Loading...
03-14-22 CC Reg Mtg Agenda Packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD MEETING HELD VIRTUALLY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2022 For those wishing to listen live to the meeting, please go to ci.shorewood.mn.us/current_meeting for the meeting link. Contact the city at 952.960.7900 during regular business hours with questions. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Labadie___ Siakel___ Johnson___ Callies___ Gorham___ B. Review and Adopt Agenda Attachments 2. CONSENT AGENDA The Consent Agenda is a series of actions which are being considered for adoption this evening under a single motion. These items have been reviewed by city council and city staff and there shall be no further discussion by the council tonight on the Consent Agenda items. Any council member or member of city staff may request that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration or discussion. If there are any brief concerns or questions by council, we can answer those now. Motion to approve items on the Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. City Council Work Session Minutes of February 28, 2022 Minutes B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 28, 2022 Minutes C. Approval of the Verified Claims List Claims List D. Approve Proposal from Davey Resource Group Director of Public Works Memo Resolution 22-025 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, which is not on tonight's agenda, to the attention of the mayor and council. When you are recognized, please use the raise your hand feature. Please identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. After this introduction, please limit your comments to three minutes. No action will be taken by the council on this matter, but the mayor or council could request that staff place this matter on a future agenda. (No Council Action will be taken) 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Service Recognition City Clerk/HR Director Memo Dara Gault – Planning Commission CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Page 2 6. PARKS A. Report by Commissioner Tauer on March 8, 2022 Meeting Park Commission Meeting B. Christmas Lake Public Access Ordinance City Administrator Memo Ordinance 586 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Riedel on March 1, 2022 Meeting Draft Minutes B. CUP for Collocation of Antennas on Existing Tower Planning Director Memo SMJ International, LLC. (Dish Wireless) Resolution 22-026 24283 Smithtown Road 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Authorization for City Engineer Memo Advertisement for Bids for Smithtown Pond, City Project 20-07 Resolution 22-027 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Redistricting: Declare New Precinct Boundaries and City Clerk/HR Director Memo Polling Place Locations Resolution 22-028 B. Approve Letter of Agreement with IPM Institute City Administrator Memo Resolution 22-029 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Staff 1. Tree Sale and Organics Recycling Communications /Recycling Coordinator Memo B. Mayor and City Council 11. ADJOURN 2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022 6:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Labadie, Siakel, Gorham (arrived at 6:02 P.M.), and Callies; City Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling; and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Callies moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, and Labadie voted aye. Motion passed 4/0. 2. ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV) CHARGING STATION PROGRAM City Administrator Lerud explained that staff had met with Energy Management Solutions about a no cost EV Charging Station Program. He stated that following that meeting staff felt it would be a good idea to hear their proposal and get Council direction and introduced Jody McDevitt. Jody McDevitt, Energy Management Solutions, gave an overview of Energy Management Solutions and their No Cost/No Risk EV Charging Station program. He noted that they have partnered with a company called Carbon Solutions Group for the EV Charging Station program who are headquartered out of Chicago, IL. He gave an overview of the history of EV use and its forecasted adoption into the future and noted that every automobile manufacturer is investing in electric vehicles. He explained some of the challenges for property owners regarding when and if they want to install EV charging. He gave a brief summary of their proposed EV Charging Program and noted that the City would not be obligated to pay a penny for anything because Carbon Solutions Group will cover all capital and operational costs. He noted that there are two potential revenue streams for the City with a monthly license fee or profit sharing. He stressed that this is a way for the City to offer this amenity to attract and retain EV drivers with zero risk. He reviewed the low-rate and long-term approach and how the revenue is generated. He showed some renderings of what a charging station may look like. He stated that the City will be able to give input on design and possible locations and noted that the City’s location will be added to the various driver apps so people can find them. He clarified that there really will not be much work needed from the City because Carbon Solutions Group takes care of most everything. He shared examples of other cities that they have worked with and noted that it includes the City of Plymouth and New Brighton. He stated that the City Council in Chanhassen is considering this at tonight’s meeting. He stated that if the City signed an agreement today, it would probably be about six months before they would be able to get charging stations in the ground and noted that there are CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 2 of 4 some incentive dollars that go away on July 1, 2022, so they would be targeting getting agreements in place prior to that timeframe. Councilmember Gorham noted that he assumes that it will be a few years before a profit is turned and asked if there is a typical term proposed in the agreement with the City. Mr. McDevitt stated Carbon Solutions Group has a much longer-term vision that looks at this market with a 2030 perspective. He stated that they know in many cases that they will probably not going to make money for the first few years. He explained that the term of their agreement is for a ten year term with two five year renewal options. Mayor Labadie asked if Mr. McDevitt had indicated that they would work with the City on the actual locations of the charging stations and would be willing to put them in more than one location. Mr. McDevitt stated that this was correct. Councilmember Gorham asked what was needed in order to have an ultra-fast charging station. Mr. McDevitt stated that the majority of the DC fast chargers and the ultra-fast are 480 volt, which would essentially need a step up transformer. Councilmember Gorham asked how long it takes for a ‘fast’ charger to charge a vehicle. Mr. McDevitt stated that there are many variables that go into that calculation such as the type of vehicle, the size of the battery, efficiency of the vehicle to accept the charge, and the state of charge on the battery. He stated that when you are looking at Level Two stations, a rough rule of thumb would be two to three hours and the faster charges may only take twenty minutes. Councilmember Gorham stated that he is wondering how the City determines, going into the agreement, what kind of charger is needed to attract people. He stated that he is thinking about a charging station being located in a park and how long they would need to be there in order to make it attractive for them. Mr. McDevitt explained that most people will pull out of their garage with a full charge, plug in at work and get a charge, so it may only take them fifteen minutes to be able to plug in during a lacrosse game and get enough juice to get home again because they have essentially been ‘topping off’ throughout the day. Councilmember Johnson stated that there are not many charging stations available up and down the Highway 7 corridor. He stated that there are very few Level Two and no Level Three stations and noted that if the City was looking to attract people to take advantage of the chargers, he would look at the Level Three. He stated that if the City is looking to provide an amenity for people who are coming to use the parks, whether they are resident or non-resident, then a Level Two charger may work, but would not be a draw for others. Councilmember Siakel stated that she does not have a problem with this, but would ask what its purpose would be. She asked if it is something the City wants to put in as an amenity so people can charge their car while they are at a sports event, or if the thought was to attract others. Councilmember Johnson noted that he could go either way but if the City is looking to attract others with a Level Three charging station, he did not feel that the City parks would be the correct location for that purpose. Councilmember Siakel stated it goes back to her original question on whether the City want to offer it as an amenity or a service. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 3 of 4 Mayor Labadie noted that there few individuals with their hand raised on-line. Jay Nygaard, 1386 Rest Point Road, Orono, noted that he may be better known as the ‘Turbine Guy’ and explained that he is a green energy guy that also supports limited government. He asked why they are considering using the government to install a gas station for an electric vehicle. He noted that typically when someone gets a gas station, they buy their own land, install their own pumps, and then sell their gas. He stated that these people are selling electricity and making money off of it and asked why the City was considering doing it when it should be a private entity. He stated that he feels the City could do things to help that entity succeed but explained that he did not feel these stations should be located on City property. He stated that he would like to know why they are going after public property to provide profit for a private corporation. Mayor Labadie asked Mr. McDevitt to answer Mr. Nygaard’s question since they do approach a lot of municipalities. Mr. McDevitt stated that it is an amenity that becomes a private/public type of program. He stated that it seems to work best when there are vested parties. He stated that the potential is there to make a little revenue and save the taxpayers a little bit of money. He stated that it comes down to whether the City wants to show leadership in the transition to electric mobility. Scott Zerby, 5680 Christopher Road, stated that he has questions that probably cannot be answered tonight such as details regarding the contract that the City would be considering. He stated that he supports this initiative and thinks government, in the past, has had the need to steer energy consumption and noted that she sees this as similar to the State being involved in ethanol production for gas cars. He noted that the amount of space this would take is minimal so he does not see this as giving a lot of resources to a private entity and sees it more as trying to inspire and reduce the amount of impact they have on the environment. He stated that he would be in support of this and would agree with Councilmember Johnson that there are not a lot of power stations in the nearby vicinity. Councilmember Johnson asked if any of the other municipalities that they have partnered with have replaced any of their City vehicles with EV. Mr. McDevitt stated that Plymouth already had two EV in their fleet and are adding an additional three vehicles. He stated that New Brighton is planning to purchase some for inspection vehicles and are also looking at the possibility of various models for their police department. He noted that Lakeville is looking at EV pick-up trucks so cities are certainly looking to include EV in their fleets. Councilmember Gorham asked how the rate is determined and adjusted. Mr. McDevitt stated that Carbon Solutions Group wants to be the low-cost provider because they need the charging stations to be used in order for them to get a return on their investment. He stated that when developing the rate, they look at the commercial tariff of the kilo-watt hour rate plus the demand charge. Councilmember Gorham asked how the user knows how much they are being charged. Mr. McDevitt stated that the app will tell them the rate and the fee. Councilmember Gorham stated that he generally likes the idea and feels this would be something that is a good service for the City. He stated that he would like to see an RFP for this and would like to be able to verify that the rates they would be getting are competitive. Mr. McDevitt stated that they will not guarantee a rate because there are too many variables, but would hope their signed agreements with Plymouth and New Brighton would ease their minds CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 4 of 4 about the company and that the agreement has been vetted. He stated that he could share those agreements with the City if that would be helpful. Councilmember Johnson asked what direction staff is looking for from the Council. City Administrator Lerud stated that staff would like to know if this is something that the Council wants to pursue. He stated that he thinks the next step would be reviewing the draft contract. He stated that if the Council has a very specific desire about location he thinks Carbon Solutions Group should be invited out to walk the area and see what may be possible. Mr. McDevitt stated that they usually start by looking at Google Earth images because they are able to get a lot of information from that regarding transformer locations. He stated that for locations there is always a specific out clause for both parties. He stated that taking time and resources to walk a site in order to say ‘maybe’ would include a lot of variables and would also require working with Xcel. Councilmember Siakel suggested that the Council direct staff to put together some next steps because there are a lot of details to be sorted through. There was a consensus from the Council to direct staff to put together some potential next steps for pursuing EV Charging Stations in the City and bring back options for consideration. Mayor Labadie stressed that this is merely a discussion and no decision has been made and explained that the Council have asked staff for additional information. She stated that they have not committed the City to this project. 3. ADJOURN Johnson moved, Gorham seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of February 28, 2022, at 6:55 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted aye. Motion passed 5/0. ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk 2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Siakel, Gorham, and Callies; City Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Lerud; City Clerk/HR Director Thone; Finance Director Rigdon; Planning Director Darling; Director of Public Works Brown; City Engineer Budde; and Kendra Lindahl, Planning Consultant Absent: None B. Review Agenda Gorham moved, Siakel seconded, approving the agenda, as presented. 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. Siakel moved, Gorham seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. City Council Work Session Minutes of February 14, 2022 B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2022 C. Approval of the Verified Claims List D. Approve 2022 Concession Operation Agreement E. Approve T-Mobile Lease Amendment East Tower, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-020, “A Resolution Approving a First Amendment to Water Tower Space Agreement with T-Mobile Central, on the City’s Water Tower located at 5500 Old Market Road.” F. Approve Hiring for Planning Technician Position Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 2 of 15 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Labadie noted that she wanted to make sure everyone knew that agenda item 7C was a variance application made by her and her husband. She stated that she will turn the meeting over to Mayor Pro-tem Johnson for that item and will not be participating in any of the discussion, nor participating in the vote for that particular item. Kristine Sanschagrin, 27725 Island View Road, explained that the activity locally and globally over the last few weeks has inspired her to remind the City Council of the truth and make sure residents have the facts. She stated that spreading disinformation causes division and mistrust. She explained that she and her husband along with their neighbors, legally purchased a tax forfeiture property which was forty feet of shoreline on Lake Minnetonka. She stated that a month after they installed their dock on that property, the City cited them with a code violation because permanent and floating docks were prohibited on empty lots. She stated that they appealed this decision because the City Code did not prohibit a seasonal dock. She noted that the City withdrew the citation and amended the Code to eliminate the modifiers ‘permanent’ and ‘floating’ so all docks are prohibited on empty lots. She stated that in 2017, the City cited them under the new Code and they filed an appeal under the prior Code language because they were grandfathered, however the City did not allow for discussion, mediation, or a variance request. She stated that after the City denied their appeal, the City charged them criminally, which were later dropped after the Supreme Court sent the case back to the District Court. The City at that time pursued civil litigation against them which they are now awaiting the decision from the Court of Appeals and noted that a decision is expected sometime in mid-March. The City has spent tens of thousands of dollars charging two families for putting a dock on a property where they had followed the Code. She stated that she would like to contrast her experience with that of Mayor Labadie’s multiple Code violations for her dock. She outlined the process thus far for the variance request and noted that the City has received nine letters in opposition to the request, but none were made public prior to or during the recent Public Hearing on this item. She asked the Council why some citizens are treated differently than others when it comes to Code compliance and why they are allowing false information to be used as evidence of support for Mayor Labadie’s variance request. Councilmember Siakel noted that Matters from the Floor are intended for things that are not on tonight’s agenda. Councilmember Johnson agreed and noted that asked for guidance from City Attorney Shepherd. City Attorney Shepherd confirmed that Matters from the Floor are reserved for matters that are not on the agenda for tonight’s meeting. He stated that as mentioned by Mayor Labadie, she is recusing herself from the discussion on item 7.C. and Councilmember Johnson will be serving as ‘Chair’ for that portion of the meeting and he can speak to whether or not further comment will be allowed. Councilmember Johnson asked if the Council should wait on other comments until they get to that agenda item. Councilmember Siakel stated that she thinks the Council should move on and reiterated that Matters from the Floor is for discussion about things that are not on tonight’s agenda. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 3 of 15 6. PARKS A. Report by Commissioner Gallivan on February 8, 2022 Park Commission Meeting Park Commission Gallivan gave a brief overview of the February 8, 2022 Park Commission meeting as outlined in the minutes. 7. PLANNING A. Report by Commissioner Maddy on February 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Planning Commission Chair Maddy gave a brief overview of the February 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting as outlined in the minutes. Councilmember Callies commended Planning Commission Chair Maddy for his handling of the meeting on February 15, 2022. B. Request for Time Extension to Correct Code Violations Location: 5885 Hillendale Road Planning Director Darling explained that this item was continued from the February 14, 2022 Council meeting to allow staff time to prepare a resolution approving the request for additional thirty days in order to correct Code violations. Callies moved, Siakel seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-014, “A Resolution Approving a Request for an Extension to Correct A Code Violation for Property Located at 5885 Hillendale Road.” Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. C. Variances for Dock Applicant: Jennifer and David Labadie Location: 5510 Howards Point Road Mayor Labadie reiterated that she would not be presiding over this matter or participating in any of the discussion. She explained that Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson would be handling this item until its conclusion and she will resume participating in the meeting with Agenda item #8. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson explained that as mentioned by Planning Commission Chair Maddy, the staff report will be presented by Planning Consultant, Kendra Lindahl and not City staff. Kendra Lindahl explained that there are two variance requests for property located at 5510 Howards Point Road. The first is for a variance to allow a dock greater than four feet wide and the second is to allow the dock to branch out within eight feet of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level. She made not of two typographic errors that have now been corrected that were included in the staff report. She reviewed photographs of the existing condition and a drawing of the dock configuration. She explained that the Planning Commission reviewed this at a public meeting on February 15, 2022 where nine residents spoke and were a mixture of those in support and those CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 4 of 15 in opposition. She explained that written comments received before the meeting, were sent to the Commission and were entered into the record. She noted that the Planning Commission had voted 4-0 to recommend approval of the variance requests. She stated that notice of the request was sent to all property owners within five hundred feet of the property and explained that the City received fifteen letters and e-mails regarding this request. She noted that many of the comments were unrelated to the facts of the variance requests and explained that the Council must review the variance that is in front of them and no other options. She shared some background information regarding the dock which was installed on or before April of 1985. In 1989, the property owners at that time, not the applicants, obtained a MNDNR permit to dredge the channel to provide access to the upper lake. She noted that in 2000 the existing home was demolished and a new home was built, also not by the applicant. She stated that the current ordinance was adopted in 2006 and the property was purchased by the applicant in 2010. The applicants were notified of the dock violation in October of 2021. She stated that as a result of this notice, they submitted the variance requests that are being considered. Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending approval of the variance requests based on the findings in the attached resolution. Councilmember Gorham stated that there seemed to be some confusion at the Planning Commission and in the application as to whether this was a ‘grandfathering’ administrative decision or a variance request. He stated that it is coming before the Council as a variance request and asked how that determination was made. Ms. Lindahl explained that the applicants made an assertion in the application that it was a legal non-conforming structure, but that would have to be part of an administrative appeal and they missed that deadline. She stated that because they missed that deadline they chose to proceed with the variance requests which is a tool that can be used to resolve a Code enforcement complaint. Councilmember Gorham asked how the deadline works. Ms. Lindahl stated that within the Code, there is a timeline in Section 104.03 that requires the applicant to submit an appeal under the ‘grandfather’ clause within a certain number of days. City Attorney Shepherd stated that he believes it is within fourteen days. Councilmember Gorham stated that the applicants had missed the deadline for the administrative appeal and asked if there was a decision made that they would be appealing. Ms. Lindahl explained that to her knowledge, there was not, but noted that she was not involved at that time. She stated when she was brought on board, the appeal period had passed and it was proceeding as a variance application. City Attorney Shepherd explained that the decision they would have been appealing was the Code violation and would have been related to the assertion that there was a lawful non-conforming use that would negate the Code violation. He stated that there are assertions of that included in the application, but the timeframe for an administrative appeal is shorter and the applicant missed the deadline to appeal so this was processed by staff as a variance application. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson stated that over the past week, he had communicated with City Administrator Lerud to ensure that all Councilmembers had the video of the Planning Commission meeting made available to them or had been present for the discussion. All council members indicated they had watched the meeting video or were present at the meeting. He stated that the CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 5 of 15 Council will open this item up for public comments but asked that the comments be kept to specific to the variance request in front of the Council and that comments be kept to under three minutes. Councilmember Callies stated that there has been a public hearing on this item and the entire Council has been able to watch the public hearing and have also read all the comments that are attached in the packet. She stated that she did not feel like the Council needed to take additional public input on this matter. She stated that she feels this matter has been thoroughly vetted. Councilmember Siakel stated that she agreed with Councilmember Callies and would request that the Council not take additional public comment on this item. She stated that she cannot imagine that the comments will be much different than what has already been presented. She stated that this is an opportunity for the City Council to conduct the business of the Council. She stated that this item has had a Public Hearing and everyone was heard and given ample time to share their input. She stated that the entire Council has either had the opportunity to participate, sit in and listen, or watch the recording of the Public Hearing that was held at the Planning Commission meeting. She stated that she is not sure the Council will gain much more out of rehashing what has already been presented. Councilmember Gorham stated that he thinks that normally that approach is a good way to proceed, but this item is ultra-sensitive. Councilmember Siakel stated that the Council should not be treating this any differently than they would for anybody else. She reiterated that they are here to conduct the business of the City Council and not to rehash things that have already been given and the community has had the opportunity to speak on this item already. Councilmember Callies gave the example of the last Council meeting where they were considering Strawberry Lane, they did not take additional public comment because they had already had several meetings and this, to her, seems similar. Councilmember Gorham stated that he would disagree with that assertion. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson stated that the Council had one individual during the Matters from the Floor portion of the meeting and the Council indicated that he would be given the opportunity to speak during the agenda item. He stated that he would like to allow that individual to have a few minutes, if he had any new, pertinent, information to share with the Council, that they do not already have in the packet. Councilmember Gorham stated that he feels the Strawberry Lane issue was beaten to death with multiple Public Hearings. He stated that he thinks that this feels like an important issue where the Council should hear from residents. Councilmembers Siakel and Callies stated that they disagreed. City Attorney Shepherd stated that it is accurate that on a variance application, the Council does not need to allow public comment, nor is there a Public Hearing requirement within State statute at the Planning Commission level. He stated that the City Code allows for and requires public comment at the Planning Commission level. He stated that the Planning Commission took extensive public comment on this application which it appears that all of the Council has seen. He stated that with that said, as pointed out by Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson, an individual was told that he would be able to make comment later on the agenda and he would suggest that the Council at least give that individual the ability to make a quick comment on the record. He stated that the Council could then proceed with not taking any further public comments other than this individual which would be consistent with Code and State law. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 6 of 15 Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson asked Councilmember Gorham if he would be comfortable with that approach. Councilmember Gorham stated that he would not be comfortable with that approach and stated that he believes there are people here to speak and he would not mind asking some follow up questions on their letters. He stated that even though the Council has the right to approach it that way, it does not make it a good idea. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson stated that what he does not want to have happen is just a complete rehash of the last meeting and noted that is not fair to the individuals who are waiting for the future agenda items. Councilmember Siakel stated that she did not believe this individual was at the Planning Commission meeting, so she does not object to giving him the opportunity for input, but feels the rest would be redundant and their input has already been heard. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson asked that Mr. Greg Larson be given the opportunity to address the Council but asked him to keep his comments brief and specific to the variance requests in front of the Council. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated that he is neither for or against this variance request. He explained that he would argue that the City should not be in the lake ordinance business at all and would help the Council avoid a decision that will result in accusations of hypocrisy and favoritism. He stated that he is asking that these laws be rescinded. He noted that in 2016, Councilmember Callies gave well-reasoned arguments on why the City should scrap lake ordinances entirely, in a letter she wrote to the City. At the conclusions of the letter she stated, “The City’s Zoning Ordinances stop at the shoreline.” He noted that he believes that was good advice in 2016 and is good advice today. He stated that Mayor Labadie also seems to agree that these laws are unneeded and noted that the reasons behind the variance requests are so broad that they apply to every dock on the lake. He stated that an ordinance in which everybody is, by precedent, allowed a variance, is an ordinance that needs to be dumped. He stated that if the purpose of the law is to protect the lake from the incursion of docks, he felt that cow left the barn years ago. He stated that tossing these ordinances will not leave the lake unprotected because the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is charged by the legislature for regulating the lake and they have a reputation of fairness and also has technical expertise and resources to do so. He stated that he believes dumping lake and dock ordinances will save the City money and explained that the City has spent over $100,000 on legal fees associated with prosecuting a family for an alleged violations that is no more serious than this violation. He reiterated his request that the City ditch these laws and devote the City’s resources to doing real City business such as plowing snow, fixing pot holes, and enforcing speeding or reckless driving laws. He stated that it appears as though the City is on one-hand spending more than $100,000 to enforce this law on one family and twisting themselves in knots in an attempt to justify a variance for someone else. He stated that if the inconsistencies cannot be explained, he feels that makes his case. He stated that the best argument for scuttling this unneeded law is that nobody cares if a dock is three feet or four feet wide and noted that there are probably very few individuals who know about the law and more than a few are likely in violation of it. He asked why it was okay for the City to waste time and money for laws that nobody cares about, do not contribute to the common good, are expensive to regulate, and unfairly enforced. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson reiterated that he had asked that comments be kept very specific to the variance requests before the Council and asked that the conversation come back to the Council. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 7 of 15 Councilmember Callies stated that the letter referenced by Mr. Larson, was one she wrote as an individual in 2016, and is completely unrelated and irrelevant to the current situation. She stated that she does not know the individual who presented the letter and if they had looked into this further, they would see that she, in fact, lost that argument. She clarified that although she is an attorney, the letter referenced by Mr. Larson was not advice, nor was the letter written on official attorney letterhead. Councilmember Gorham explained that one of the reasons he had asked a question in the beginning of this discussion was because there is a lot of noise in the application about the ‘grandfathering’ status of the dock. He stated that he did not think any of that really mattered and wanted to focus the discussion on the variance requests in order to eliminate all the noise. He stated that he would like to understand a bit more about the hardship of moving the dock out and does not understand the hardship of the width of the middle section. He stated that it does not appear as though the minimum is being done. City Attorney Shepherd stated that the standard for the variance is ‘practical difficulty’ and not ‘undue hardship’, which was a previous standard that is no longer in place. He stated that references to undue hardship are not applicable. Councilmember Gorham confirmed that a practical difficulty cannot be an economic hurdle. City Attorney Shepherd agreed that the practical difficulty cannot be primarily economic. Mayor Pro-Tem Johnson explained that, in this case, extending the dock would go into substandard soils and would extend into the dredged area that allows other residents to get their boats in and out of the lagoon. Councilmember Gorham asked where the dredged area was located. Councilmember Siakel stated that the dredged area is in the center of the lagoon. Councilmember Gorham asked why the applicant would not just move the sides that are in violation up further. Ms. Lindahl explained that the information from the dock experts that was provided by the applicant is that the location of the slips that are near the shoreline is located there due to the soft shoreline and shifting those back in order to meet the setback from OHW, will require it to be shifted into unstable soils which would make the dock unsafe. Jennifer Labadie, applicant, stated that she thinks the substandard soils are described thoroughly in the affidavits that were attached to the staff report. She that these were submitted by two dock experts who have decades of experience in the dock installation and removal industry who both stated that, in their opinion, moving the dock backwards would potentially compromise the stability and safety of the dock. She stated that they have relied on their expertise and explained that they had installed and done repair work. She explained that this dock is not one that a regular person could install, remove, or perform repair work on and noted that a crane and a barge would be required. Councilmember Callies stated that one of the issues that has come up is the question of whether this request is unusual other than that the applicant happens to be the Mayor of the City. She stated that the issue of a variance being applied for in response to an enforcement action she does not believe is all that unusual and asked for input on that from staff and Planning Commission Chair Maddy. Ms. Lindahl stated that this is correct. She noted that she has been a planner for thirty years in a number of cities and it is very common to apply for a variance to try to resolve a code issue. She CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 8 of 15 stated that she cannot speak specifically to how frequently it has been done in Shorewood, but can state that it is a tool that is very frequently used in other cities. Planning Commission Chair Maddy stated that nine years ago, the Planning Commission did not give many variances because they were under the ‘undue hardship’ State laws and not practical difficulties. He stated that since that time, it has been changed and they have recommended more variances for situations like this. He gave the example of a variance that was granted for the home being too narrow according to the Code, but it made sense to allow it for the same reasons in this case, because it is a unique situation. Councilmember Siakel agreed that the City has given variances and does not see why the Council would deny this request. She stated that if you look at most of the people who spoke on this issue at the Public Hearing as well as the individual who spoke tonight, very few of their comments pertained to the issue at hand. She stated that most of the comments have been philosophical, emotional, personal, and to a certain degree, been kind of nasty. She stated that many of the comments are about other issues that are completely unrelated to the question in front of the Council which is whether this request meets the practical difficulty to issue a variance. She stated that the soils are unstable in the lagoon area, there is a dredged channel, and they would have to take the dock out into a dredged channel which would impede traffic for everyone else in the area. She stated that this issue has become emotional, personal, and appears to be retaliation from people who did not get their way on a different issue. She stated that if the Council is truly looking at the facts at hand and the request, she does not see how the Council would deny it because it meets the State statute of practical difficulty. She suggested that the Council remove the emotion from the question that is in front of them. She stated that she believes this requests meets the State statute of practical difficulty. Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed and this is talking about use of the property in a reasonable manner. She stated that she feels it would be ridiculous to say that the dock has to be removed or that they cannot have a dock there. She stated that the criteria for approving the variance have been satisfied in this case, based on her review of all of the information that has been provided. Councilmember Gorham stated that it seems like there could be a practical difficulty in this situation, but for him, it is a bit unclear as to the nature of the soils and where they are within the dock area. He stated that he would like to hear from the experts on this issue and reiterated that it does not appear that the minimum has been done. Siakel moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-021, “A Resolution Approving Variances for an Existing Dock on Property Located at 5510 Howards Point Road.” Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, voted Aye. Gorham voted Nay. Labadie abstained. Motion passed 3-1-1. 8. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Strawberry Lane: Final Design Direction, City Project 19-05 Mayor Labadie returned to the meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 9 of 15 City Engineer Budde gave a presentation regarding the final design direction for Strawberry Lane. He gave a brief overview of the timeline of activity related to this project and noted that during the in-person Open House meeting in November of 2021, there was consensus for a need of a six- foot wide sidewalk against the eastern curb, minimizing impacts to yards and trees by reducing the proposed street width by two feet. He noted that staff is still recommending the twenty-six foot road width, and shifting the alignment on the south end. He noted that through the months of March and April, staff will try to negotiate for the easements in order to shift the alignment and plan to return to the May 9, 2022 Council meeting if they are unable to come to a reasonable negotiation which would require direction from Council on pursuit of the other alignment, going through condemnation, or to adjust the project schedule. He gave an overview of the properties affected by the alignment and the difference between a roadway easement and drainage and utility easements. He noted that the City would like to acquire some roadway easement as a kind of sight triangle to allow for the curve radius of the roadway at the south end of Strawberry, but there are other areas along this section where a drainage and utility easement could be acquired rather a roadway easement. He explained that there are two properties that he will need to negotiate easements and noted that he has reached out to one who seems to be willing to discuss the issue. He noted that for the other property, he has been able to speak to some of the property owner’s grandchildren, but not the property owner. He noted that Alternate 1 and Alternate 2 would require an easement and if they were unwilling to negotiate could eventually lead to condemnation. He noted that in addition to the properties he has mentioned on the south side, there are other properties that the City has to pursue easements and could also potentially end in condemnation. He stated that staff is recommending proceeding with pursuit of the six foot wide sidewalk, a twenty-six foot wide roadway with curb and gutter, and with Alternate 2, which is the western alignment on the south end and plan to update the Council at their May 9, 2022 meeting for final direction. He stated that the resolution was not worded as precisely as he would like and suggested a language change, deleting the last sentence of the last ‘whereas’ and the final ‘whereas’ would be to state it that if condemnation is required, staff shall provide an update on the final alignment of the area south of Lake Minnetonka Trail by May 9, 2022. Councilmember Callies asked if pursuing the drainage and utility easements rather than roadway easements was adequate and if it was a good idea. City Engineer Budde stated that it is a compromise and is to minimize as much of the impact as possible for the property owners. He stated that it is in the best interest of the City to acquire some permanent easement and a drainage and utility easement would satisfy that need from the City. He stated that if something permanent is not done, the City would still need temporary easements or right of entry from those property owners in order to be able to construct the project. Councilmember Callies stated that it is unfortunate because that option, it kind of pits neighbor against neighbor and noted that in order to complete this project, the City will have to acquire easements. Councilmember Siakel thanked City Engineer Budde for coming back with more information for the Council. She noted that she is comfortable with what has been presented. Councilmember Johnson stated that his only concern is whether the Council is leaving themselves enough time and does not want the City to paint itself into the proverbial corner. Councilmember Siakel stated that was how she felt in the past, but is at the point now where she thinks the Council needs to put some trust in staff to go out and get the details done in order to pull it all together City Engineer Budde explained that what he is trying to do is set things up so there could be tree removal done in the fall of 2022 along with some utility relocations so that when construction CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 10 of 15 season starts in 2023, the City will be able to really make progress and get this project done by the start of school. The Council discussed the adjusted resolution language and potential other adjustments so they do not absolutely commit to the western alignment. City Engineer Budde stated that his understanding is that the Council is directing him to pursue the western alignment up to the point where things would have to move to condemnation. He explained that if it gets to that point, he will come back before the Council to discuss the options, including pursuit of condemnation, moving forward with the eastern alignment, or changing the project schedule. Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-022, “A Resolution Providing Final Design Direction for Strawberry Lane, City Project 19-05, with the adjustments as recommended by City Engineer Budde.” Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. B. Birch Bluff Road: Draft Scoping Document and Communication Plan, City Project 21-01 City Engineer Budde gave an update on the Birch Bluff Road project and reviewed the project timeline activities. He noted that the drainage is fairly challenging in this area and gave an overview on the storm sewer, ponding, watermain, street reconstruction, and possible sidewalk/trail plans. He reviewed the next steps of holding a public informational meeting in mid- March or early April and noted that he is also happy to meet with any residents who would like to discuss the project. He stated that ideally staff will be back in front of the Council to finalize the scoping document in April, with final design approval in mid to late April. He stated that staff has created a document that helps tracks the project process and decision chart and their intent is to help manage expectations on the decision timeframes for staff, Council, and residents. He stated that it also shares what information they know and what information they do not know and identifies when resident engagement is most effective. Councilmember Gorham asked what the current street width is for Birch Bluff Road. City Engineer Budde explained that it is rural and is about twenty-two to twenty-four feet wide. Councilmember Gorham asked why staff was recommending twenty-six feet in this case. City Engineer Budde stated that it is being recommended for many of the same reasons as they are for Strawberry Lane. He gave examples of trying to provide fire and emergency access, that twenty-six feet is the current standard for road width, allows a balance and some on-street parking. Councilmember Siakel stated that City Engineer Budde has been very active in engaging residents in beginning to talk about this project. She stated that she lives on this street and welcomes these proposed improvements. She stated that a number of her neighbors are in favor of City water and the improvements that come along with it. She asked if there were areas of Birch Bluff where the road may have to be narrower than twenty-six feet because of the topography and geographical constraints. City Engineer Budde stated that meeting status will be discussed later on tonight’s agenda, on whether this meeting would be an in-person event or virtual. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 11 of 15 Mayor Labadie asked if City Engineer Budde preferred how the Open House meetings are to be held and if either way has a benefit or drawback. City Engineer Budde stated that he felt that the face-to-face meetings help residents engage with each other a bit better and is more neighborhood building. He noted that it also seems to help create a consensus by having people in the room talking to their neighbors. Councilmember Johnson stated that he felt the comments coming out of the in person meeting versus the virtual meeting were much more positive. Mayor Labadie suggested that the Council table this decision and bring it back for discussion after item 9.C. Labadie moved, Siakel seconded to table Agenda Item #8.B. with the intent to discuss it later in the meeting following item #9.C. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed C. Approve Plans for Lift Stations 7, 9, and 10 and Authorize Advertisement for Bids, City Projects 20-12 and 21-08 Public Works Director Brown explained that the City has three lift stations that are being combined this year to be bid. He explained that the pandemic caused the City to postpone work on Lift Stations 10 and 7. He stated that because they were postponed, they ended up incorporating them into the 2022 Capital Improvement Program. He gave a brief overview of the locations of Lift Stations 7, 9, and 10 and explained the function of a Lift Station. He noted that the City had received bids in July of 2021 for Lift Stations 7 and 10, however, they were rejected because they appeared to be inflated. He stated that the plans and specifications have already been approved for Lift Stations 7 and 10, so only Lift Station 9 needs that approval. Siakel moved, Labadie seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-023, “A Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorize Bidding for the Lift Stations 7, 9, and 10 Rehabilitation Project, City Projects 20-12 and 21-08.” Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Accept Quote for Integrated Pest Management Plan City Administrator Lerud explained that at the conclusion of the January 24, 2022 work session, the Council directed staff to contact firms to assist the City in development of an Integrated Pest Management Plan. He explained that staff put together an RFQ and sent it out to nine entities and the City received three quotes. Staff is recommending that the City accept the quote and alternate quote from IPM Institute and noted that if approved, staff will bring back a contract for consideration at a future meeting. Councilmember Gorham explained that one of the things he liked about the quote from Bolton and Menk was the training that they included and they appeared to know the City the best. He stated that if the City accepted IPM, he asked how much training there will be. He stated that he believes the critical piece in making this successful is the relationship with the consultant and Public Works. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 12 of 15 City Administrator Lerud explained that part of their proposal is that they will come to the City and do an audit of all of our sites. He stated that each site will be graded and from that information they will bring recommendations. He stated that he has confidence that both Davey Resource Group and Bolton and Menk could also do the work but staff felt that since they work with the City in other capacities they wanted to keep this separate from those duties. Councilmember Gorham asked if IPM would continually be reporting back to the City. He explained that he wants to make sure that seven years from now the City does not have another letter saying that this was never really implemented. He stated that he does not want to have a report with no follow up. City Administrator Lerud assured Councilmember Gorham that there will be follow up and it is part of the program and noted that he will handle things from the City side. Councilmember Callies stated that one of the things she thought was interesting from the IPM report was the discussion of the City’s goals in terms of pesticide reduction and considering the trade-offs and costs. She stated that she thinks this is a balanced approach to achievable goals and best management practices. City Administrator Lerud stated that the long-term emphasis is to minimize and, if possible, eliminate the use of systemics or other pesticides. Callies moved, Johnson seconded, Accepting the quote from IPM Institute for an Integrated Pest Management Program and direct staff to bring back and agreement to a future Council meeting. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. Mayor Labadie reminded the Council that the best practices for pollinators workshop runs March 1-3, 2022. She noted that she is planning to attend and can give updates for those that are unable to attend. B. COVID Testing Policy City Administrator Lerud explained that earlier this year, the Council directed that a COVID testing policy by brought to this meeting for Council consideration. He explained that the policy included in the packet was drafted after reviewing similar policies from several larger organizations. He gave an overview of the policy and noted that, at this time, staff is recommending against adopting the policy. He stated that there are few, if any, cities that are the size of Shorewood who have a testing policy in place and many that have been adopted in larger cities have expired. Councilmember Callies stated that she would be in favor of a vaccination requirement as opposed to a testing policy. She stated that she understands the issues that were raised in the memo, but in her mind, the vaccine is the first step in terms of this, and felt that this was coming a little late. She stated that she is concerned about how quickly the City would be able to act if the situation were to change. She stated that she does not really see a point in doing anything right now. Councilmember Siakel stated that she agreed with Councilmember Callies and agreed that this feels a little late. City Administrator Lerud asked the Council if they would like staff to come back with a policy that states this so the Council can be ready to adopt it should things change, rather than doing nothing. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 13 of 15 There was consensus of the Council to direct staff to bring back the policy so they are ready if the situation changes, so it can be implemented more quickly, if needed in the future. C. Review Status of Meetings City Administrator Lerud stated that at the January 10, 2022 meeting the Council adopted a resolution which called for meetings in the City to be held virtually in response to the COVID-10 Omicron variant. He explained that resolution will expire on February 28, 2022 if the Council takes no further action. He stated that staff is recommending that the Council adopt version two of the proposed resolution that extends virtual meetings to March 5, 2022. Councilmember Siakel stated that she would be in favor of leaving virtual meetings in place through the month of March and move to in-person meetings beginning in April. Mayor Labadie stated that she is anxious to get back to in-person meetings. Councilmember Gorham stated that he feels the meetings are more effective in person but would support beginning them in April. Councilmember Siakel suggested that the Council just say that anything that takes place after April 1, 2022 takes place in-person. City Administrator Lerud stated that if this is what the Council would like to do, they would be adopting the second resolution but changing the date from March 5, 2022 to April 1, 2022. Siakel moved, Johnson seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-024, “A Resolution Resuming In-Person Meetings of the City Council and Advisory Commission, with the effective date changed, as discussed to April 1, 2022” City Attorney Shepherd noted that there are two versions of the resolution that were included in the packet and suggested that the Council adopt the first version with the date change, as discussed. Amended motion by Siakel, seconded by Johnson, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 22-024, “A Resolution Acknowledging the Omicron Variant Surge of the COVID-19 Health Pandemic Impacting In-Person Meetings of the City Council and Advisory Commission, with the effective date amended to April 1, 2022.” Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. Item #8.B. Birch Bluff Road: Draft Scoping Document and Communication Plan, City Project 21-01 – continued…. Mayor Labadie noted that if the City wants to hold an Open House they now need to respect the motion that was just made to begin in-person meetings starting April 1, 2022. She stated that it could be held virtually earlier than that, but City Engineer Budde has stated that, in his opinion, Open House meetings are more effective when done in-person. There was consensus to hold the Birch Bluff Open House on April 6, 2022. Councilmember Callies stated that at the retreat, the Council had talked about putting signage up on project areas and asked if the City was still thinking about doing that. Public Works Director CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 14 of 15 Brown stated that he and City Engineer Budde have been talking about those signs and once the frost is out of the ground, they will be come back with signs for Council approval which will be put up for several upcoming projects. He stated that the Council should see a draft sign at their next meeting. 10. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator and Staff Public Works Director Brown stated they are ready to place an order for the reviewed City signs that shows the census numbers. He stated that they have talked about going back to the standard signs that are seen in most communities that have the name of the city and the population. He reviewed the locations throughout the City where these signs will be placed. He reiterated that they are getting ready to make the order and asked if the Council had any opinion on the removal of the tag line. He stated that the City has opted to follow the State guidelines for the seasonal weight restrictions and noted that the weight restriction map is posted on-line. City Engineer Budde stated that the City has heard back from the Army Corps of Engineers on the Smithtown Pond project and have essentially permitted the project, which means that project will be coming before the Council sometime in the next month. City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that the Council had tabled item 8.B. and continued, however the Council did not make another motion on that item and asked City Attorney Shepherd if a motion would be required. City Attorney Shepherd stated that a motion was not required because it was a consensus matter regarding setting a date. City Clerk/HR Director Thone stated that they are in the final stages of redistricting and have submitted the proposed plan to the County which will come before the Council on March 14, 2022. She stated the legislative district was split so there is now 45A and 45B which will require the City to make a precinct for 45B. She stated that they are also proposing to decrease from four precincts to three precincts. B. Mayor and City Council Councilmember Gorham noted that he is planning to attend the pollinators workshop virtually. He congratulated the Minnetonka Girls Hockey Team for finishing second place in the State tournament. Councilmember Johnson congratulated the Minnetonka Men’s and Women’s Alpine Skiing Teams because they both won the State tournament. 11. ADJOURN Gorham moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of February 28, 2022, at 9:21 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Siakel, Callies, Gorham, and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 28, 2022 Page 15 of 15 ATTEST: Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Sandie Thone, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 22-025 A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PROPOSAL FROM DAVEY RESOURCE GROUP FOR PROFESIONAL ARBORIST SERVICES WHEREAS, the city has an ongoing need to have professional arborist services to assist in the proper management of the city’s tree canopy and forestry resources; and WHEREAS, Davey Resource Group, Inc. has successfully provided said services for the city previously; and WHEREAS, staff has solicited an updated proposal for the year 2022; and WHEREAS, Davey Resource Group has provided an updated service proposal and staff has reviewed said agreement and found it to be in order; NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Shorewood th hereby accepts the proposal provided by Davey Resource Group, Inc. dated March 14, 2022. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of March, 2022. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk 5A MEETING TYPE Regular City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Service Recognition: Dara Gault, Shorewood Planning Commission Meeting Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director Reviewed by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Background: The city has a need for citizens to serve on advisory committees to the city council. Pursuant to Shorewood City Code Chapter 201, the Shorewood Planning Commission was established to be the city planning agency authorized by MN Statute and is advisory to the City Council. The Commission consists of five members who must be current residents of Shorewood. Terms of appointment commence on March 1 and terminate on the last day of February and run for three (3) years. The Planning Commission shall have the powers and duties given to city planning agencies, generally by law, including the authority to conduct public hearings. Planning Commissioner Dara Gault served on the Planning Commission from 2019 through 2022. Commissioner Gault provided significant perspective on planning items, code amendments, and consistently provided thoughtful feedback. Staff and council are grateful for his years of service. Commissioner Gault has been a pleasure to work with. Thank you, Commissioner Gault! The Shorewood City Council recognizes and expresses appreciation to Dara Gault for his service on the Shorewood Planning Commission and his dedication to the community. No Formal Action Requested. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item 6B Title/Subject: Christmas Lake Public Access Ordinance Meeting Date: March 14, 2022 MEETING Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE REGULAR Reviewed By: Jared Shepherd, City Attorney Attachments: 1986 Agreement to establish a public access, 2015 cooperative operation and maintenance agreement with the DNR, lake carrying capacity information, Christmas Lake boat launch analysis, Christmas Lake boat census, Ordinance No. 586 Background: City staff has been engaged in wide-ranging discussions with representatives of the Christmas Lake Homeowners Association (CLHA) over the last year about the public access area. In 1986, the city signed the first agreement with the MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to create the public access, and then in 2015 signed a 20-year cooperative operation and maintenance agreement with the DNR. The city is responsible for maintenance of the parking lot and surrounding area, with the DNR responsible for the boat launch and adjoining dock. The city has a long-term working relationship with the CLHA on the landing area as well as working together to control invasive species. Short of the 2015 agreement with the DNR, the city has not done any comprehensive look at the landing area to evaluate changes in the last 35 years. Some of the items of this review includes evaluating the parking area, drafting an ordinance for the boat landing rules, reviewing literature regarding safe number of boats on a body of water, increasing available parking in the landing area, controlling Aquatic Invasive Species, and working with Christmas Shores HOA on acquiring property. Christmas Lake is 267 acres, of which 77 acres are littoral (less than 15 feet deep) meaning the area available for recreational boating use is closer to 200 acres. The CLHA has expressed concern about the number of “near misses” on the lake, as well as some actual accidents. Boating use on Christmas Lake as changed since the 1986 agreement was signed. In addition to an initial limit of 25 horse powered boats that expired in 1993, increases in the popularity of personal watercraft such as kayakers, paddleboarders as well as surf wake boaters have increased usage on the lake. There is some literature (two examples are included with this memo) about safe levels of boat activity on lakes. Density differs depending on the lake, but both studies identify Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 the average safe level of boat activity, for lakes where there is a variety of boating uses, like Christmas Lake, as 20 to 30 acres per boat. Also attached to the memo is a census for watercraft of all types “housed” on Christmas Lake. The 2021 count is 319. Additionally, an access analysis was provided by the CLHA for high use dates. There have always been seven vehicle/trailer parking places in the public access. As you can see from the analysis, there are many days where the number of launches exceed the number of parking places. On those days, boats are launched and then the vehicle leaves and parks at nearby parking lots. The public access creates an obligation on the part of the city to provide access to Christmas Lake for the public. However, that access should not be interpreted as unlimited access to the lake. Competing interests such as the need to control invasive species, preserving the lake ecology, as well as providing as safe environment as possible for the lake users regardless if they are in personal watercraft, non-motorized boats, or speed or wake boats should factor into the number of watercraft that can be on the lake at any given time. Indeed, the city has previously recognized the desire to limit the number of boats launching at one time through a couple of actions; first, the original agreement between the DNR, City, and CLHA called for seven parking spots. Second, parking was/is prohibited on Merry Lane. It was recognized that if a prohibition was not done, overflow vehicles and trailers would have regularly parked on Merry Lane. That initial concern is now being realized by the number of trailers parking farther away after launching. The ordinance as proposed would limit access to launching to the number of parking spaces available in the lot - seven. To that end, the CLHA has paid for installing a remote control on the gate so the access can be controlled during AIS inspection hours. The inspectors are at the landing every day from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Access outside those hours will not be controlled. As the launch information shows, however, most launches will be covered by this schedule. It is important to know that if the ordinance is adopted, it will apply equally to residents on Christmas Lake. This matter was presented to the Parks Commission at their February 8 meeting, and after a discussion they recommended the City Council approve the ordinance. They also recommended that the city address concerns from neighboring properties about truck/trailers having to back up on Radisson if the parking area was full. Staff has looked at signage options that include an electronic sign at the intersection of Radisson and Merry Lane that would inform drivers of the number of available spaces, signage that indicates there is a cul-de-sac at the end of Merry Lane that would allow trucks and trailers to turn around, and working with the CLHA on activating the camera at the landing that could be viewed online – giving real-time information to potential landing users. Financial or Budget Considerations: Minimal additional expenses. The CLHA has paid for modifications to the gate, and the inspectors from Waterfront Restorations, who perform the boat inspections and cleaning, have agreed to control access as part of their duties while they are at the landing. Options: The city council can pass the ordinance as presented, modify in any way, request staff gather additional information and bring back to a future meeting, or not pass the ordinance. Recommended Action: It has been over 30 years since the city has taken a comprehensive look at the landing and how it functions. The review started last year with the variance to relocate the AIS cleaning equipment to provide an additional on-site parking stall and improved drainage. This proposed ordinance looks to improve safety for the lake users, and staff recommends passage as presented by simple majority. Next Steps and Timeline: If the ordinance adopted, the ordinance will be published, and staff will continue to evaluate sign and communications options with the plan to be implemented before the busy part of the boating season. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 586 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SECTION 902.05, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE CHRISTMAS LAKE BOAT LANDING AND ADJACENT PARKING LOT The City Council of the City of Shorewood ordains as follows: 902.05, Subd. 4. Christmas Lake Boat Landing. a. The Christmas Lake boat landing/public access and parking lot (the “Christmas Lake Landing” or the “Landing”) shall be considered a city recreation area, and subject to the general rules and regulations of city park and recreation areas. b. Boats launched from City property, including the Christmas Lake Landing must meet all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. c. No person shall leave, store, abandon, or otherwise cause to remain any fish house, shelter, dark house, boat, trailer overnight in the Christmas Lake landing area, except as permitted in Section g, or by permission from the City of Shorewood. d. Parking is prohibited except in designated parking spaces, except during launching and removal of the watercraft from the water, and except while watercraft or trailers are being inspected or decontaminated for aquatic invasive species. e. Vehicles may only enter the Christmas Lake landing area if there is a designated parking spot then available in the landing area for the vehicle, or the vehicle and its trailer if the vehicle is towing a trailer. Vehicles without a trailer must first park in a spot intended for vehicles without trailers, if one is available, though they may park in a parking spot intended for vehicles with trailers, if none are available. f. All vehicles and trailers must park at the landing in a manner that does not obstruct the equipment used to inspect or decontaminate watercraft or trailers for aquatic invasive species or disrupt or make unreasonably difficult the ability to inspect or decontaminate watercraft or trailers, or the ability to launch or retrieve watercraft. Nothing in this ordinance prevents or limits the ability to use, store or leave at the Christmas Lake Landing trailers, mats or other equipment used to inspect or decontaminate boats or trailers for aquatic invasive species at the landing. g. All bait disposed of at the Christmas Lake landing shall be disposed of in a manner that complies with all State of Minnesota laws and regulations. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption and publication. Passed this ____ day of _____________, 2022. _____________________________ ATTEST Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ______________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Eggenberger, Riedel, Huskins and Holker; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Siakel Absent: None 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Huskins noted that on his copy of the agenda he is marked as absent. Planning Director Darling explained that she thought he was not going to be in attendance tonight. Riedel moved, Huskins seconded, approving the agenda for March 1, 2022, as amended. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  February 15, 2022 Huskins moved, Riedel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 15, 2022, as presented. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Eggenberger, Huskins, Riedel, Maddy. Motion passed 4/0/1 (Holker abstained). 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - NONE 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 2 of 12 A. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNAS Applicant: SMJ International, LLC for Dish Wireless Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Planning Director Darling explained that this is a request for a CUP for co-location of telecommunications antennas on the existing tower located at 24283 Smithtown Road. They are proposing to add three telecommunication antennas and six radio receiving units and various other equipment in a triangular array at about 138 feet above the ground which is just a little higher than midpoint of the tower. She noted that the unusual complication for this application is that there are nesting osprey at the top of the tower so any work on the tower needs to be done outside of nesting season and if the nest will be disturbed, they will need to obtain permits from the DNR. She explained that staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions included in the staff report. Chair Maddy stated that the City had approved a CUP for this in the past and asked if there was any difference other than the dates on the paperwork. Planning Director Darling stated that the difference between this application and the previous application is that they are proposing an ice bridge but that is a fairly minor change. Commissioner Riedel asked about screening of the equipment at the base, its visibility and whether staff felt it was satisfactory. Planning Director Darling stated that they have not proposed any particular screening with this application. She explained that they are proposing to install equipment on the north side, so from the park, there are many mature trees and a building between the equipment and park users will be. She stated that the thinks the equipment will be fairly invisible and noted that they had previously proposed slats in the chain link fencing, but she finds those to be a long-term maintenance issue and they tend to look worse after just a few years. Commissioner Huskins asked about the portion of the parcel that was being leased for this tower. Planning Director Darling gave an overview of the site layout and use using the aerial photograph. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the tower was currently being used by an osprey pair. Planning Director Darling stated that the tower is used every year by osprey that come back year after year. She stated that there was maintenance that occurred at the top of the tower about a year ago and they did have to obtain a permit from the DNR to remove the nest and complete their maintenance. She stated that the osprey came back and rebuilt the nest, but noted that the nest is abandoned in winter. Commissioner Eggenberger asked if the City needed to be more specific on ‘nesting season’ and asked whose definition was being used. Planning Director Darling explained that the City uses the DNR’s definition for nesting season. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the building on the site and what it was used for. Planning Director Darling explained that it was used for both storage and for detailing cars that are sold on the lot. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 3 of 12 Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he can remember discussing the fencing during the last application. He noted that he understands the concern about slats not looking good long-term, and realizes that perhaps there will not be many people who will see the chain link fence, but he thinks it looks terrible. He stated that it may be good that it can be seen through, but reiterated that he doesn’t think the fencing looks good and suggested that perhaps it was in need of a new one. Planning Director Darling stated that if the Commission has issues with the maintenance of the fence, she would need to get in contact with the tower owner. Kristin Swenson, SMJ International, on behalf of Dish Wireless, 49030 Pontiac Trail, Suite 100, Wixom, MI, reviewed their application to accommodate a new wireless carrier that will bring additional options and services to the community. She stated that this is helpful because many people have been getting rid of their landlines and exclusively using wireless services. She stated that the co-location will not adversely affect land owners because the antennas are being added to an existing structure. She stated that they are aware of the conditions being recommended by staff and indicated that they intend to comply with them. Commissioner Huskins asked if the expert inspector has been selected and if, so, could she identify that person or firm. Ms. Swenson explained that they have not yet been selected but she ordered the statement of special inspections this morning and expects it to be back within a week. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:26 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. There being no input, Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:27 P.M. Commissioner Eggenberger asked that when maintenance is done, even outside of nesting season, that the applicant do whatever they can to not disrupt the osprey. Riedel moved, Huskins seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Telecommunications Antennas, for SMJ International, LLC for Dish Wireless at 24283 Smithtown Road, subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report. Roll Call Vote: Ayes - all. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Darling noted that this item will be on the March 14, 2022 City Council agenda. B. PUBLIC HEARING – CITY CODE AMENDMENTS FOR URBAN FARM ANIMALS Applicant: City of Shorewood Location: City-wide Planning Director Darling reviewed the proposed amendments to City Code to: add new definitions of enclosures/runs and urban farm birds; add requirements that urban farm bird enclosures/runs/shelters must be fully covered with nets; greater setback for enclosures/runs/shelters to increase distance to side property lines; amend the regulations that do not need to apply to rabbits or bees; and add a means to revoke and deny permits. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 4 of 12 Chair Maddy asked if the Chief of Police still needs to be the referenced enforcer since the City permits and inspects the properties. Planning Director Darling noted that they Chief of Police is not the enforcer for the urban farm animals but is listed as the enforcer for the rest of the animals. Chair Maddy pointed out a few grammatical errors that he had found including under Section 705.09 Farm Animals, 2.C. the word ‘additional’ should be changed to ‘addition’; and under 2.D., he believes ‘animal’ should be made plural. He asked about the language used under Denial of Permits related to inspections and whether it should be changed to make it clear that there was not something the City was supposed to do. Planning Director Darling suggested changing the language to, ‘….the applicant has not requested the required inspection for three calendar months.’ Commissioner Huskins asked if there was any language about any minimal size property that would be precluded from having a permit for farm animals. Planning Director Darling stated that the Commission had asked that restriction be taken out. Commissioner Riedel explained that part of their discussion and reason for making that change was to have a set number of animals, but increase the setback. Commissioner Huskins asked if the smallest lot within the City was capable of having six urban farm animals. Planning Director Darling confirmed that this was accurate. Commissioner Holker stated that in the prior minutes there was a conversation about neighboring cities and how close the City is to their regulations. She stated that Planning Director Darling had indicated it had been included in a prior packet but would have some information about that at this meeting and asked if there was any information she could share related to neighboring communities. Planning Director Darling noted that she had forgotten to include that information in their packets but could review the regulations from other communities in the Twin Cities. Planning Director Darling noted that the City had received a letter from Patrick and Jenna Johnston at 25965 Smithtown Road who opposed some of the new regulations including the 30 foot setback requirement. Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Benton Sellwood, 20775 Garden Road, asked if this would require that any enclosure, such as a chicken run, have netting or a barrier over the top. Planning Director Darling confirmed that was what was being proposed. Mr. Sellwood explained that he believes that may be an issue for some enclosures. He stated that he has never had a problem with his birds coming out and noted that he had tried to put an enclosure over the top when he first began, but it proved to be difficult for functionality and CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 5 of 12 maintenance and reiterated that his birds have not gotten out. He stated that in the case a predator would get into the enclosure, he would like his birds to be able to at least try to jump out and get into a tree. He asked if there was a way that the City could consider looking at this issue again. Patrick Johnston, 25965 Smithtown Road, stated that he sent the letter earlier today and wanted to make sure that everyone was able to read it. There was agreement from the Commission that they had read the letter submitted by Mr. Johnston. Commissioner Riedel stated that he would like to begin discussion with the issue raised by the residents and asked if the City could consider ‘grandfathering’. He asked for opinions on the situation where the Commission was in agreement on a 30 foot setback, related to grandfathering in people who have existing chicken coops that were built when 10 feet was the setback requirement. He stated that the permit has to be renewed and if the chicken coop was considered moveable, there would be no legally non-conforming structures. Chair Maddy asked what guidance the City received from legal counsel on who would make the choice on whether it was fixed or moveable coop. Planning Director Darling stated that as it is written now, if it is a structure that is permanently fixed to the ground, then those structures would be considered legally non-conforming and they would be allowed to continue to have chickens in them. Chair Maddy asked about freestanding sheds that are too big too move. Planning Director Darling stated that would fall under the same situation, but moveable hutches or coops would have to be moved. Chair Maddy asked if the inspector would make that determination. Planning Director Darling stated that the inspector would make that choice. She stated that in the older permits they had to give a description or a diagram of the shelter. Commissioner Eggenberger explained that he had not thought much about the change from 10 feet to 30 feet until he read Mr. Johnston’s letter this afternoon. He asked what the reason was for 30 feet as opposed to 10 feet. Commissioner Riedel stated that he believes it was the idea of extending the distance to avoid disruption to the neighbors. He stated that it was a proposed compromise to allow people to have chickens on small lots, but not to be able to situate them right next to the property lines. He stated that there is also a provision that the chickens have to be closer to your own property than to your neighbors. Planning Director Darling noted that increasing the distance also potentially helps with smells relating to waste that is not cleaned up. Commissioner Eggenberger pointed out that dogs can be within 10 feet and asked how that is different than urban farm animals. Council Liaison Siakel noted that most dogs do not live outside full-time like a chicken. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 6 of 12 Commissioner Riedel noted that dogs are also much more common than chickens. He stated that he does agree that it does seem arbitrary and having a 30 foot setback requirement could really constrain people. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he is not anti-chicken or pro-chicken, but he sees a dichotomy where a person can put up a fence with multiple dogs within 10 feet of the property line, but another person who wants to have guinea fowl cannot. Commissioner Riedel suggested that 30 feet may be excessive and suggested a compromise of 15 or 20 feet. Chair Maddy stated that he re-read some of the other cities regulations and was interested in the possibility of a 10 foot setback, but needed to be 50 feet away from a neighbors residence. He stated that it would not need to be those exact numbers, but feels that may be a concept that would work. Commissioner Huskins asked how may permits have been issued or renewed over the last 5 years. He asked if it would be possible to do a paper study to determine how many of the existing structures would need to be ‘grandfathered’. Planning Director Darling stated that she has a list of all the permit holders because she sent them all notices of this meeting. She stated that she believes there are about a dozen that are permitted with chickens and another 5 or 6 that are keeping farm animals without permits. Council Liaison Siakel stated that what was kind of guiding these changes were complaints around coops that were right on the property line, closer to the neighbors property than the chicken owner, chickens escaping, smell, and disruption. She stated that there were some pretty heated comments from neighbors that were inconvenienced and not happy with having neighbors that kept chickens. She stated that in her neighborhood there are two families that have chickens but noted she was not sure if either one of them was permitted. She stated that she also believes that another reason for having well defined guidelines that were less ambiguous is because chicken keeping is becoming more popular. Planning Director Darling stated that one of the individuals that complained was someone who had chickens on all three sides of his property which had been escaping from all three of the properties into his yard and are then causing damage. He stated that he has also been worried that his dogs will attack the chickens which would cause a neighborhood incident. Council Liaison Siakel stated that there were also concerns about predators coming into the neighborhood because of the chickens and about the City not ending up like a rural farm community. Planning Director Darling explained that this particular property owner stated that the chickens are getting out on a regular basis and they scratch up and move his landscaping mulch and dig up the plants. Chair Maddy stated that he is not sure a setback would address those problems. Commissioner Huskins stated that the regulations from nearby cities that Chair Maddy mentioned with both a setback and a distance from a neighboring home could be something that the City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 7 of 12 considers, especially since they are not recommending a lot size restriction on having urban farm animals. Planning Director Darling stated that within the last amendments that were reviewed and adopted, there was a change to the setbacks such that the enclosures have to be farther from the adjacent neighbors home than the chicken owners home, but it did not provide a specific distance. The Commission discussed various setback regulations and how they would affect various sized lots. Commissioner Holker stated that it sounds like there are some bad chicken owners and asked if there was any type of enforcement options, such as only being allowed a certain number of offenses before their permit was revoked. Planning Director Darling stated that they are proposing some language that would allow the City to deny or revoke permits for property owners that are adopting poor animal husbandry, for example, allowing their chickens to escape. Commissioner Holker asked who would make that decision. Planning Director Darling stated that would usually come to her, but noted that those decisions are appealable to the City Council. Chair Maddy suggested a 10-foot setback and the requirement to be 50 feet from the neighbors dwelling. The Commission discussed specifics around being no closer than 10 feet from the property line with the requirement to be 50 feet from the neighbor’s home. Council Liaison Siakel noted that to address the comments made in the letter sent by Mr. Johnston regarding enclosure the coops, she felt some of his points were valid. She asked if there could be something put in that with the first complaint of chickens escaping they would be requiring to enclose the coop and a second violation results in revocation of the permit so there is an escalating penalty. Chair Maddy noted that all of his neighbors who have chickens have nets, but he is unsure how much more work it creates. Council Liaison Siakel stated that she has two neighbors who have chickens that roam free on their property and does not believe there is a net. Commissioner Riedel stated that his view is that the City should simplify enforcement and not complicate it and feels the simpler the rules, in this situation, the better. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that one of the residents had stated that adding an enclosure would be a hassle due to the snow and leaves. He stated that his thought it that perhaps that is the cost of raising chickens. He stated that it may not be ideal, but it may be just something that they need to do in order to have chickens. Commissioner Huskins noted that he agreed that it becomes a balance between residents who do not have chickens but have been bothered by them and the responsibility and accountability CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 8 of 12 of the chicken owner. He stated that he thinks simplifying the rule to require netting for everyone makes sense to him. Chair Maddy reviewed the items that the Commission agreed upon for the amendments to the Code. The Commission discussed situations where urban farm animals owners could be grandfathered. Riedel moved, Holker seconded, recommending approval of the proposed Code amendments to Urban Farm Animal regulations including; the grammatical changes as discussed, a minimum of 10 foot setback from property lines with 50 feet from neighboring homes and are closer to the owners home than to any adjacent neighbor. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. Planning Director Darling noted that this item would be in front of the City Council on April 14, 2022. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Campaign and Non-Commercial Speech Signs Discussion Planning Director Darling explained that this agenda item is intended to be a pre-Public Hearing discussion regarding campaign and non-commercial speech signs. She stated that staff has put together some draft language for them to consider. She noted that the Commission had forwarded some potential amendments to the City Council but they did not act on them and continued it, indefinitely. She explained that a new public hearing will be required for any changes to the campaign and non-commercial speech signs. She stated that the main purpose for having any amendments is because the City has a number of regulations for campaign signs that duplicate and overlap each other and shared examples of where it can be difficult to determine when and when not to enforce the rules. She noted that the proposed amendments include adding new definitions; removing the definition of campaign signs; amending the regulations for campaign signs including renaming them as non-commercial signs, clarifying the time period when they are allowed, clarifying the setback; and adding a substitution clause. Chair Maddy stated that in Reed v. The Town of Gilbert ruling, it says the City may still regulate signs on a reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. He asked what this meant and if it referred to obscenities. Planning Director Darling stated that is saying that you cannot regulate the content of the signs, but you can regulate where they sit, how long they sit, and the way they are installed. Chair Maddy stated that he has had someone contact him saying that obscenities and implied obscenities or swear words are getting more and more popular. He stated that he wanted to clarify that the City will not even talk about restricting what goes on the sign. Planning Director Darling stated that if the City did that they would likely be challenged with violation of the First Amendment and would be unsuccessful at defending themselves. She stated that she shares the concerns about the lack of civility, in general because of the increasing amount of anger. However, there is a line that the City has to walk and that includes not having regulations that are content based. She gave an overview of the suggestions and feedback made by the City Council on this issue. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 9 of 12 The Commission discussed primary and general election signs. Planning Director Darling explained that the Commission was only being asked to have a narrow focus right now in order to get any amendments adopted prior to the election season. She noted that there will be some other Code amendments needed in the future. Chair Maddy asked about the proposed 5-foot setback requirement from a street or paved roadway in a situation where people have a lot of shrubbery right up to the pavement edge and if that meant they would be disallowed from having signs. He asked if they could add a caveat that it is has to be 5 feet from the paved surface unless there is something permanently affixed that would be a visual obstruction to people for seeing the sign. Commissioner Eggenberger expressed concern that if someone wanted to put a sign closer to the street the could just go plant a little shrub so they could do it. Chair Maddy stated that there would need to be some caveat about visibility but realized that there would be people that would try to ‘game’ the situation. He explained that he wants to err on the side of allowing people to put out more signs rather than restricting them. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that his biggest concern with signs too close to the road is kids and safety. Commissioner Huskins stated that he is a believer in personal choice and part of him says that if it is important to a resident to put a sign out, and the City has a reasonable setback code, then the fact that they have shrubbery does not prevent them from taking out part of the shrubbery to put up a sign. He stated that if they cannot comply and they complain because there is some obstruction in the way, he would question whether that is the responsibility of the homeowner to solve the problem by removing the obstruction. Commissioner Riedel stated that there will always be a compromise involved and asked if the 5 foot setback was reasonable. Council Liaison Siakel stated that even with a setback of 5 feet, there are a lot of properties in the City that would not be able to comply with that and noted that in her yard, she would have to take out a whole hedge of trees that were in place when they moved in to be able to comply. She stated that she did not think it has ever really been a problem, but now people have gotten a bit ugly about stuff and would not be surprised if this election season if people are out with tape measures to see how far the yard sign is from the edge of the road. She stated that people should be able to put out a reasonable sign and thinks this issue came up because many people were putting up there signs within the right-of-way areas, such as right near stop signs, which can be a safety issue. She suggested that in that case there needs to be some rules such as that it has to be a 10 foot setback if it is City right-of-way and asked if they could differentiate between private property and public space. Chair Maddy asked why people are allowed to put non-commercial speech signs on right-of-way that they do not own the property in front of. The Commission discussed free speech, public land, and obstructions. There was consensus of the Planning Commission to support the 5 foot setback with no caveat. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 10 of 12 Commissioner Huskins stated that in the packet, Public Works Director Brown had made comments about intersections and setbacks that would be more appropriate and asked if the 5 foot setback would interfere with what he was addressing. Planning Director Darling stated that referred to the safety triangle and language has been included to address that issue. Commissioner Holker noted that reading this Code related to the substitution clause, was a bit confusing, but Planning Director Darling spent some time with her talking about it, so she has a better understanding of it, but noted that it was a confusing concept. Chair Maddy noted that the substitution clause needs to remain in the Code, but the Commission could attempt to simplify it. Planning Director Darling explained that the substitution clause in the most recent draft is simpler than what was previously included in the ordinance. She read aloud the traffic visibility section of the Code to the Commission and the substitution clause examples. Chair Maddy stated that it appears as though the Commission is in agreement with the amendments presented by staff. Planning Director Darling stated that she will make arrangements for a public hearing at the next Planning Commission meeting. B. Election of Officers Riedel moved, Eggenberger seconded, to re-appoint Chair Maddy to continue serving as Chair in 2022. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion carried 5/0. Eggenberger moved, Maddy seconded, to re-appoint Commissioner Riedel to continue serving as Vice-Chair in 2022. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – Eggenberger, Holker, Huskins, and Maddy. Motion carried 4/0/1 (Riedel abstained). Commissioner Eggenberger stated he would like to discuss the issue surrounding the letter received from Mr. Larson and the instruction they had been given not to respond to him.. He stated that when people come to the meetings to speak and they are given 3 minutes to speak. He stated that if the Commission is told not to respond when they send a letter, he questions how residents can communicate with the Commission. Planning Director Darling clarified that the issue was that he sent the letter and asked for a response from all Commissioners which would have been an open meeting law violation. She explained that Mr. Larson could come to another Matters from the Floor and bring up his points in front of the Commission at that time. Commissioner Eggenberger asked about the 3 minute time limit and asked how that is regulated and whether people can be allowed to speak more than once. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 11 of 12 Chair Maddy stated that it is up to the Chair and he has only recently followed the 3 minute time limit when people started pushing their comments closer to the 20 minute mark. He stated that sometimes, he would like to have a little dialogue also, as long as it does not turn into a character attack, which came close at the last meeting. Planning Director Darling noted that the 3 minute rule only applies to Matters from the Floor. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he understands the practicality of the rule, but it made him wonder how people can really discuss issues with the Commission. Council Liaison Siakel explained that Mayor Labadie sent out a poll to mayors throughout the State asking about how other cities handled Matters from the Floor. She stated that the average response was that they allowed each individual about 3 minutes, with some allowing even less time. She explained that she thinks the idea is to allow them to run the meeting in a professional way that allows the City to conduct their business and be able to make decisions versus turning it over a crowd that is more disruptive and often times it is the same argument being repeated over and over. She stated that it is not that the City does not want these individuals to speak, but she feels that the City has put a process in place and has stuck to it, which means everyone is treated the same and gets to be heard. Commissioner Riedel noted that the Planning Commissioners are not staff at City Hall and should not discuss matters that should be discussed with staff. He stated that the Commission’s job is the Planning Commission meetings and that should be their focus. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that he has never had a discussion with anyone about these kinds of things and explained that he had just been thinking about it because of what happened recently. He stated that he completely agrees with Commissioner Riedel’s statement. The Commission discussed hypothetical situations where Commissioners may be approached for information about City Code or variances by their neighbors or other members of the community. Planning Director Darling stated that if residents ask a Code question, she would ask that they refer them to staff to ensure there are accurate answers and cautioned the Commission to be careful about giving neighbors a preference towards one position or another prior to the meeting before they have received all the information. 6. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 7. REPORTS • Council Meeting Report Council Liaison Siakel noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Eggenberger had asked her about the fiber optic project. She stated that she had spoken with City Administrator Lerud and found out that Jaguar Communication is now MetroNet and they will be installing fiber beginning in late summer of 2022 to be completed in 2023. She noted that she believed the intent was to only lay fiber throughout the communities within Shorewood, Excelsior, and Tonka Bay and they will not be pursuing a franchise agreement with LMCC. She reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 1, 2022 Page 12 of 12 Planning Director Darling noted that the Council had also approved the hiring of a new Planning Technician, Jason Carlson, who will begin work at the end of March. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated the Public Hearing for the campaign and non-commercial speech signs will be held at the next meeting as well as a site plan amendment for the redevelopment of a commercial building. 8. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Holker seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of March 1, 2022, at 9:10 P.M. Roll Call Vote: Ayes – all. Motion passed 5/0. #7B MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: CUP to Collocate Antennas on an Existing Monopole Location: 24283 Smithtown Road Applicant: SMJ International, LLC. on behalf of Dish Wireless. Meeting Date: March 14, 2022 Prepared by: Marie Darling, Planning Director Review Deadline: May 28, 2022 Attachments: Planning Memorandum from the March 1, 2022 Meeting Resolution Background: See attached planning memorandum for detailed background on this request. At the March 1, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Summary of Public Notice and Testimony: Notice was published in the city’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the property at least 10 days prior to the Planning Commission public hearing on March 1, 2022. The applicant and the property owner were present at the meeting and the applicant spoke in favor of the application. Financial or Budget Considerations: The application fees are adequate to cover the cost of processing the request. Recommendation / Action Requested: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. Proposed motion: Move to adopt the attached resolution approving a conditional use permit for SMJ International, LLC. for property located at 24283 Smithtown Road, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Any action on this request would require a simple majority. Next Steps and Timelines: If the item is approved, the applicant would submit the information as required in the attached resolution with a building permit request. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. S:\\Planning\\Planning Files\\Applications\\2022 Cases\\24283 Smithtown Dish Wireless Antennas\\CAF.docx RESOLUTION 22-026 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ANTENNA COLLOCATION ON AN EXISTING MONOPOLE AND RELATED EQUIPMENT AT 24283 SMITHTOWN ROAD WHEREAS, SMJ International, LLC., on behalf of Dish Wireless, has applied to add three telecommunication antennas and other equipment in a triangular array on the existing monopole and add related ground equipment on the property legally described as: Lot 27, Auditor’s Subdivision No. One Hundred Thirty-three (133), Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at the southeast corner of Block 1, Senn Addition; thence along the easterly extension of the southerly line of said Block 1 a distance of 85 feet; thence northerly parallel with the east line of said Block 1 to the northerly line of said Lot 27; thence westerly along said northerly line to the east line of said Block 1; thence southerly along said east line to the point of beginning. Subject to a lease agreement dated January 15, 1982 and filed for record December 21, 1982 as County Recorder Document No 4760996 in favor of Chicago Title Insurance Company, amended by lease amendment dated January 15, 1982 and filed for record November 8, 1983 as County Recorder Document No. 4843529; with assignment and assumption of the vendee’s interest in said lease in favor of Minneapolis SMSA Limited Partnership, a Delaware Limited Partnership, dated September 28, 1984 and filed for record April 16, 1985 as County Recorder Document No. 4985882; and WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to collocate their equipment on and near the existing monopole tower; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on March 1, 2022, the minutes of the meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on March 14, 2022, at which time the Planning Director’s memorandum and the Planning Commission’s recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant, the public and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA FINDS AS FOLLOWS: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in a C -1 General Commercial district, which allows antenna collocations subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. 2. The applicant’s proposal is identified on plans and materials submitted to the City on December 30, 2021 and January 28, 2022. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant’s plans have satisfied the criteria of a conditional use permit to collocate antennas under the Shorewood City Code. 2. The Applicant’s plans indicate the collocation would be compatible with the neighborhood and would not tend to depreciate the area. 3. The application would not overburden the city’s service capacity and existing public services and streets. 4. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant a conditional use permit to collocate additional antennas, radio receiving units and related equipment on the tower and on a new equipment platform within the existing fenced area as shown on the plans submitted December 30, 2021 and January 28, 2022, subject to the following: a. The applicant may not proceed with improvements prior to issuance of required permits. b. Prior to issuance of permits, the applicant shall revise the plans as follows, consistent with city code: 1) Provide a third-party special inspector and either structural drawings stamped by an engineer or a structural report showing that the tower can support the additional antennas and equipment. 2) The antennas and all equipment installed on the tower shall be painted or factory coated to match the existing monopole. 3) The ground equipment, other appurtenances and the ice bridge shall be factory coated or painted to match the accessory building. c. The applicant shall not install any of the antennas or related equipment on the tower during osprey nesting season or otherwise disturb the nest. d. The applicant shall provide 24-hour emergency contact information and the information shall be kept current and updated as necessary. e. The applicant shall not install any lights on the tower (unless required by the FAA) or on the ground equipment. f. All disturbance of the site shall be restored to preconstruction condition by the end of the growing season. 5. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this resolution with Hennepin County. 2 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 14th day of March, 2022. Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ATTEST: Sandie Thone, City Clerk 3 8A MEETING TYPE Regular Meeting City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Approve Plans and Authorizing Bidding for the Smithtown Pond/Shorewood Oaks Drainage Project City Projects 20-07 and 20-04 Meeting Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 Prepared by: Andrew Budde, City Engineer Reviewed by: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Attachments: Overview Map, ACOE Permit Letter, Resolution Background: On January 25, 2021, the Shorewood City Council approved the Scoping Study and authorized preparation of the plans & specifications for the Smithtown Pond project. The City had previously completed the Western Shorewood Drainage Study and the Smithtown Pond is a major component of the overall study. The proposed regional pond, located at 26245 Smithtown Road, provides an opportunity to significantly improve the drainage in upstream areas by allowing adequately sized trunk storm sewer pipes at depths that help propagate drainage through the area. The pond then provides an opportunity to store the water and release it at a rate that is significantly reduced from the current conditions. This will reduce the erosion potential to the downstream Grant Lorenz channel that has seen significant erosion, sloughing slopes, and washouts in recent years. Several other components of the project include improving the outlet condition from the existing Freeman Park Pond, installing a trail connection from Smithtown Road to the HCRRA Lake Minnetonka Regional Trail, and the Shorewood Oaks Drainage Improvements. The Smithtown Pond will also be an opportunity to install water quality treatment that will be required as part of the permitting and approval process for the Strawberry Lane Reconstruction and Trail project, slated for 2023. This helps reduce the need for additional right of way directly adjacent to the Strawberry Lane roadway corridor. The city has acquired all major permits for the project including the approval of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Army Corps of Engineers. As part of the permitting process the City will need to purchase wetland bank credits to fulfill a condition of the permit. Staff has also been coordinating with the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority and the Three Rivers Park District on a cost sharing agreement. The HCRRA is acting on the item at their March 8 meeting and the city will take council likely at the May 9 meeting. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 Financial Considerations: This project has been budgeted for in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) in years 2021 and 2022 and includes three items from the CIP: 2021 Shorewood Oaks Drainage $190,000 2022 Smithtown Pond/Freeman Park Outlet $1,942,000 2022 Smithtown Pond Trail $40,000 Total Budget $2,172,000 The city will also receive cost sharing from the HCRRA in a not to exceed amount of $38,680. The Engineers Estimates for the overall project cost is $2,200,000. Recommendation/Action Requested: Staff recommends the city council approve the plans and authorize bidding the Smithtown Pond project. Next Steps and Timelines: Approve Plans and Specifications/Authorize Ad for Bid ...........................March 14, 2022 Open Bids ............................................................................................... Late April 2022 Award Construction Contract .........................................................................May 9, 2022 Begin Construction ......................................................................................Summer 2022 Substantial Completion: Shorewood Oaks Drainage Improvements............October 2022 Substantial Completion: Entire Project………………………………................March, 2023 Final Completion……………………………….....................................................July, 2023 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 22-027 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING BIDDING FOR THE SMITHTOWN POND/SHOREWOOD OAKS DRAINAGE PROJECT CITY PROJECT 20-07 AND 20-04 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (“City”) approved the Scoping Study and authorized preparation of the plans and specifications for the Smithtown Pond project, City Project 20-07, on January 25, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood (“City”) authorized the preparation of the Shorewood Oaks Drainage Improvements, City Project 20-04, on June 22, 2020; and WHEREAS, the Smithtown Pond Scoping Study confirms that the existing flooding conditions in Freeman Park impact the Shorewood Oaks Drainage Improvements project and in order to remedy will need to coordinate and construct concurrently with the Smithtown Pond project; and WHEREAS, proposed improvements to Smithtown Pond project will reduce flow in downstream Grant Lorenz Channel, provide for improved drainage in the upstream watershed, provide improved water quality for the watershed, and provide treatment for the future Strawberry Lane Road and Trail project scheduled for 2023 construction; and WHEREAS, the proposed improvements for the Smithtown Pond project impact regulated wetlands and streams, and to fulfill the conditions of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Army Corps of Engineers permits, approve the Mayor to execute wetland bank purchase agreements as needed for the project; and WHEREAS, the project is included in the 2021 and 2022 Capital Improvements Plan and will be funded from the Stormwater Fund; and NOW THEREFORE, IT RESOLVED: that the City Council of the City of Shorewood hereby approves the Final Plans & Specifications for the Smithtown Pond project and the Shorewood Oaks Drainage Improvements Project, authorizes bidding, and authorizes execution of wetland bank credits for the proejct. th ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14 day of March 2022. __________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title/Subject: Redistricting and New Precinct Boundaries 9A Meeting Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 MEETING TYPE Prepared by: Sandie Thone, City Clerk/HR Director Regular Meeting Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Brenda Pricco, Deputy City Clerk Attachments: Resolution New Precinct Map Redistricting Update: Redistricting is the process of redrawing the boundaries of election districts and occurs following the completion of the Census. The purpose of redistricting is to ensure that the people of each district are equally represented. The principle of “One Person, One Vote”, which is achieved through the redistricting process, has been expanded over the years to include both chambers of state legislatures, county commissioner districts, municipal districts, and districts in other jurisdictions. Each local unit of government needs to determine its redistricting responsibilities and develop a plan. The City of Shorewood is responsible for redistricting or reestablishing all precincts after state redistricting. Reestablishing precincts is a routine process of verifying existing precinct boundaries meet legal requirements and then reconfirming those boundaries. Redistricting precincts is required when it is determined that existing precincts do not meet the requirements in law, particularly if new legislative or congressional districts have split existing precincts. The preferred method for municipalities is to identify polling places and draw precincts around polling places. The State set the Legislative Boundaries on February 15, 2022. The City Boundaries deadline is March 29, 2022. City Boundary Update: Hennepin County provided the necessary redistricting training to cities and school districts, did the redrawing and/or reestablishing of county district boundaries, and provided the redistricting software for cities to utilize to redraw or reestablish their precinct boundaries. The Legislative District in Shorewood was split and now includes Legislative Districts 45A and 45B. This new boundary split occurred in the area that was previously Shorewood’s Precinct 4. The area east of the boundary that lies in District 45B is now required to become its own precinct, since precincts must be arranged so that no precinct lies in more than one legislative or congressional district pursuant to State Statute §204B.14(3)(f). Shorewood remains in Congressional District 3. City staff was responsible for redrawing the city precinct boundaries and establishing polling locations. The proposed *new city precinct boundaries comply with State Statute §204B.14 and were submitted to Hennepin County on February 23, 2022, and include the following: Precinct 1 and Precinct 2 were combined to create the new *Precinct 1 with a polling place nd located within the precinct boundary of Minnewashta Church, located at 26710 West 62 Street, Shorewood, MN 55331. Precinct 3 and the west portion of Precinct 4 that remained in Legislative District 45A were combined to create the new *Precinct 2 with a polling place located within the precinct Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 boundary of Shorewood Community & Event Center, located at 5735 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN 55331. The east portion of Precinct 4 lying in Legislative District 45B will become the new *Precinct 3 with a polling place located within the precinct boundary of Excelsior Covenant Church, located at 19955 Excelsior Blvd., Shorewood, MN 55331. Precinct 5, lying completely in Cathcart Park and located in Carver County will now be the new *Precinct 4 and has undergone no boundary changes but will rather be reestablished with the new precinct number only, with a polling location of Westwood Community Church, located at 3121 Westwood Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55331. Hennepin County will be notifying all registered voters in the City of Shorewood with their new precinct and polling locations. Action Requested: Staff respectfully recommends the city council approve the Resolution Establishing 2022 Precinct and Polling Locations for the City of Shorewood pursuant to MN statute §204B.14, following redistricting, as follows: nd Precinct 1: Minnewashta Church, 26710 West 62 Street, Shorewood, MN Precinct 2: Shorewood Community & Event Center, 5735 Country Club Road, Shorewood, MN Precinct 3: Excelsior Covenant Church, 19955 Excelsior Blvd., Shorewood, MN Precinct 4: Cathcart Park, Westwood Community Church, 3121 Westwood Drive, Chanhassen, MN Motion, second and simple majority vote required. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 22-028 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of Minnesota has been redistricted; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute section 204B.14, subd. 3 (d) requires that precinct boundaries must be established within 60 days of adoption of state redistricting plan or by March 29, 2022, whichever comes first; WHEREAS, the Legislative District was split in the City of Shorewood and now includes Legislative Districts 45A and 45B; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota hereby establishes the boundaries of the voting precincts and the polling place locations as follows: nd Precinct 1: Minnewashta Church, 26710 West 62 Street, Shorewood, MN 55331 Those islands in the westerly part of the city, to include Goose Island, Spray Island, Shady Island, and that part of Enchanted Island that lies within the city limits and; That portion of the city lying west of Eureka Road to the westerly shoreline of Lake Minnetonka. Precinct 2: Shorewood Community & Event Center, 5735 Country Club Rd, Shorewood, MN 55331 That portion of the city lying east of Eureka Road to Mill Street; That portion of the city lying east of Mill Street and south of State Highway 7 to the easterly border of Old Market Road, Covington Road, and Vine Hill Road. Precinct 3: Excelsior Covenant Church, 19955 Excelsior Blvd., Shorewood, MN 55331 That portion of the city lying east of Old Market Road, Covington Road to the easterly border of the city; That portion of the city lying north of State Highway 7 to the easterly, westerly and northerly border of the city. Precinct 4: Westwood Community Church, 3121 Westwood Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55331 nd That entire portion of Cathcart Park, lying south of 62 Street West, west of Church Road and east of Cartway Lane to the park’s southerly border. Attached to this resolution, for illustrative purposes, is a map showing said precincts and the location of each polling place. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 14th day of March, 2022. _______________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor Attest: ___________________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item 9B Title/Subject: Letter of Agreement with IPM Institute Meeting Date: March 14, 2022 MEETING Prepared By: Greg Lerud, City Administrator TYPE REGULAR Reviewed By: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works; Jared Shepherd, City Attorney Attachments: Draft Letter of Agreement and Resolution Background: The city council reviewed quotes to assist the city in developing an Integrated Pest Management plan and directed staff to work with the IPM Institute to develop a contract or Letter of Agreement. Financial or Budget Considerations: When I presented the project costs at the February 28 meeting, I failed to include the cost for phase I work. That total is now $13,055, rather than the $11,845 dollars stated in the previous council memo. I apologize for that error. However, the total amount is still almost $2,000 less than the next low quote. Funds will come from public works and parks department budgets. Recommended Action: City staff met the IPM staff to discuss the Letter of Agreement and the city attorney has reviewed the draft. Staff recommends approval of the Letter of Agreement as submitted by adopting the attached Resolution by simple majority, with the caveat below. The draft Letter from IPM Institute arrived late in the day agenda items were due, so a full review of the Letter was not possible by the time the agenda was published. In the event there are changes to the draft Letter, staff will go over those changes in detail prior to council consideration of the Resolution. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AND IPM INSTITUTE THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this ____ day of March 2022, by and between City of Shorewood, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation based in Shorewood, MN (herein referred to as “SHOREWOOD”) and the IPM Institute of North America, Inc., a non-profit organization based in Madison WI (herein referred to as "CONTRACTOR"), and WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, SHOREWOOD and CONTRACTOR share goals to improve health and environment in agriculture and communities; and, WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR possesses unmatched experience and expertise in building market- based programs to improve health and environment in agriculture and communities widely recognized throughout the US, supports the efforts of SHOREWOOD to develop an Integrated Pest Management Plan and wishes to provide technical expertise and WHEREAS, SHOREWOOD and CONTRACTOR wish to collaborate to improve health and environment in communities; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of mutual covenants and obligations set forth below, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Definitions. As used in this Agreement the following terms shall have the following meanings: (a) “SHOREWOOD”: City of Shorewood, represented by Greg Lerud or his alternate as designated in writing by SHOREWOOD. (b) “CONTRACTOR”: IPM INSTITUTE, represented by Nick Speckman or his alternate as designated in writing by CONTRACTOR, together with any and all subcontractors retained by CONTRACTOR under terms of this Agreement in performance of the Project. (c)“Work Product”: All data, documentation, reports, analysis, know-how, inventions, developments, works of authorship, and information, in whatever form, first produced or created by or for CONTRACTOR as a result of or related to the performance of work or the rendition of services under this Agreement; and (d) “Deliverables”: Reports, notes, images, databases, models, analytical tools, and any other descriptive or analytical material to be developed by CONTRACTOR and furnished to SHOREWOOD as evidence of completion of Project activities; and (e) "Project": Activities to be carried out by CONTRACTOR and/or any of its subcontractors related to this agreement. (f) "Project Period": The period commencing on the date this agreement is executed by both parties and ending at such time as mutually agreed upon by SHOREWOOD and CONTRACTOR. (g) “Services”: Any work, assignment, or subcontract activity carried out under terms of this Agreement by CONTRACTOR or any of its subcontractors. Section 2. Work To Be Performed. CONTRACTOR agrees to provide Services in support of the Project and to incur costs generally according to the Work Plan (Exhibit A). CONTRACTOR shall retain and pay required subcontractors from the funds provided hereby. In performing all work and services and incurring costs hereunder, CONTRACTOR shall exercise its independent judgment and shall have control over the time, manner, and details of the work, but shall report to SHOREWOOD subject to the restrictions and terms contained in this contract. Section 3. Nature of Obligation. CONTRACTOR shall use its reasonable and diligent efforts to perform the work as described in Exhibit A. However, the parties understand that the Project involves development of novel procedures, methods, and concepts and that there can be no assurance that all goals of the Project can be, or will be, met. CONTRACTOR does not warrant or guarantee any particular results. Section 4. Retention of Subcontractors. Selection of subcontractors shall be made by CONTRACTOR and all subcontractors shall work under CONTRACTOR’s direction. However, no subcontractor shall be retained to perform any portion of the activities without prior written approval of SHOREWOOD. Section 5. Payment and Payment Procedures. The payments by SHOREWOOD to CONTRACTOR for consultant services as per the attached work plan and fee schedule (Exhibit A) shall be in the total amount of $13,055 US dollars (US $13,055), payable as follows: (a) CONTRACTOR shall submit payment request as per the attached work plan and fee schedule (Exhibit A). Invoice shall be delivered to SHOREWOOD by email. Invoices shall be sent to the City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Drive, Shorewood, MN 55331, (952) 960-7900, cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us. The City will remit payment to IPM INSTITUTE, 211 S Paterson Street, Ste 380, Madison, WI 53703-4504. Section 6. Intellectual property. All written or other work products generated by the parties to this agreement and delivered to the other party, pursuant to this agreement, shall be the property of the party generating the product. After the conclusion of the project, the parties each grant to the other party the right to continue use and/or develop materials delivered to them by the other party. The following provisions shall apply to intellectual property developed by either party and made available to other party in the course of carrying out project activities: (a) In the case of intellectual property developed by either party prior to the project and made available to, or used to develop or complete the project, the developing party shall retain during and after the project the right to use such intellectual property for other purposes without restriction. (b) The parties to this agreement shall retain the right after the conclusion of this project to continue to use and develop the intellectual property provided to the party by the other party during the course of this project, including the right to charge a fee for access to, or use of said intellectual property, with acknowledgement to the other party. Section 7. MINNESOTA GOVERNMENT DATA PRACTICES ACT. CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as it applies to (1) all data provided by the SHOREWOOD pursuant to this Agreement, and (2) all data, created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by CONTRACTOR pursuant to this Agreement. CONTRACTOR is subject to all the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, including but not limited to the civil remedies of Minnesota Statutes Section 13.08, as if it were a government entity. In the event CONTRACTOR receives a request to release data, CONTRACTOR must immediately notify SHOREWOOD. SHOREWOOD will give CONTRACTOR instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. CONTRACTOR agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold SHOREWOOD, its officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers harmless from any claims resulting from CONTRACTOR’s officers’, agents’, SHOREWOOD’s, partners’, employees’, volunteers’, assignees’ or subcontractors’ unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data. The terms of this paragraph shall survive the cancellation or termination of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that as a result of the project, each will, or may, be making use of, acquiring or adding to information about certain matters and things which are considered by the CONTRACTOR to be trade secrets within the meaning of §13.37, subd. 1 (b). CONTRACTOR will notify SHOREWOOD with respect to any trade secrete data and SHOREWOOD shall comply with Minn. Stat. §13.37, subd. 1(b) with respect to such data. Section 8. Independent Contractors. CONTRACTOR shall perform the Services as an independent CONTRACTOR, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create or imply a joint venture, partnership, principal-agent, or employment relationship between the parties. Neither party shall take action or permit any action to be taken on its behalf which purports to be done in the name of or on behalf of the other party and shall have no power or authority to bind the other party to assume or create any obligation or responsibility express or implied on the other party’s behalf or in its name, nor shall such party represent to any one that it has such power or authority. Section 9. Termination of Agreement. (a) Either party may terminate this Agreement in whole or in part, at any time before the date of completion, for any reason. The terminating party shall notify the other party in writing via electronic e- mail of any termination. The parties must stop work immediately upon notification of termination. Payments made to either party or recoveries by either party shall be in accordance with the legal rights and liabilities of the parties. (b) In the event this Agreement is terminated, the party developing the Services for Deliverables shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such Services or Deliverables prior to termination. Section 10. Indemnification Against Loss or Damage. CONTRACTOR shall defend, indemnify, and hold SHOREWOOD harmless from and against any liability, loss, damage or expense, including reasonable attorney fees, which SHOREWOOD may incur or sustain by reason of any intentionally wrongful conduct, breach of this contract by CONTRACTOR. If any suit shall be filed against SHOREWOOD for any claim of intentionally wrongful conduct, breach of this contract by acts of CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR shall defend SHOREWOOD in the matter and indemnify SHOREWOOD against any monetary award in said action. Section 11. Compliance with Laws. CONTRACTOR agrees that over the duration of and as a condition of CONTRACTOR's duty to perform under the terms of this Agreement that it will be in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the State of Wisconsin. SHOREWOOD also agrees to comply with all applicable laws. In addition, CONTRACTOR certifies that it is not delinquent on any federal debt and has not been debarred from doing business with the federal government. Section 12. Representations and Warranties of CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR represents and warrants to CONTRACTOR as follows: (a) CONTRACTOR is a non-profit organization in lawful existence under Minnesota law. This Agreement has been duly authorized, is valid and enforceable in accordance with its terms. (b) No further consent or approval is necessary from its Board of Directors or other CONTRACTOR authority as a condition to the performance of any of its obligations hereunder. Section 13. Representations, Warranties and Covenants of SHOREWOOD. SHOREWOOD represents warrants and covenants, to CONTRACTOR as follows: SHOREWOOD is a Minnesota municipal corporation. This Agreement has been duly authorized, is valid and enforceable in accordance with its terms, and neither the execution of this Agreement nor performance of the transactions contemplated hereby is or will be contrary to the provisions of any agreement or undertaking to which it is a party or by which it is bound. Section 14. Amendment. An amendment to this Agreement shall be valid only if it is in writing and approved by authorized representatives of both parties. Section 15. Survival of Agreement. If any portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder shall be valid and enforceable. Section 16. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and the CONTRACTOR acknowledges that it is entering into the Agreement solely on the basis of the terms and conditions herein contained or referenced in Exhibit A, or referenced in written Addendums to this Agreement and not in reliance on any representation, statement, inducement or promise, whether oral or written, not contained herein. Section 17. Notices. All notices required or permitted to be delivered hereunder and all communications in respect hereof shall be in writing and shall be deemed given when personally delivered or when deposited in the United States mails, certified, return receipt requested, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: If to CONTRACTOR to - If to City of Shorewood to - Nick Speckman Greg Lerud IPM Institute of North America, Inc. City of Shorewood 211 S Paterson Street, Ste 380 5755 Country Club Road Madison, WI 53703 Shorewood, MN 55331 kadams@ipminstitute.org GLerud@ci.shorewood.mn.us Section 18. Governing Law. The laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first above stated. IPM INSTITUTE CITY OF SHOREWOOD _________________________ _________________________ Nick Speckman Jennifer Labadie CEO Mayor ATTEST _________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 22-029 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH THE IPM INSTITUTE TO PREPARE AND ASSIST INPLEMENTING AN INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood prepared and distributed a Request for Quote (RFQ) to organizations who could assist the City in developing, implementing and managing an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program; and, WHEREAS, three quotes were received and the City Council directed City Staff to work with staff from the IPM Institute to develop an agreement or contract to provide the services defined in the RFQ, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council, that the City Council approves the attached Letter of Agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Shorewood. th Adopted this 14 day of March, 2022. ___________________________ Jennifer Labadie, Mayor ATTEST __________________________ Sandie Thone, City Clerk City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item Title / Subject: Tree Sale and Organics Recycling Updates 10A.1 Meeting Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 MEETING TYPE Prepared by: Julie Moore, Communications and Recycling Coordinator Regular Reviewed by: Greg Lerud, City Administrator Meeting Tree Sale This year’s annual tree sale started March 1. The city is offering eight trees as part of the sale this year. As of the date of this memo, one tree is sold out and six trees have had an additional order to meet resident demand. The trees will be delivered to public works the first week of September for pick-up by the purchaser. Several trees offered this year have been used to fulfill the city obligation to residents in Glen/Amlee/Manitou construction area. Organics Recycling The organics recycling program offered by the city using the grant dollars from Hennepin County started March 3, 2022. Within the first week of the program, twenty residents registered. We will continue to market the program to residents a way to eliminate trash and possibly give them the opportunity to reduce their trash cart size and reduce their trash costs. Hennepin County estimates that 20-30% of the waste going to landfill/burner could be put in organics recycling. No action from council is currently needed. Connection to Vision/Mission: Consistency in providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership. Page 1