Loading...
06-28-21 CC Reg Mtg MinutesCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2021 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Siakel, Callies, and Gorham; City Attorney Keane; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Planning Technician Notermann; Director of Public Works Brown; and, City Engineer Budde Absent: None B. Review Agenda Mayor Labadie noted that item 7E. on the agenda will be postponed to a future meeting. Gorham moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as amended. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. 2. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Labadie reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Callies moved, Gorham seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2021 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of June 14, 2021 C. Approval of the Verified Claims List D. Accept the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Established under the Rescue American Rescue Plan Act, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-067, "A Resolution to Accept the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Established Under the American Rescue Plan Act." E. Call for Special Meeting to Interview Legal Firms, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-068, "A Resolution Calling for Special City Council Meetings to Interview Firm to Provide City Prosecution Services." CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 2 of 13 Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR No one appeared to address the Council. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - NONE 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS - NONE 6. PARKS -NONE 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Eggenberger on June 1, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Eggenberger gave an overview of the June 1, 2021 Planning Commission meeting as reflected in the minutes. B. Variance to Front Yard Setback Applicant: Justin Robinette Location: 4530 Enchanted Point Planning Technician Notermann gave an overview of the request to construct an enclosed entry and porch to the existing non -conforming home at 4530 Enchanted Point. She stated that the proposed addition would be located 22.5 feet from the front property line that abuts the unimproved portion of Enchanted Lane. She gave an overview of the location of what is considered the front yard line and noted that the setback is considered to be 35 feet. She noted that the existing structure is considered non -conforming because it sits 29.1 feet from the property line, which means a variance is required for any addition encroaching further towards Enchanted Lane. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approved the variance request. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-069, "A Resolution Approving a Variance to the Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 4530 Enchanted Point." Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. C. Variance for Detached Garage Height Applicant: Kuhl Design Building Location: 28110 Woodside Road Planning Technician Notermann gave an overview of the variance request for the height of an accessory structure at 28110 Woodside Road. She explained that they are requesting a garage that would be 20.7 feet tall which contains a second story that will only be accessible via a fold - down stairway and used for storage. She stated that the zoning regulations limit detached accessory structures to 15 feet or one story. She reviewed the Planning Commission discussion and explained that staff had originally recommended denial of the application because of the roof pitches. The applicant has explained that they design of the garage is in keeping with the design CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 3 of 13 of the home. The Planning Commission recommended approval with no conditions. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has revised their own recommendation to approve the request with the condition that the applicant changes the roof design to be a hip roof that is consistent with the design of the home. Councilmember Siakel asked if it would be a burden to change the design of the roof of the garage and asked why the City was being `sticky' on that point. She stated that she did not think the originally proposed drawings seemed that different from the home. Mr. Murphy, Kuhl Design, explained that a portion of the roof is already a hip roof design and note that they have not yet redesigned it yet and noted that they are matching the roof design on the rear portion of the home. Councilmember Siakel stated that her question may be directed more at staff and asked why the City was being sticklers about changing the roof line and asked if the change would be that dramatic. She stated that she thinks this is a minor thing and reiterated her questions about why they are being asked to be such sticklers on this point. Planning Technician Notermann stated that the Zoning Code stipulates that any detached accessory building in excess of 150 square feet needs to be constructed with materials and a design compatible with the general character of the principal structure on the lot. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that their discussion was that the garage, as proposed matched the back side of the house. He stated that the house has had an addition, so it has two different roof lines. Mr. Murphy, Kuhl Design, stated that what they are doing is, with the siding, the timber details, and trim, is match the home. Councilmember Siakel stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval as presented and now it appears as though the City is asking them to jump through another hoop. She stated that this seems like a technicality and asked if the City really needed to put more conditions on this request. Councilmember Gorham stated that he agrees with Councilmember Siakel that the recommendation to require roof type seems odd given the look of the house. He stated that it seems like an odd judgment call and stated that the whole thing is subjective about what `matching' the character means and how that is determined. He stated that he would support eliminating the stipulation recommended by staff, but noted that he does not think roof pitch is a practical difficulty because that seems self-created. He stated that he could be talked into this being a historic house and that being the impetus behind matching the roof to the house, but feels there is not practical difficulty. He stated that he feels the reason it is even needed is because of the desire for the second floor, so he is struggling with this request. Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed with Councilmember Gorham that the roof pitch is one issue that she is less concerned about. She stated that this is a beautiful property, but she also does not really see the practical difficulty in this situation and is a matter of preference and the City's height restriction for accessory buildings. She stated that she thinks the builder would be creative enough to build this garage differently. She stated that it could even be something such as building a 3-car garage with the third stall used for storage rather than having another level. Mayor Labadie agreed that she also has a hard time seeing the practical difficulty in this situation, however she also agrees that this is a unique property and is historic. She noted that the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 4 of 13 boathouse that goes along with this property is on the front cover of the Historic Boat Houses of Lake Minnetonka. Councilmember Gorham stated that stated that the garage being located on the lower topography of the site would be what he considers mitigating circumstances and not necessarily practical difficulties. Mr. Murphy, Kuhl Design, explained that one of the other practical difficulties with the uniqueness of this property is that there is no basement and zero storage in the home because it is built on a slab. He stated that there has been mention of the second story and explained that the second story is a bi-product of the roof pitch and was not designed as a two-story structure. He stated that if they would be putting in standard trusses, they would still be requesting a variance regardless of whether there was a storage area or not. He reiterated that the two-story design is a by-product of it and not an intent. He stated that one other thing to take into consideration is if they attached the structure and total relandscaped and moved everything around, they would not need a variance because an attached garage takes on a whole different set of criteria for what can be done. He stated that the homeowner decided not to attach it because it was too important for the landscape and how it would appear and wanted the whole lot and all the structures to blend together. He stated that their plans also keep the footprint the same and their proposal will not create any site line issues whatsoever. Councilmember Siakel stated that she does not think they are asking for a lot and feels their request is reasonable. She stated that she does not have a problem approving what they are asking for. Councilmember Gorham stated that he feels their request is not 'meaty' enough for him. Councilmember Siakel stated that wanting storage when you do not have a basement seems like a reasonable use of their property, nor does this encroach on anyone's site lines or view and reiterated that she feels their request is minimal. Councilmember Callies stated that there are three different parts to be considered when granting a variance. She stated that it is reasonable to want storage, but it is all relative as to how people use the interior of their home also. She stated that she really does not see this as practical difficulty related to the land that would justify granting a variance. She stated that she believes that they could still have an attractive garage and storage space without the need of a variance. Councilmember Siakel stated that as Mr. Murphy said, if they attached the garage they would not need a variance and these plans were trying to match the character and integrity of the property. Councilmember Johnson asked Planning Director Darling to speak to variances and the former definition of `precedent'. He stated that he sees the additional height as adding to the overall design of the home and if he was on the Planning Commission, he would lean towards denial, but as a Council, they have the ability to override for other mitigating factors. He stated that he views the overall design of this and enhancing the neighborhood as being one of those mitigating factors. Planning Director Darling stated that when looking at precedent in variances, each variance is a unique situation and should be viewed as a unique situation. She stated that there are very few properties or applications that can duplicate themselves and a variance does not stand as a precedent to another because of all the unique situations. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 5of13 Mike Giebenhein, 28110 Woodside Road, stated that his goal is to do something that maintains the character of the house. He stated that he is trying to find a way not to attach the house to the garage because he cannot find a way to do it where it would not be intrusive. He stated that he attaching it would create site lines issues and views of the house to from the west that they currently do not have and same with the house to the east. He stated that attaching it would also take away from the wooded feel of the property. He stated that the garages are deeper and he did not think doing a hip roof would be a possibility with the design of the garage which is where the taller peak is coming into play. If they lowered the peak it would be a relatively flat roof and he does not think that would fit with the character of the historic home. Mayor Labadie asked Mr. Murphy to comment on that from a builder's perspective. Mr. Murphy stated that a flat pitched or standard pitched roof on this would not fit the same feel of the architecture of the house. Roof pitches are all based on volume, width, height and dimension. He stated that one thing that Mr. Giebenhein had mentioned is that they could absolutely design something that was attached to the home that would not need a variance and would look nice. However, Mr. Giebenhein and his wife have a love for the neighborhood, the setting, the trees, and care about the site lines for their neighbors. They are not going to take down any trees out or anything that will be a detriment to the neighbors or the feel and atmosphere of the neighborhood. He stated that if the structure is clustered and the garage attached, it would give the whole space a completely different feel. He stated that it is not fun to have to come ask for a variance, but they went round and round with possibilities, and this proposal was the only way where they could functionally make everything work and aesthetically keep everyone in the neighborhood happy, without sacrificing any of the views or any of the trees. Councilmember Callies stated that when she bikes by the home, almost every home in the neighborhood is different, but agrees that this one is particularly unique. She stated that it is a beautiful property, but reiterated that she feels they could design this garage as a detached garage in another way that would not require a variance. Mr. Murphy stated that they tried that and explained that in his opinion, a variance is a last resort. Gorham moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-070, "A Resolution Approving a Variance to the Detached Accessory Structure Height Limitation for Property Located at 28110 Woodside Road," without the recently added staff recommendation. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Gorham, Labadie, voted Aye. Callies voted Nay. Motion passed (4-1). D. CUP for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards and Variances Applicant: Tod and Bonnie Carpenter Location: 26050 Birch Bluff Road Planning Director Darling stated that this is a request for a Conditional Use Permit and variance to impervious surface coverage at 26050 Birch Bluff Road. They are requesting to bring in 500 cubic yards of fill and also to increase the impervious surface coverage from 25% to allow an additional 159 square feet of impervious surface. She explained that the applicant had originally proposed a variance to building height, but have withdrawn that request. The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of both requests. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 6 of 13 Mayor Labadie asked if the applicants would like to address the Council. Mr. Carpenter stated that he thinks they have worked very hard throughout this process with their designer and project manager to work through things and get the design to a place to reduce the quantity of variances necessary. Councilmember Callies noted that she appreciated the applicant working with staff and eliminating the need for a height variance and would support the remaining requests. Councilmember Johnson stated that he agreed. Councilmember Gorham stated that he felt the last variance on the agenda had a stronger case for a variance. He explained that, in this case, he does not really see the CUP and impervious surfaces requests to be justified. Brent Stevens, Project Manager, explained that if the Council looks at the grading, the reason they are bringing in fill is because they want the garage to be at the main level of the house, which the current structure was unable to accomplish when it was built in the 1970s. He stated that it was a detached garage at a completely different elevation. He stated that the reason is to get the garage at the main level height which is really at the road height. He stated that in his estimation this is a very logical process of establishing garage height, foundation for the garage and naturally fill in around it and essentially create the grading that will bring the current "ditch" feature will be eliminated by bringing the grading of the garage to the level of the first floor. He stated that the impervious coverage is very close and is the driveway length that is pushing it. He stated that he would ask the Council to look at how they have addressed this and explained that they could have been all the way back to the lake setback, but chose to pull the structure away from the lake setback and shorten the driveway as best as they could within reason, however it still caused that number to be a bit off. He stated that they have presented a stormwater management system that is state of the art and will give an effective rate that is well under the 25%. He stated that the City Engineer has looked at it and given it a thumbs up. He stated that he believes that they are addressing the issues in a very cooperative and responsible manner. Councilmember Gorham stated that the impervious surface number is very close and his issue is the decision to bring in that much fill. Councilmember Callies noted that the fill does not require a variance, but a Conditional Use Permit. Peter Eskuche confirmed that they are asking for a CUP for the fill and explained that the main level of this property is about 30 feet lower than the house two doors to the east. He stated that there is a considerable amount of drop on the street in each of these lots and he feels that their plans will be much better for drainage because the main level could be lifted up a bit and the lower level lifted up a bit, to promote drainage away from the house. Mayor Labadie noted that the City had received numerous a -mails and letters from neighbors. She asked if any of the neighbors present at the meeting had any comments to make in addition to the documents that they have already submitted. Johnson moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-071, "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Fill in Excess of 100 Cubic Yards and a Variance to Impervious Surface Coverage for a New Home for Property Located at 26050 Birch Bluff Road." Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 7 of 13 LGGatiGn; (POSTPONED) F. Approval Final Plat for Excelsior Woods Applicant: Red Granite Construction Location: 20325 Excelsior Boulevard Planning Director Darling stated that this application is for a Final Plat for a subdivision to be called Excelsior Woods. The request is to subdivide the property into four individual lots for each half of a duplex. She noted that the original application was approved in April of 2020 and explained that the original application was delayed due to COVID-19 because of the difficulty in finding laborers to work on the site. Staff recommends approval subject to the findings and conditions included in the staff report. Siakel moved, Gorham seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-073, "A Resolution Approving a Final Plat to be Called Excelsior Woods for Property Located at 20325 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to the findings and conditions included in the resolution." Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. G. Approve Extension for Code Compliance at 20585 Garden Road Planning Technician Notermann explained the request for additional time to correct a code violation at 20585 Garden Road. She explained that the City had received a complaint earlier this spring regarding a large accumulation of discarded materials at the property and after inspection they observed that there are violations to City Code Chapter 501. The City alerted the property owner of the violation on May 13, 2021 and they were given until May 24, 2021 to correct the violation. She stated that they have asked for an extension to July 27, 2021 because they are an older couple who cannot complete the clean-up on their own and need assistance to get it all taken care of. Councilmember Siakel asked if there had been any progress made on the clean-up since this violation because this has already gone back almost two months. Planning Technician Notermann explained that she had gone back out to the property on June 23, 2021 and there did not appear to be any progress made. She stated that she had spoken to the property owner a number of times on the phone and they have told her that they are trying to reach people to help them get the property cleaned up. Councilmember Siakel asked how far the back of this property is from the street or driveway. Planning Technician Notermann stated that she accessed it via a path that comes back through Bays Water condos and noted that the property is located at the very end of Garden Road. Councilmember Siakel asked what happens on July 27, 2021 if there is no progress made to this violation. Planning Technician Notermann explained that the City would issue them a citation. Councilmember Callies stated that she has some sympathy for their situation, but feels the wording in their e-mail was a bit `iffy' that the clean-up may take all summer, and they "might" have somebody that can come help. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 8 of 13 Mayor Labadie stated that she is sympathetic in this manner because her front yard currently has wheelbarrows and such because of weather and contractor schedules. She stated that they truly may be having trouble getting someone to come help, but she would agree that there needs to be a hard and fast deadline and feels the extension to July 27, 2021 is reasonable. She stated that if this is not resolved by that time she feels the City needs to come down hard on this because they have been understanding up until that deadline. She stated that she is in favor of granting this extension. Councilmember Gorham stated that he is also sympathetic and would like to see evidence that they have contacted people between now and next month so they can show the City that they are actually trying. He stated that this is the height of contractor season and it just may be difficult to get them. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks they could call a junk company to come out and get the materials. She stated that if they need help finding someone perhaps the City can give a few recommendations, but to her, by the end of July, it is not a matter of them reporting to the City who they have called, but that it is actually cleaned up by the end of July. She stated that she will go along with the Council on allowing an extension but wants it to be clear the expectation is that the clean-up will be completed by July 27, 2021. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 21-074, "A Resolution Approving a Request for Extension to Correct a Code Violation for Property Located at 20585 Garden Road, with a completion date of no later than July 27, 2021." Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. H. Farm Animal Regulations (Chickens) — Discussion Only Planning Director Darling reminded the Council that at their last meeting, a resident appeared before them asking the City to make changes to their farm animal regulations. She stated that the Council had requested additional information about what other cities do in this situation and whether they allow variances. She stated that staff and City Attorney Keane are not recommending that the City allow a variance process. She stated that staff looked at Bloomington, Chanhassen, Chaska, Deephaven, Eden Prairie Excelsior, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Minnetrista, Mound, Plymouth, Shakopee, St. Paul, and Tonka Bay. She stated some of these cities do not allow chickens, some require no neighborhood notice or approval and are treated similarly to dogs. She shared details from the other cities regulations for approval of notice. Staff and City Attorney Keane recommend removing the neighborhood approval requirement from the City Code and also that the Council direct a Code amendment that the farm animal shelters are situated closer to the owner's dwelling than to any of the other neighboring dwellings. She reviewed some of the questions for the Council to consider surrounding this issue. Mayor Labadie thanked Planning Director Darling and Planning Technician Notermann for their work to research this issue. She stated that she thinks it is very helpful to see how other cities are handling chickens. Councilmember Johnson stated that he would like the Council to discuss three things: a distinction between hens and roosters; the distinction that St. Paul has made between the different number of chickens; Bloomington's approach that the shelter be closer to the applicant than to the neighboring structures. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 9of13 Mayor Labadie reminded the public that this issue is not going to be voted on this evening and is purely a discussion item. She asked Planning Director Darling to address the rooster issue. Planning Director Darling stated that the City Code currently prohibits roosters and she would not recommend that the Council change that restriction. She stated the City currently caps the number of chickens allowed on a residential property to six chickens. Councilmember Callies stated that she is in favor of removing the neighbor approval and is not certain that she would even support a notice requirement. She stated that she understands why some cities have it, but people do not have to get approval or give notice to their neighbors when they get a dog or cat. She stated that she thinks it would be appropriate to have some distance requirement from the adjoining property unless that would already be covered by the ordinary setback requirements. Councilmember Gorham asked if coops are subject to accessory structure limitations on size. Planning Director Darling explained that they are subject to restrictions on size and location and must be in the buildable area of the lot as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmember Gorham stated that he would support more definition on where the coop should be located. He stated that he agrees with eliminating the idea of a variance or requiring neighborhood notice or approval. He noted that he found the chicken regulations quite fascinating from city to city. He stated that there were some items that he really liked, such as no slaughtering on the property. He stated that he would also like the permit to be renewable so things may be easier to enforce. He asked how it would work if there was a multi -family situation and whether this would be restricted to only single-family dwellings. Planning Director Darling stated that she does not believe farm animal ownership is restricted by structure type and noted that the City has very few structures that are over two units so she does not think that was thought about at the time the ordinance was drafted. She stated that the Council could choose to add something on this issue. Councilmember Siakel stated that she likes the idea of requiring the coop to be closer to their personal dwelling. She asked if the City had received complaints about raising chickens or if something had happened that now the Council is being asked to discuss the issue. Mayor Labadie explained that she had asked of this discussion item to be included on the agenda based on a request from a resident that came up at a recent meeting. She stated that Chanhassen has recently reviewed this issue and did include a requirement for neighbor notice to address the fear about a neighbor's dog getting into a chicken coop. She explained that the thought was that if the neighbor knows that there are chickens, that situation may be able to be prevented. Councilmember Siakel stated that there is already a pretty good policy in place and she thinks the only thing that may need to be tweaked is about the dwelling being closer to structure of the homeowner than the property line and eliminating the neighbor approval. She stated that she also likes the idea of having to come back every three years and renew their application. Councilmember Johnson stated that he thinks the crux of what needs to be addressed is the requirement for neighbor approval and feels there is consensus among the Council to remove that stipulation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 10 of 13 Planning Director Darling stated that she has gotten adequate feedback from the Council and will bring back a potential code amendment for a future meeting. The Council discussed the term length of a license or permit renewal and having the renewal be free or a nominal fee. 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Flexible Workplace Policy City Administrator Lerud explained that working remotely is permitted by the City's personnel policy. This past year has shown staff that the policy language is out of date and does not belong in the personnel policy and should instead, be considered a work place strategy. He stated that the ability to have a flexible work arrangement for employees will be an integral part of almost any workplace in the future and, in particular, those, like Shorewood, who wished to attract qualified candidates. Staff has reviewed several other cities flexible workplace policies and have used what they felt were the relevant portions to draft a proposed policy for the City. Councilmember Johnson stated that he agrees with City Administrator Lerud's statement that this is the direction that more and more private companies will be moving towards. He stated that he would like there to be some sort of preliminary probation period on the policy or to make it one point of the individual's annual review process but noted that he views these as `either/or' and not together. City Administrator Lerud stated that one of the guidelines is that each one approved would be reviewed in six months. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would like to make sure something like this is fair and available to all people. She stated that she does not see how this could work for a Public Works employee. She stated that City Hall already has a lot of people that work part-time and asked who this policy would apply to as well as how many employees. She stated that she is just trying to understand the big picture and is not yet sure how she feels about a flexible work arrangement. City Administrator Lerud stated that she is correct that Public Works employees cannot work remotely, however there are other components of the policy, such as a compressed work week or a flexible work schedule which could be applicable to Public Works employees. He explained that the City no longer has any part-time city hall employees, but they are advertising to fill a part- time administrative position. Councilmember Callies asked if that is a policy decision or if it just so happens that everyone is full-time now. City Administrator Lerud stated that it is not a policy decision and just happens to be where they are at right now. He agreed that it could change, but noted that this would not be applicable to part-time employees. He stated that the compressed work schedule or the ability to work remotely for a period of time may not apply to everybody. Councilmember Siakel stated that she understands that the City may need to start looking this way, however, the Council has not even returned to City Hall and come back to work, so she feels it may be a bit premature. She reiterated that she really does not know who she feels about this or what the City should or should not do and would not feel comfortable making a decision tonight. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 11 of 13 Councilmember Callies asked how it will be determined whether somebody is granted this ability or not. City Administrator Lerud explained that, in the memo, there were four standards listed that the City would not compromise on. He stated that there is a form that employee would fill out that would have to be signed by the Department Head, the HR Director, and himself. He noted that even though the Council has not returned to City Hall, staff has been back since the beginning of June. He stated that if the Council has specific questions or would like staff to do research and get additional information for them, they would be happy to do that and get the information back to the Council. The Council discussed the difficulty in taking something away after it has been given and how the perception may be that this is a benefit of the job and the possibility of doing this on a trial basis. Councilmember Siakel stated that she could support doing something like this on a trial basis and would like to put together a process that is not so vague. Councilmember Gorham asked how its effectiveness would be measured. City Administrator Lerud suggested that the Council put this back on the agenda in September, after the summer months, because vacations throw much of this flexibility out the window. He explained that this would give them a chance to see what emerges between now and then and take a closer look at how the City evaluates performance for people who are working remotely versus on -site. He stated that it could be rolled out on a temporary basis with some milestones and a requirement to report back to the Council after the six-month period where it has been implemented. He noted that the City is already informally doing this with some individuals, so nothing needs to be changed immediately. Mayor Labadie stated that she thinks that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. Councilmember Callies stated that she likes this suggestion and noted that there were some other comments and questions that came up tonight that made her think so she would like to have more time to think about and review the proposal. She stated that she likes the idea of looking at this again in September. 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Planning Director Darling stated that she and Park and Recreation Director Grout are happy to report that the City received a $25,000 grant from Hennepin County for the rehabilitation of Silverwood Park. City Administrator Lerud noted that he and Finance Director Rigdon had a conference call today with Standard and Poors for the bond rating and the rating should come in a couple of weeks, just in advance of the sale. He stated that they are anticipating that it will be an affirmation of the AA+ that was received last year. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Siakel asked about the Glen/Amlee road project and if the City had heard anything from the neighbors because it looks like there has been a lot of work done. She stated that she thinks it will be a huge improvement. City Engineer Budde stated that things are going CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 12 of 13 very well from a construction schedule standpoint. He stated that they have even gotten a number of compliments from residents that staff and the contractors are doing a good job. Councilmember Callies thanked Mayor Labadie for sending out the letter to the officials regarding the Eureka Road and Highway 7 situation and stated that she hopes the City will get some response. She asked if there is anything the City can do with regard to traffic control at this intersection or if it was all up to the State and County. Mayor Labadie stated that at this point in time, the City is just advising residents to voice their concerns to the State-wide elected representatives. She stated that controls on Eureka could be possible in the future, but it will impact the entire area which becomes very complicated. She stated that it would require a lengthy process and not just a knee-jerk reaction. Councilmember Siakel expressed her frustration that the State said that they had never received a complaint. She stated that she can think of about ten things that have come up in the last five years where the City has talked to them and approached them about sidewalks or safe crossings on Highway 7. She stated that she was outraged when she heard their response that there had never been a complaint. She also expressed her appreciation to Mayor Labadie for writing the letter. Mayor Labadie stated that Councilmember Siakel was not the only one that was outraged by that comment. She stated that she was outraged and was also contacted by former -Mayor Zerby and former-Councilmember Sundberg who shared this outrage. Councilmember Gorham stated that the Strawberry Lane community meeting was very well attended and commended staff for their presentation on the project. He stated that he noticed that has been staked and asked if there have been any one-on-one meetings with residents in the area to talk about what the stakes are representing. City Engineer Budde stated that he had gotten a number of requests and have held both group and one on one meetings with about five or six individual residents and has several more on his calendar for the rest of this week. Councilmember Gorham expressed interest in attending one of the upcoming one on one meetings to get more information on the project and the stakes. City Engineer Budde stated that he will let Councilmember Gorham know when there is an upcoming meeting in the area. Councilmember Siakel expressed her frustration with the fact that this project has been communicated to residents for years that it would be coming, nor does the City for this work, and yet, now that it is here there seems to be a general uproar about it. She asked if the City was missing a piece of its communication process, if there were new people, or if there was some sort of misunderstanding. Councilmember Johnson stated that there was a general misunderstanding that the authorization of a final design was the approval of the final design which started some of the commotion. He stated that he believes that idea has since been clarified. City Engineer Budde stated that oftentimes it comes down to the actual details of how it impacts the residents and the City does not know that kind of information until they get into the final design process. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JUNE 28, 2021 Page 13 of 13 Councilmember Callies asked for the proposed timeline for the Strawberry Lane project. City Engineer Budde stated that staff is planning to come to the Council and seek direction at the second meeting in July. He stated that they will be looking for formal direction from the Council on whether to go with the sidewalk or trail option and a few other items. Mayor Labadie wished everyone a safe and happy Fourth of July celebration and noted that she would be handing out metals at the finish line at the Firecracker Run, since she is on the injured list this year. 11. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of January 28, 2021, at 9:06 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. ATTEST: t"'" i0nifef Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk