, so the City is taking away his access in order to keep the other resident happy. Ron Zenk, 5435 Timber Lane, stated that part of the issue is that this is a cul -de -sac that has limited parking. He stated that the parking is for many people and not just the person who built the new house. He stated that Mr. Ugorets put up signs asking people not to block his driveway and used to put notes on their windshields. He stated that four years ago the issue went in front of the City Council when Mr. Ugorets had asked for incidental access and the Council denied the request. He stated that the access has continued to be used and has continued to be an issue. He stated that they put up a parking sign that said, "Parking for Timber Lane Residents ", which disappeared. He stated that he feels it is time and feels that they have been very tolerant for five years. He stated that it is not just the person who put up the new house, but is the entire Timber Lane and noted that the petition submitted to the City was signed by every resident along Timber Lane. He stated that the use has become a nuisance and Mr. Ugorets is not a Shorewood resident. He stated that Mr. Ugorets chose to put a garage on the back of us house that he cannot access. He stated that her personally cannot drive a truck into the back of his yard either, nor can any of his neighbors. He stated that he believes you should not count on crossing the right - of -way of another City and disrupting their residents in order to be able to go to a garage that the City had no involvement with. He stated that he agrees with the barriers but does not want it to look like a construction site with unsightly barriers and would prefer to see something like boulders that look natural and would be far enough off the street so they wouldn't cause a problem. Mr. Parker asked to make a closing statement. He stated that what he just heard Mr. Zenk state is that the City is only intending to block off twelve feet. He stated that he is still not clear as to what is happening in terms of the barriers, but it sounds like that was what he just heard from Mr. Zenk. He stated that he heard Mr. Zenk essentially say that he wanted the City to put boulders CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 19 of 26 in front of Mr. Ugorets property so he does not have access. He stated that there is no dispute that Timber Lane was dedicated to the public pursuant to a 1949 plat. He stated that there is also no dispute that the Ugorets property abuts Timber Lane. He stated that there is no dispute as City Attorney Keene indicated that Minnesota law requires that an individual that has property that abuts a public street has the right to reasonable access that public street which is being deprived by the actions that are being proposed. He stated that when that deprivation takes place, the owners must be compensated for the injury peculiar to them which is separate and distinct from the damages sustained to the public generally. He stated that if the proposed action that appears to be intended to deprive the Ugorets access to Timber Lane, constitutes a taking for which the City is required to initiate an eminent domain proceeding. He stated that if the planned action is not stayed or continued by the City, his clients will be forced to initiate the proceeding to require the City to institute condemnation proceedings or an alternative to pay damages to them for what amounts to an unlawful deprivation of access. He explained that at no time has there been any finding that the Ugorets are not entitled to a driveway or access to their property under Shorewood ordinances. He stated that Shorewood ordinances allow for one driveway for one - hundred twenty feet of street frontage and the Ugorets have sixty -one feet of frontage and are just asking for twelve feet of the frontage to remain open for them to access their property and the rest of their frontage can be used for parking. Mayor Zerby asked if Mr. Parker was familiar with the right -of -way that Tonka Bay has that borders the side of this property. Mr. Parker stated that he is familiar with the fact that Timber Lane is a public street and it was platted to be immediately adjacent the property located in Tonka Bay. Mayor Zerby noted that Tonka Bay also has a platted road as well that accesses this property. He clarified that there is a secondary road that is not Brentwood Avenue. Mr. Parker asked him to clarify his point. Mayor Zerby stated that there is access to his backyard through public right -of -way that is not exclusive to Timber Lane. Mr. Parker explained that this was not the way the lot was configured or the way the land has been used, nor is it accessible. Councilmember Siakel stated that it is accessible. Mr. Parker stated that it is not accessible based on what they have looked at or what has been presented by members of Shorewood's Planning Commission. Mayor Zerby noted that is Tonka Bay's land, not Shorewood's. Mr. Parker stated that based on Mayor Zerby's comments, Shorewood could have taken this position at the time of platting and could have reserved some kind of outlot to make sure that it wouldn't be dedicated as a public street, but that was not done. Mayor Zerby noted that Tonka Bay does not include Shorewood in their planning process. Mr. Parker stated that this was not a Tonka Bay planning process and is a Shorewood planning process. Mayor Zerby stated that the City had not issued any permits to build that house. Mr. Parker stated that is correct, but the City also did not reserve any outlots and therefore there is not justification to prohibit access to Timber Lane. He reiterated that it is dedicated as a public street, so if the City is creating an exception by allowing this to go forward that is fine, but they need to have a clear record of it. He stated that he is not here to argue with the City's position. He stated that they just wanted to make sure that there is a clear discussion of what is being requested. Mayor Zerby stated that the City is not taking away access from the Ugorets because they have access from two separate roads. Mr. Parker stated that the only access that they are aware of to CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 20 of 26 the back of this property is from Timber Lane. He stated that the barriers that are proposed close any kind of access to Timber Lane for his clients and apparently one other neighbor, but noted that he has not see any other names mentioned in this proposal. He stated that his last point is that no representatives of the City of Shorewood may use their position to secure special privileges for exceptions for others. He stated that the entirety of the matter is based on petition from neighbors to enjoy parking privileges over and above those they are entitled to based on common abutting ownership rights of Timber Lane. He explained that it appears to him that special privileges are being granted to the neighbors on Timber Lane and property rights are being taken away from the Ugorets without compensation. He stated that information comes directly from the City's own code of ethics and noted that they could also get into discrimination and all of that kind of stuff as well, which his client feels is what is happening in this situation. He stated that he is asking the Council to reconsider their decision and allow a twelve -foot space for access for his client. Mayor Zerby noted that for a Shorewood resident to have two driveways would require a variance. Mr. Parker noted that there are a number of Shorewood residents that do have two driveways and can provide addresses to the City if they are interested. Councilmember Siakel stated that this seems like a circular conversation and she does not plan to sit and argue with an attorney because she does not know the law like City Attorney Keene. She stated that she rejects the insinuation that this is prejudice or discriminatory situation. She stated that she does not know the Ugorets in any way, nor does she think like that or operate like that in her personal or her professional life. She reiterated that she rejects that insinuation. She stated that she feels this conversation could go on and on and asked City Attorney Keene to step in and noted that her intent is to support the request of Shorewood residents. She asked City Attorney Keene to tell the Council what they can and cannot do in this situation. City Attorney Keene stated that the Council can think of this as a corner lot which has single frontage and the opportunity to access the street with one point of access consistent with the City code minimum width requirements. He stated that properties are not afforded access to all sides of their property. He stated that the property in question does have reasonable access and the City is not required to provide access to all sides of every parcel that abuts a public right -of -way. He stated that what is before the City is consistent with the decision made in 2016 when an application was made for a driveway access permit and the Council turned down that request. He reiterated that they have reasonable access which is what the law requires. Mr. Parker stated that he wanted to be clear that the reasonable access is also required in Shorewood because that is where the abutment is located. He stated that Shorewood has nothing to do with Tonka Bay. He stated that the Council is regulating Shorewood and they keep falling back on Tonka Bay and noted that things can change in Tonka Bay and the Council still needs to act in a manner that is consistent with their ordinances. He stated that the City ordinances provide for access and so does the State law. City Attorney Keene stated that the Ugorets parcel has access to Brentwood and so they have reasonable access, which is what the law requires. Mr. Parker stated he respectfully disagrees and would ask that Elana Ugorets be given the opportunity to speak. Mr. Ugorets stated that he wanted to answer the question about the public right of way of Tonka Bay behind their property. He stated that it is nothing but a wetland and is a pond. He stated that it is not a street even though it is a platted space on a map. He reiterated that there is no way of CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 21 of 26 access his property through any other means other than Timber Lane. He stated that there is another property owner, Mike Kraemer, that also uses Timber Lane as an access point who also has frontage on a platted street in Tonka Bay however he cannot use it because there are trees and will involve a considerable amount of work for him to do it, even though it is possible. He stated that taking away his access is wrong. He stated that he does not understand why he has been selected. He stated that his wife, Elena would like to speak. Elena Ugorets, 175 Brentwood Avenue, read aloud a portion of the petition that was signed by the residents of Timber Lane and then read aloud a portion of a letter sent to them by City Administrator Lerud, She asked City Administrator Lerud if the City had truly investigated the information received from Timber Lane residents about the increased traffic and parking by non- residents in the cul -de -sac and how this information specifically relates to the Ugorets family. She asked if the City had ever collected evidence, such as pictures with specific dates and specific numbers of times they have entered from Timber Lane. She stated that the accusations are vague, subjective and untruthful. She stated that they access their property from Timber Lane no more than three or four times this year to bring mulch, dirt and stones to repair the steps. She stated that they have also called for service to remove tree debris, broken fence as a result of falling trees from the Tonka Bay wetland problem. She stated that was the only times they accessed their property from Timber Lane. She stated that two years ago she had a meeting with City Administrator Lerud where she showed him the evidence of people urinating on their property and dumping yard waste in their back yard. She stated that before they installed cameras, someone was throwing potatoes in their back windows and twice destroyed their garden. She stated that she showed him all the evidence from their security camera, but the harassment did not stop after that meeting. She explained that one year ago, they got a letter from the City regarding a complaint from Mr. Zenk about deep ruts in their access and that they were destroying the City right -of -way. She stated that the City warned them that they would be fined if it continued. She stated that they have pulled information from their security cameras and have proven that they have nothing to do with the deep ruts and that it was actually Mr. Zenk's landscapers who created the ruts as they were backing the lawnmower from the trailer. She stated that they received a letter from the City on July 24, 2020 telling them there would be a meeting on July 27, 2020 to consider installing concrete barriers on Timber Lane. She stated that the night they received the letter, they decided to remove their parent's car from the lower garage in case the City moved forward with installing the barriers to block access to their property. She stated that she received a call on Saturday morning from the police that they had received a complaint from the neighbors that they had a car parked since the previous Wednesday. She stated that people are lying to authorities. She stated that she and her husband are first generation Russian Jewish immigrants. She stated that she understands that they speak with an accent and explained that their family feels discriminated against, betrayed, humiliated and targeted. She stated that this has left them with no option but to file a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights in addition to legal action against the City to reverse their discriminatory action. Councilmember Johnson asked about the car pulled out on July 25, 2020. Ms. Ugorets stated that they actually pulled the car out on Friday, July 24, 2020 right after they received the letter from the City. She stated that after the police called her, they moved the car. She stated that she would like the Council to understand the hate and political stuff that is going on with the cul -de- sac. She stated that it is not just about access and parking. She stated that believes it is true hate and that the neighbors just hate them and keep writing nasty letters and dumping yard waste. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 22 of 26 Mayor Zerby agreed that there is no rational reason for that behavior by the neighbors and stated that if those things happened, he was sorry. He stated that behavior being described is disturbing to him and is not the kind of City that he wants to be in. Ken Kaiser, stated that he doesn't think the planned Jersey barriers will look aesthetic in the area and agrees that boulders would look better. He stated that the ground is very soft in the area and was not sure it the ground will support the barriers. He stated regarding the access, the Ugorets put up no parking signs in front of the area even though there is no actual driveway in that location. He stated that the Ugorets modified the ground and put in some fill where the rut was which blocked the drainage, so there was water that was forced back out onto the street. He stated that he fears that the Ugorets are trying to create a de facto driveway and will someone insist on it being an actual permanent driveway. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she shares Mayor Zerby's concern that the Ugorets have had some vandalism on their property. She asked if those incidents have been reported to the police. Ms. Ugorets stated that they had reported the incidents to City Administrator Lerud and he should have all the evidence. She stated that they did not report the incidents to the police. She explained that they had installed the security cameras after the potato was thrown and they felt unsafe. Councilmember Sundberg asked if the incidents had continued since they installed the cameras. Ms. Ugorets stated that they have caught neighbors dumping yard waste and urinating. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she believes she can speak for the entire Council when she says that is not behavior that any of them would condone. Mayor Zerby stated that he is not prepared to take action at this time and asked the Council how they would like to proceed. He stated that he believes this is a much deeper issue than what is on the surface. Councilmember Siakel stated that she disagrees because regardless of what we decide it comes down to a situation that is attorney to attorney. She stated that she agrees with City Attorney Keene that the Ugorets have reasonable access to their property on Brentwood Avenue. She asked if the Ugorets built the home or if they bought an existing home. Mr. Ugorets stated that they built it themselves, but at the time, nobody told them that they could not access a public street. Councilmember Siakel stated she views this as a Tonka Bay issue. She stated that the Ugorets have reasonable access to their property and there is a platted road behind their property that is not a wetland, so they could go to Tonka Bay and discuss options. She stated that she does not have all the history, but there seems to be issue with the neighbors. She reiterated that she feels this is a Tonka Bay issue and is comfortable moving forward based on the recommendation made by City Attorney Keene. Councilmember Labadie stated that she agreed with Councilmember Siakel that City Attorney Keene has weighed in on this matter and the Council has been elected to represent the residents of Shorewood. Councilmember Johnson stated that he agrees that the Council needs to take direction from City Attorney Keene. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she echoes Mayor Zerby's concern and would prefer not to take a vote on this issue tonight. She stated that she does not believe this is simply a legal issue CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 23 of 26 and is also a neighbor issue. She stated that she wants to respect the concerns of Shorewood residents, however she wants to take a little more time to think through the impact to the neighboring residents. Mr. Ugorets invited Councilmember Siakel to take a look at the platted road she claims is behind his property for her to decide if it is a road, a swamp, or a lake. He stated that if this access is taken away, he will lose access to half of his property because there is no other way to get behind his house other than Timber Lane, which is a public street. Councilmember Siakel stated that while she has empathy for the Ugorets, she just does not agree with them on some of the fine points of this issue. She stated that City Attorney Keene has told the Council that they are acting appropriately by taking action and calling for a barrier to be put up. City Attorney Keene stated that the denial of the permit in 2016 was consistent with State law and if the Council wishes to install a barrier or some sort of access control consistent with that prior conclusion, the City will be on solid footing. Councilmember Siakel stated that one of the reasons she is willing to move forward is that this has been going on for awhile and is time for a resolution. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, to direct staff to look at the options of installing a barrier up to and including bollards along the west side of Timber Lane to prevent access from properties in Tonka Bay. Roll Call Vote — Ayes — 3 ( Siakel, Labadie, Johnson) Nays — 2 (Sundberg, Zerby) Motion passed 3/2. C. Amendment to Archeological Monitoring Services from Blondo Consulting, LLC for the Woodside Road and Woodside Lane Street Reclamation and Watermain Extension Project, City Project 19 -04 Public Works Director Brown stated that at the previous Council meeting staff had presented a proposal from Blondo Consulting for archeological monitoring services. He stated that the proposal at that time was felt to be too high and staff was able to successfully negotiated the price down. He noted that the archeologist will only be on site during excavation. Johnson moved, Sundberg seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20 -090, "A Resolution Accepting a Proposal for Archeological Construction Monitoring Services for the Woodside Road and Woodside Lane Street Reclamation and Watermain Project, City Project 19 -04." Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. D. Amendment to Archeological Monitoring Services from Blondo Consulting, LLC for the Enchanted and Shady Island Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18 -11 Public Works Director Brown stated that this item is almost identical to the previous item and noted that staff was able to negotiate a lower contract amount of $63,097.50. Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20 -091, "A Resolution Accepting a Proposal for Archeological Construction Monitoring Services for the Enchanted and Shady Islands Street Reclamation Project, City Project 18 -11." Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 24 of 26 9. GENERAL /NEW BUSINESS A. Water Access charge for Woodside /Kathleen Court Project City Administrator Lerud stated that staff has received a number of requests for water connections along Woodside Lane and Kathleen Court. He explained that the current water access charge is ten thousand dollars and there was an inquiry asking if that charge could be paid by assessment over a few years as opposed to a lump sum. He stated that after discussion, staff recommends the City accept assessment as an option for water access charges. He stated that if Council approves this item, staff will communicate it to residents. Labadie moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 29 -092, "A Resolution Allowing New Water Customers on Woodside Road, Woodside Lane, and Kathleen Court the Option to Assess the Water Access Charge." Roll Call Vote — Ayes - all. Motion passed 5/0. B. Approve Encroachment Agreement for 28100 Boulder Bridge Drive City Administrator Lerud explained that the Woodside Road water installation project called for a loop to be established and connected to the watermain in Boulder Bridge Drive and explained that an easement is needed to allow that pipe to be installed. He stated that the owner of 28100 Boulder Bridge Drive and staff have agreed to an exchange of an easement to install the watermain for an Encroachment Agreement to permit a portion of his fence and driveway to remain in the right -of -way was a satisfactory solution to both issues. Johnson moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 20 -093, "A Resolution Approving a Right -of -Way Encroachment Agreement for 28100 Boulder Bridge Drive." Roll Calle Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0. C. Excelsior Chamber of Commerce Request City Administrator Lerud stated that this item was asked to be brought back to the Council and noted that included in the packet was the financial information provided by the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce. Jen Weiss, Executive Director with the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce stated that she had updates from some of the other member cities. She gave an overview of what various cities had agreed to contribute to the Chamber. Councilmember Siakel stated that she finds this item difficult. She stated that she understands what the Chamber of doing, but a lot of this funding is to support salaries and only ten percent of the membership comes to Shorewood. She stated that she really feels this is an Excelsior issue. Councilmember Labadie stated that she had asked for the detailed information about the contributions from the other member cities and found the information very helpful. She stated that she has also gone back and forth regarding support this issue but because the CARES act funding can be used for this purpose, she will vote in favor of this. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 25 of 26 Councilmember Siakel asked if the CARES funds would be available to any other business in the City. City Administrator Lerud stated that the City would have to set up a detailed loan program, which is something that staff has elected not to bring forward. Mayor Zerby stated that he has been against this in the past, but is changing his mind and feels this is an investment in next year's events. Councilmember Sundberg stated that she feels it makes sense to contribute something, but is not sure on the amount. Councilmember Johnson stated that because this would be using CARES act funding, he will support this. Councilmember Siakel reiterated that most of the funding will go for paying salaries. She stated that the thing that bothers her about support for this is that they City is not helping to bail anybody else out. Mayor Zerby stated that he feels that there were other programs to help businesses that the Chamber could not apply for because of the way they are organized, such as PPE money and forgivable loans. Zerby moved, Sundberg seconded, to contribute $8,500 from CARES Act Funding to the Excelsior Chamber of Commerce. Roll Call Vote — Ayes 4 ( Zerby, Sundberg, Labadie and Johnson, Nays — 1 ( Siakel). Motion passed 4/1. 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff 1. July General Fund Report Mayor Zerby suggested that the Council read through the July General Fund report themselves. 2. Public Works Facility Roof Replacement Public Works Director Brown stated that the public works roof project has been completed. Other Planning Director Darling noted that she had sent out notices for a joint Planning Commission /Park Commission work session to discuss the appropriate uses in the fire lanes. She stated that it was also declared as a special meeting for the City Council in case any Councilmembers would like to attend. City Engineer Budde stated that Badger Park tennis court construction will begin around August 31, 2020. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Labadie stated that she has had two older residents contact her and tell her they were trying to register for absentee voting and as they moved through the process, they were asked questions that got personal, such as what kind of car they drove and who was their insurance company. She stated that luckily both residents stopped at this point and did not complete the registration. She stated that she has spoken with City staff and Communications Director Moore has put out notices on social media pages warning people about the fraudulent websites that have similar websites. She stated that she suggests that people go to the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES AUGUST 24, 2020 Page 26 of 26 website and click on the links posted rather than trying to enter those sites manually because of the possibility of accidentally being routed to a potentially fraudulent website. Councilmember Sundberg thanked staff for their professionalism throughout tonight's meeting. She stated she also wanted to thank the Council for being able to have respectful dialogue and disagreement. 11. ADJOURN Labadie moved, Sundberg seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of August 25, 2020, at 11:26 P.M. Roll Call Vote — Ayes — all. Motion passed 5/0.