Loading...
032706 CC Reg AgP CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Love _ Lizee Turgeon _ Callies Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 13,2006 (All.- Minutes) B. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 13, 2006 (Atl. - Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give tlte public all opportullity to request all item be removed from tlte COllsellt Agellda. Commellts call be takell or questiolls asked followillg removal from COllsellt Agellda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (All.- Claims List) B. Staffing - Appointment of Michelle Nguyen as Senior Accountant (All. -Finance Director's memorandum, Resolution) C. Approval of the Agreement with Minnetonka Community Education for Lifeguard Services for Crescent Beach (All.-Administrator's memorandum) D. Authorization for Expenditure of Funds to Purchase Seal Coat Aggregate (All. - Director of Public Works' memorandum) E. Approval of the Spring Clean-Up Contract for Services (All. - City Administrator's memorandum) F. Proclaiming Arbor Day on April 28, 2006 (All. - Resolution) 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - MARCH 27, 2006 PAGE20F2 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Public Hearing to Vacate Certain Drainage and Utility Easements (Atl. - Planning Director's memorandum; Draft resolution) Applicant: Mark Sass Location: 22690/22740 Murray Street and 6035 Galpin Lake Road 7. PARKS - Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held March 15, 2006 (Atl.- Draft Minutes) B. Expenditure of funds for Manor Park Pond Project (All. - Director of Public Works' memorandum) 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. Setback Variance (Atl. - Planning Director's memorandum; Draft resolution) Applicant: Greg Buckley Location: 25885 Birch Bluff Road B. Conditional Use Permit - Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet (All. Planning Director's memorandum; Draft resolution) Applicant: Blair Bury Location; 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive C. Minor Subdivision/Combination (All.- See Planning Director's memorandum for #6A; Draft resolution) Applicant: Mark Sass Location; 22690/22740 Murray Street and 6035 Galpin Lake Road 9. GENERALINEW BUSINESS 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 27 March 2006 Councilmembers Callies and Lizee will be absent from tonight's meeting. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staffrecommends that Ms. Michelle Nguyen receive regular full-time appointment by the City Council to the position of Senior Accounting Clerk, with the corresponding salary increase effective retroactively to February 22, 2006. Michelle's 6- month probation period ended as of that date and she has shown that she can satisfactorily perform the requirements of the job Agenda Item #3C: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Agreement for 2006 Lifeguard Services with Minnetonka Conununity Education. Agenda Item #3D: Staffreconunends that the proposal for furnishing sea1coat rock be awarded to Martin Marrieta Materials, Inc., with the City of Shorewood's portion of the contract not to exceed $18,000. Agenda Item #3E: Services. Approval of motion awarding the Contracts for 2006 Spring Clean-Up Agenda Item #3F: Enclosed is a Resolution proclaiming Arbor Day on April 28, 2006, and encouraging residents to observe Arbor Day by planting a tree. Agenda Item #6A A public hearing has been scheduled this evening to consider partial vacation of a drainage and utility easement. Mark Sass has arranged to purchase a strip ofland from Brent Sinn to increase the depth and area of Sass's lots on Murray Street. The Planning Conunission has recommended approval of the minor subdivision and combination application. As part of the request, Mr. Sass has requested that part of the easement on the Sinn property be vacated, in exchange for new drainage and utility easements around the Sass lots and along the southerly 10 feet of the Sinn property, thus the purpose of this public hearing. Staff recommends the vacation, subject to the property owners recording new easements with the recording of the lot line rearrangement. Logistically, however, it makes sense first to approve the division/combination, and then act on the easement vacation. Accordingly, the public hearing should be closed, and the matter tabled and brought back for discussion after Item # 8C. n tJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of27 March 2006 Page 2 of2 Agenda Item #7 A: A Park Commissioner representative will report on the March 15, 2006, Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #7B: The Park Commission has recently been reviewing Manor Park with regard to water quality and the ongoing issue of goose droppings in and around the park. Out of these discussions, the Park Commission authorized Commissioner Judy Westerlund to obtain proposals for the design and installation ofplantings around the Manor Park pond, in order to deter geese from the pond and playground structure. The Park Commission reconunends award of a design proposal to Fortin Consulting, on a not-to- exceed basis of $1 ,500, with funding from the Park Capital Improvement Program. Agenda Item #8A: Greg Buckley owns the property at 25885 Birch Bluff Road, which is technically a corner lot, due to its boundary on Second Street, a platted, but never-opened City street right-of-way. Mr. Buckley has requested a 25-foot variance from the Second Street setback to expand his existing house on its east side. Second Street is a substandard right-of-way (22" wide) that serves as access to the property south of the Buckley property. The Planning Commission agreed with the Planning Director's recommendation to treat the "paper street" the same as fire lanes have been treated, using a standard side yard setback instead of a side yard abutting a street. The Commission also agreed that the Planning Department conduct an inventory of all such "paper streets" and possibly consider an ordinance amendment to address this type of request. This item will be added to the Commission's work program for 2006. A draft resolution approving Mr. Buckley's variance request is attached for Council's consideration. Agenda Item #8B: Blair Bury owns the property at 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive. He proposes to add on to his attached garage, bringing his total area of accessory space over 1200 square feet and necessitating a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider this matter and has recommended approval of the C.U.P. as requested. A draft resolution is attached for your consideration. Agenda Item #8C: This item is described above in Item #6A. Staff recommends approval of the division of the property division/combination proposed by Mr. Sass. Following action on the property division/combination, Item #6A should be placed back on the table. On Item #6A, staff reconunends that the existing easement regarding this property be vacated. PAYROLL APPROVALS For 03/27/06 Council Meeting , Prepared by: (/;.: Ll ~~II:/ / Date: _? I:) -::sAlt, . Micheile T Ngu)'!~~r/ ccounting Clerk ' . '.: , Reviewed by: A~u:....,s(lL L~ Date: 6~~.9/lrt: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by: Date: {J? ]3. ~/ Crai awson, City Administrator PAYABLESAPPROVALS For 03/27/06 Council Meeting Prepared by: tll it c) 1Z~Jt,1!/'L . Date: -;;~ 3~6 Mlc~elt1T. NgUf) St.~Accountmg Clerk A _,.' " Reviewed by: l'lu1.-U!..- V:))..A_lo'v( Date: t1!l..-h:?J Ct/--;; Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by: Date: OJ.2J'.j/ awson, City Administrator CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING D.'.. D...... .nF.... T ".~ ,~, I . Ii.."" Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. RollCall Present. Mayor Love; Councilmembers Callies (arrived at 7:10 P.M.), Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Allomey Keane; Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, February 27, 2006 Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of Febrnary 27,2006, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minntes, February 27, 2006 Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006, as Amended, on Page 9, Item 8.C, Paragraph 7, Sentence 1, change "Councilmember Callies moved to direct" to "Councilmember Turgeon moved to direct". Motion passed 4/0. C. City Council Work Session Minutes, February 27, 2006 Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of February 27, 2006, as Ameuded, on Page 1, Item 2, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, change "for determining which roads would be replaned" to "for determining which roads would be reclaimed" and on Page 2, Item 2, Paragraph 5, Sentence 1, change "shingles on the Southshore Center" to " shingles on the Eddy Station". Motion passed 4/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: Mayor Love reviewed the Items on the Consent Agenda. #dA- CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 2 of7 Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Staffing - No action required C. Animal Imponnd Services Agreement Motion passed 4/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no mallers from the floor presented this evening. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. 7:00 p.m. - Public Information Meeting regarding Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program Mayor Love opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 P.M. Administrator Dawson explained as part of the Federal Clean Water Act, the City of Shorewood was required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permil. The two main requirements of this permit were the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP) and subsequent annual reports. He then explained in preparation for the annual report, a public meeting must be held to discuss the City's SWPPP. He noted this was the second year Shorewood was preparing the annual report. Dawson stated Steve Gumey, the Interim City Engineer, would give the presentation outlining the SWPPP and items included in the annual reporl. Engineer Gumey explained he would provide a brief history of the SWPPP, discuss the NPDES permit requirements, identify future actions the City may want to take, and then open the hearing up to questions and comments. Engineer Gurney explained the NPDES is required by the Federal Clean Water Acl. He stated the NPDES targets construction sites, industrial discharges, and urban storm water discharges. He noted urban storm water discharges would be the focus of discussion at the public hearing. The NPDES Program went into effect for Minneapolis and St. Paul in 2000. Construction sites five or more acres in size were then required to get a NPDES permil. In 2003 Phase II requirements were implemented. Phase II required cities with a population of 100,000 or greater or urbanized cities to get a NPDES permil. The systems for those cities were call Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). Another Phase II requirement was for Construction Sites one or more acres in size to get a NPDES permit. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 3 of7 Gurney went on to explain there were six Minimum Control Measures (MCMs). Each of the six MCMs had one or two Best Management Practices (BMP) associated with it. He then provided a description of each MCM. he listed the requirements, and he identified future action items. 1. MCM 1 - Public Education and Outreach: the City had brochures were sent out to residents. The 2004 City ShoReport newslellers contained 11 articles related to environmental issues such as wetlands, water runoff, recycling, etc. The SWPPP was available at City Hall, and the City's website provided information about the SWPPP. 2. MCM 2 - Public Participation and Involvement: This requires an annual public meeting and filing an annual report. The Public Hearing is a requirement for the 2004 permit. There will be a record of decision made and the publics comments would be amended into future versions of the SWPPP. 3. MCM 3 - illicit Discharge and Detection Elimination: The City has developed a storm sewer base map, although the verification phase needed to be completed. An illicit Discharge Ordinance will be adopted at a later date as it was required by the NPDES. 4. MCM 4 _ Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control: This has been in place for a number of years. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has a very aggressive storm water erosion control plan, and plans to conduct reviews and inspections of all basins. The MCWD is the regulatory commission for the City for erosion control, storm water runoff, and plan reviews. 5. MCM 5 - Post Construction Storm Water Management: Although this is a new SWPPP requirement, this is being done by the MCWD. The best way to satisfy this requirement is through the use of functional treatment ponds, infiltration basins, and regional treatment ponds (where possible). 6. MCM 6 - Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping: This requires inspection of each outfall at each of the ponds to ensure the ponds are working properly. Twenty percent of the ponds must be inspected each year. All the structural BMPs in place must also be inspected. Ongoing Staff training with regard to street sweeping, road salt applications, and hazardous material storage must occur. Engineer Gurney discussed the ramifications of a lawsuit between the Minnesota Polution Control Agency (MCPA) and the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA). The MCPA was then required to notice and review the permit for all MS4 SWPPPs. At the MCPA Board Meeting in December 2005 the new permit was approved Engineer Gurney then reviewed the rule changes for 2006. Each MS4 was required to apply for a new permit by June I, 2006. The MCPA would then issue notice of the permit application and review the application. If approved the MCP A would issue the new NPDES permit to the MS4s. He noted the permit language had been modified to change "minimize pollutants" to "reduce pollutants". Gurney then explained a non-degradation analysis requirement was being implemented. Currently 30 cities, which were selected by size or growth potential, had to conduct an analysis showing pollutant loadings for total snspended solids and phosphorous and runoff volumes for 1988, 2000, and 2020. If there had been an increase in the loadings the city would have to prepare a corrective action plan for CITY OF SHORE WOOD COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 4 of 7 reducing the loadings. He stated only the 30 Cities identified were required to do a non-degradation plan, but it was highly probable that would eventually be a requirement for all cities when it was time to apply for a new NPDES permit (which would be 2011 for Shorewood). Engineer Gurney reviewed the City's next steps. The City must revise and re-submit its SWPPP to the MPCA for review and public notice by June I, 2006, The existing permit requires the City to prepare a new annual report and submit it by June 30, 2006. He noted the City would either be covered by the existing permit or the new permit; it would not be without a permil. He stated the City should begin to consider what it would take to conduct a non-degradation analysis should that requirement be imposed on the City. Mayor Loved asked if there were any members of the public wishing to comment. There were none. Mayor Love asked Director Brown if the City had a complete inventory of all of the sedimentation ponds and were the ponds checked to determine how much sedimentation there was in the basins. Brown responded a sedimentation pond inventory had been done as part of the mapping exercise just being completed, which included the entire storm water system. With regard to a ditch inventory, Brown stated that still needed to be done as did a pond inventory. He stated the MCWD encouraged cities to conduct a pond inventory and to identify how much silt each pond had. He then stated pond restoration (e.g. removing silt) was quite expensive and the City should plan for those types of projects. Mayor Love asked Director Brown if the MCWD had agreed to help fund pond cleanup if the City would create a pond inventory as encouraged by the MCWD. Brown was not aware of such a commitment on behalf of the MCWD. Love stated he would like the opportunity to discuss this request for pond cleanup funding with the MCWD on behalf of Shorewood and other cities. He then stated he believed the MCWD should assume some responsibility for pond cleanup because they had not implemented strict agreements for maintaining the ponds until the late 1980's. Councilmember Lizee asked if the City had the 1988 loading data should a non-degradation analysis be required. Engineer Gurney stated the data would probably be an estimate. He explained there was topographic map information from 1966 and 1999. There was aerial photography available from a number of sources that would show land use in 1988 and impervious surfaces, and that information could be used to estimate runoff estimates. He then stated the 2000 data was basically the current data and 2020 data would be based on the Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Turgeon asked Director Brown if he had enough information to estimate budget requirements with the degree of uncertainty there was. Director Brown stated pond inventory and cleanup activities would take a number of years and he didn't think projecting the costs by July 2006 for the 2007 budget would be terribly difficult. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens regarding the source of educational materials, Director Brown explained that Communications Technician Julie Moore gets the information from a number of sources. He stated each city was to determine what its educational materials would be. He then stated the SWPPP process had been in a state of evolution with the MPCA. Mayor Love stated part of the problem with the Federal portion of the SWPPP was different geographical areas have different storm water best management practices; for example, a snow climate which used sand and chemicals on the roads would have different BMPs than a southern climate would have. He added the effectiveness of the BMPs also needed to be assessed, CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 5 of7 Councilmember Wellens commented it seemed unusual that the MPCA's number one issue was Public Education and Outreach, yet each city was responsible for defining what it was going to communicate. Mayor Love stated some public education programs had been uniformly adopted and accepted, and they were quite successful. Examples he cited were motor oil and storm water stenciling. Mayor Love closed the public hearing at 7:28 P.M. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, to Direct Staff to Prepare a Record of Decision Regarding the Storm Water Pollution Protection Prevention Program. Motion passed 5/0. 7. PARKS Engineer Brown reported there had not been a meeting of the Park Commission since the most recent Regular City Council Meeting, thus, there was nothing to report on at this time. The next meeting of the Park Commission was scheduled for Wednesday, March 15,2006, at City Hall at 7:00 P.M. Topics on the Agenda included: music in the park, winter events, and goals and objectives. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative Commissioner Meyer noted there had not been a meeting of the Planning Commission since the most recent Regular City Council meeting; thus, there was nothing to report on at this time. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Goals and Priorities With regard to the updated Goals and Priorities list for 2006/early 2007, Administrator Dawson explained he would reorganize the prioritized items by category and redistribute to Council. Lizee moved, Wellens seconded, approving the Goals and Priorities for 2006 and early 2007. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS None. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson thanked Staff for arriving at 3 :30 A.M. to begin plowing roadways. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Love stated the EFD Board had met on March 8, 2006, and was making good progress with the selection process for the new fire chief. He stated the Selection Process Steering Commillee (which would conduct the first round of interviews and narrow the candidates down to 2 - 5 for additional CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 6 of 7 interviews) consisted of: two Boardmembers and an alternate; two Operating Committee members and an alternate; two Firefighters and an alternate; and Interim Chief George. Councilmember Wellens questioned the appropriateness of Interim Chief on the Steering Commillee. Mayor Love explained that Interim Chief George was not interested in applying for the position. Councilmember Turgeon stated she was pleased to know Interim Chief George was on the Steering Commillee because he had a great deal of knowledge and experience that would be useful to the process. 12. RECESS TO WORK SESSION Mayor Love recessed the Regular City Council meeting to a City Council Work Session meeting at 7:35 P.M. Mayor Love reconvened the Council meeting at 9:15 P.M. It then recessed to an executive session. 13. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - SLMPD ARBITRATION STRATEGY Mayor Love called the executive session to order at 9:27 P.M. All Councilmembers, the City Allorney and Administrator Dawson were presenl. With the City Council and Administrator, Allorney Keane discussed strategies related to the arbitration on the allocation of operations costs for the member cities of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. The Executive Session was conclnded at 9:50 P.M. The City Council reconvened in regular session at 9:50 P.M. It then recessed to another execntive session. 14. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION - CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S PERFORMANCE REVIEW Mayor Love called the executive session to order at 9:50 P.M. All Councilmembers and Administrator Dawson were presenl. Council and Administrator Dawson discussed the 2005 performance review of the City Administrator. The Executive Session was concluded at 10:04 P.M. The City Council reconvened in regular session at 10:04 P.M. 15. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Lizee seconded, Adjourning the Regular City Council Meeting of March 13, 2006, at 10:05 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 70f7 Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CONFERENCE ROOM 8:00 PM or immediately following Regnlar Council meeting MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING DRAFT Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:36 P.M. A. RollCall Present: Mayor Love, Councilmembers Callies, Lizee, Turgeon, and Wellens; City Allomey Keane; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; and Director of Public Works Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor Love proceeded with the Agenda for the meeting. 2. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND BONDING FOR THE WATER SYSTEM Administrator Dawson explained bonds were issued in 2005 based on estimated project costs. Once the design phase for some of the projects had been completed and project costs refined, it became apparent the bonds that had been issued to fund the projects would not be sufficienl. Therefore, Council would need to determine which of the projects should be done based on the available bond funds. He also stated additional financing would need to occur for the interconnection of the Southeast and Amesbury systems. Director Brown stated KLM Engineering, a consulting group that specialized in well rehabilitations, thought it was time to do the SE Area Water Tower Rehabilitation and Painting project, but they did not think it would be a serious problem to delay the project for two years. Brown explained due to the increase in costs for some of the other projects, Staff recommended delaying the SE Area Water Tower project, thereby freeing up bond funds for higher priority projects. Brown explained the "SE Area - Amesbury Water Interconnection" was currently under design, and was scheduled for construction this spring. The proj ect had been proposed in the 2007 Capital Improvement Program at the time of the bond sale. The Parkview Crossings subdivision project was the impetus for moving this interconnection project to the 2006 season in order to capture the connections for this subdivision. He also explained it had been premature to discuss additional bonding for the SE/ Arnesbury Water Interconnection and Parkview Crossing Development at the time the 2005 bonds had been issued. Brown explained the preliminary estimated cost for the interconnection was approximately $888,000. He stated Staff would provide Council with the estimated cost breakdown at a future Council Meeting where it could consider another bond issue for that project. J/cJ8 CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13,2006 Page 2 of 10 Director Burton stated Staff and the City's bond consultant had a preliminary estimate of a $1 million dollar bond that would be issued. She explained with a IS-year pay-back schedule, the estimated yearly payment would be $90,000 - $100,000 a year. She then stated there were approximately 1,260 users and the bond would increase their rates by an estimated $80 per year. She also stated she was in discussions with the City's bond consultant with regard to refinancing the existing City water debt which would level out the debt service payments, rather than have larger payments in the earlier years. She noted there would be additional interest costs if the debt was refinanced. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Director Brown explained the costs for the Woodhaven Well Interconnect project for bonding were based on a budget figure from Excelsior; as that option failed and water from Chanhassen was being pursued, the figure shown was the connection fee stated in Chanhassen's ordinance. He stated the negotiations were still in progress and he thought it was still possible to reduce the connection fee. 3. WATER EXTENSION AND CONNECTION POLICY AND Administrator Dawson stated there had been a fair amount of discussion and confusion with regard to the City's water policy (an ordinance) and what the City's practices were in the extension of City water, and the properly owners' costs for City water. He then stated a document that had been distributed to the WedgewoodlMallardlTeal neighborhood about the possibility of installing City water in conjunction with the street reconstruction project, and it contained some misstated information. Administrator Dawson stated the March 9, 2006, Water Extension and Connection Policy and Practice memo from Staff to Council was intended to clarify the City's policy and practices (as explained in the details of the memo on file). He explained that for each of the four scenarios for extending City water, which are specified in the City's ordinance, there was a special assessment to cover the cost of the new watermain. He then explained there was also a connection charge to the properly owner when the owner applied to receive City water (the current connection charge was $10,000), and the purpose of the connection charge was to fund the parts of the water system other than the watermain. Dawson explained the property owner received a credit on the connection charge for any assessments they had previously paid for the installation of a watermain. He noted the properly owner was responsible for all of the costs of placing a water line from his/her house to the City's water valve in the right-of-way. Dawson clarified the interconnection of the Southeast Area water system and the Amesbury was an improvement to the City's whole water system; therefore, no special assessments are proposed to be made against property owners along the length of the new watermain. He stated properly owners who choose to connect, however, would pay the full connection charge at the time they decided to apply for City water. Director Brown commented there had been a minimum of three versions of the water connection and extension ordinance during his almost II-year tenure. He stated the volume of the ordinance was cumbersome and confusing. He explained Staff was preparing a "reader friendly" Municipal Water Brochure to help clarify the City's water ordinance and associated practices. He then explained there were three types of water projects: City-initiated projects; developer-initiated projects; and petition- projects. Councilmember Turgeon explained she thought she understood the City's Water Extension and Connection Policy and Practices, but when she received the document that had been distributed to the Wedgewood DriveIMallard Lane/Teal Circle neighborhood she questioned her understanding. Hence, she asked the topic be put on the Agenda. She suggested Council simplify the City's water policy, and clarify what constitutes a connection, and expressed her appreciation to Staff for the clarification memo. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 3 oflO Mayor Love stated the City's policy, which had been put in place ten years ago, essentially prevented the City from preparing any estimate for the cost of water. He went on to state councils had been extremely sensitive to the political differences that exist within Shorewood with regard to City water. He stated Council must determine a method for providing City water that is either guided by the City's ability to provide City water at times of opportunity, or by allowing properly owners to obtain access to City water based on their desire for it. He asked Council to move to Item 5 on the Agenda. Discussion continued. Prior to moving to Item 5, Councilmember Callies asked Staff to clarify their suggestion stated in the memo. "Council may wish to consider a policy of assessing the full conllection charge, if it is greater than the cost of the improvement, at the time of assessment for the watermain improvement." Administrator Dawson explained Staff would need to track the properly owner's assessment for a watermain over time. He stated assessing the $10,000 for the watermain installation at the time of the project would be easier to administer, and when the property owner wanted to connect to City water there would not be an additional charge. Councilmember Wellens stated he did not think that would be fair to the individuals that did not want City water. Councilmember Callies then asked Staff if she understood the current policy correctly - if the watermain assessment was greater than the $10,000 connection charge the properly owner would in effect pay no connection charge. Administrator Dawson stated that was the current policy. Callies stated she did not believe that was equitable. Councilmember Turgeon stated she understood there would only be a connection charge if the watermain assessment was less than the amount of the connection charge. Administrator Dawson stated that was the current policy. Discussion ensued with regard to assessments and connection charges, and how they were determined under the current policy. Councilmember Callies stated the current policy increased the City's costs because fees for the full water system were not, in effect, charged if the watermain assessment was greater than $10,000. Mayor Love stated because Shorewood was no longer a developing City with future projects extending water out to new developments, and those types of projects were very different from projects to retrofit water. He then stated as the City moved from a program where the minority could rule about water to a program where the majority ruled, the City had to be careful not to victimize the minority. Mayor Love stated the $10,000 fee should be reviewed for appropriateness periodically. Councilmember Turgeon stated when there was a watermain project scheduled Staff should provide the affected property owners with information about the assessment costs and connection costs in terms they could understand. She went on to state the assessment costs (which is for improvements to the properly) and the connection fee (for access to the watermain) need to be clearly described. She commented the way the connection fee is calculated can be confusing. Turgeon stated a consistent message with consistent terminology would help in reducing the confusion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 4 of 10 Councilmember Wellens stated he supported the idea of a "reader friendly" Municipal Water Brochure. He stated he did not think property owners should be assessed for the connection charge if they did not want access to City water. Mayor Love stated a benefit from paying the connection fee at the time of the assessment it could serve as an incentive to apply for City water at the current connection rate knowing there was a chance the fee could be increased in the future. Councilmember Turgeon stated property owners on Smithtown Road thought they had paid their connection fee when they were assessed $5,000; unfortunately they found out the fee would be another $5,000 because their assessment was $5,000 and the connection fee was now $10,000, noting the cost did not include work on their property. Discussion again ensued over the timing of when the connection fee would be charged. Mayor Love recapped what he thought he heard Council agree to - the connection fee would not be charged until the applicant applied for City water. A question that remained was the amount to charge for the benefit to the property. Discussion ensued with regard to how the assessment and the connection fee were determined, and whether or not the property owner should pay the full connection fee at the time they applied for City water. Councilmember Callies stated the connection fee can be determined in advance, but the assessment was based on the individual watermain project costs. Councilmember Wellens questioned why a general assessment charge could not be determined. Councilmember Callies stated the assessment was based on the improvement to each particular property. Allomey Keane explained the City consulted with evaluation experts to determine the value of City water for a single family residence (the difference between a residence with and a residence without City water); that was how the $10,000 number was arrived al. He noted the $10,000 value was determined ten or more years ago. Director Burton suggested the connection fee be updated to reflect today's added benefit, and that property owners be notified months in advance ofthe proposed change. With regard to Councilmember Callies's comment that the connection fee is sometimes charged in lieu of an assessment, Allomey Keane stated that was a separate policy. Councilmember Turgeon stated the leller that was sent to the Wedgewood Drive/Mallard Lane/Teal Circle property owners in effect stated they would get the water "for free" and only 19% of them responded to a poll stating they would be interested in having City water. She stated she thought the reason more property owners did not respond positively was a result of the wording in the survey. Director Brown stated the wording of the first poll was unfortunate, and noted a second mailing had been sent to property owners. He explained after the second mailing there still was not 67% support for the City water. Discussion ensured with regard to how the benefits of City water should be marketed to the property owners. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 5 of 10 Mayor Love stated at the time the $10,000 value for the benefit of City water was determined the average assessed value of a single family residence in Shorewood was $150,000, which made the benefit value approximately 7%. Today the average assessed value of a home was $300,000, which would make the $10,000 benefit value approximately 3%. He stated he thought the $10,000 benefit value should be re- analyzed. Mayor Love stated it was important to ensure Council had a clear understanding of the City's water policy, and that understanding needed to be communicated to property owners. He then stated as Council tried to amend the policy over the last eight years it had become more complicated. He recommended the benefit value of City water to a single-family residence should be put on hold until there was Council consensus on what the water policy should be. Mayor Love asked the two Wedgewood Drive property owners present at the meeting if they would like to address Council. Dean Corder, 5685 Wedgewood Drive, stated the water policy was confusing to him. He stated he did respond to wanting City water. He went on to state that he had a number of questions after receiving the question and answer information document describing the Road Reconstruction Project. He then stated he had contacted Steve Gurney who had answered some of his questions and eliminated some of his confusion. Mr. Corder stated he knew that City water would be inevitable, and some infrastructure had been put in place. He explained he had a well and was perfectly content with il. He then stated he supported installing the watermain, and he was not opposed to paying an assessment for his share of the cosl. He was opposed to paying the connection fee at that time. Mayor Love clarified the current policy did not require him to pay the connection fee until he applied for City water. Mr. Corder went on to state after reading the leller, and after talking with Mr. Gurney, he understood the only thing he would have to pay would be the connection fee and that was due at the time he applied for City water. He commented on the importance on effectively communicating the City's water policy once Council had reached consensus on what the policy would be. Mayor Love explained one of the problems was the City had different policies for different situations. When the watermain was installed along Minnetonka Drive between Cub and County Road 19, policy in place did not require property owners to hook-up to City water. There was no charge to the owners; there was no polling of the owners. He then explained with the Wedgewood Drive project the property owners were polled with regard to their desire for City water to meet the 67% favorable petition of property owners policy, and this would require an upfront assessment to cover the cost of the watermain installation. Mr. Corder stated he understood the ability to pay the assessment over a number of years lessened the immediate financial impacl. But, he added, when the costs for the $10,000 connection fee and the personal costs to bring City water from the watermain to his house were factored in, the financial burden was substantial. He questioned whether or not the total costs of having City water would increase his property value accordingly. Mr. Corder stated he thought the reason for the poor response from the neighborhood property owners was a result of confusion and lack of clarity, and because of the short timeframe allowed to respond. He suggested Council not count a "no response" as a no vote until the City had again tried to educate the property owners on the policy. Mr. Corder stated that communication could be done through neighborhood meetings, or by inviting property owners to meet with the City Engineer. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 6 of 10 Mr. Corder stated his lot was on the comer of Wedgewood Drive and Harding Lane and he wondered if he would be assessed when a watermain was installed on each road. Director Brown explained he would only be assessed for one watermain project. Director Brown stated the lellers had been sent to the property owners and the people renting the property. He clarified the $10,000 connection fee was for a single-family residence, and the duplex connection fee was $15,000. Mr. Gurney explained that for duplexes $7,500 was due upfront and the remaining $7,500 was due at the time of the connection. Brown also explained a fourplex had 90 days to hook-up to City water. Michael Pressman, 5670 Wedgewood Drive, addressed Council nexl. He explained that Director Brown had spent time answering questions, and Administrator Dawson and Staff had compiled the information he had requested. He expressed his thanks, and stated he had been trying to educate himself on Agenda Items 3 and 5. Mr. Pressman agreed with Mr. Corder that a "no response" should not be considered a no vote. He asked that Council not make any decision with regard to installing a watermain as part of the Road Improvement Project until it had approached the property owners one more time. He explained the statement "charges would only be incurred if you decide to connect to City water" in the question and answer document caused confusion. He stated the survey allowed for approximately one week to respond, and that turnaround time was insufficient considering the financial impact of the decision and the accuracy of the information that had been provided. Mr. Pressman than stated he was confused petition of properly owners scenarios. Mr. Pressman stated he had not responded to the survey and he explained his reasons for indecision. His reasons were: there was no information about payment terms (e.g. the assessment amount, the payment terms, the interest rate); it was unclear if the stated assessment cost was fixed, or could that increase if the project costs increased and to what amount; the questionnaire had been distributed prior to Council agreement on the connection fee policy noting the properly owners had conveyed they displeasure with the policy at a Council Meeting on July 25, 2005; the financial plamling he needed to do with regard to the entire cost for City water took more than one week to complete; he had not had time to determine what his monthly water charge would be in that week; and he questioned why the City's water had not met lead quality standards for two ofthe last three years. With regard to the connection fee, Mr. Pressman stated he understood there were "real costs that were not covered by the assessment" and he understood the intent of the policy was to try and have "equity". He then stated there were two ways to charge for the "real costs" and both ways would be equitable: 1) charge each properly owner for the "real costs" not covered by the assessment; or, 2) charge the rate payer as part of the rate. He noted Councilmember Callies supported charging for "real costs". He suggested Council not proceed until the equity question had been resolved. Mr. Pressman stated at the July 25, 2005, Council Meeting Councilmember Callies questioned the legality of charging a fixed amount, and Councilmember Turgeon stated there should be a City-wide policy, not a neighborhood by neighborhood policy. He then stated he did not believe Callies's question with regard to the legality had been addressed. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Pressman went on to state it appeared as if the City was using the Minnesota Supreme Court holding regarding the difference between special assessments and connection fees to make financial planning for a difficult process easier. He again stated the policy was not equitable. Mr. Pressman stated once his questions had been answered, including the question on equity, and if he decided to vote in favor of water, he would approach the property owners that had not responded and attempt to convert them to a yes vote. He noted the complicated nature of the water policy, and did not fault anyone for the stated of confusion. Mayor Love expressed his appreciation to the property owners for coming forth. He stated this was only the second time in eight years Council had allempted to put the water policy into practice, noting the first time was on Timber Lane. He then stated Timber Lane was different because it was done entirely from petition and this was the first time as part of road renovation. Mr. Pressman stated he had had another engineer review WSB's cost estimates and they appeared to be reasonable. His engineer noted there could be cost savings on the 8-inch watermain because he had recently seen them be less expensive. With regard to Mr. Pressman's comment that the equity question was critical and he wanted Council to address it, Councilmember Wellens stated previous Council-established the policy of a $10,000 connection fee and he asked Mr. Pressman if he was asking Council to change the policy. Mr. Pressman cited Minnesota Statute 429 with regard to assessments and connection charges. He stated the currently water policy was not equitable, it was opportunistic. Mayor Love stated Shorewood was a community of mixed density and lot sizes. He stated the costs in a low density area could be very high, and how could one achieve equity between low and high density areas. Allorney Keane stated a couple of concepts were being commingled. He explained a special assessment under Chapter 429 was governed by two principles: I) the special assessment amount should reflect the costs of the project based on a formula; and 2) the special assessment shall not exceed the special benefit test (i.e. increase in value to the property as a result of the improvement). He then explained the connection fee was under Chapter 444 and the test for those charges was if they were just and equitable. He went on to explain when the City determined the connection fee approximately 10 years ago, it needed to determine how to distribute the costs for the infrastructure investment (e.g. the wells, the treatment facilities, the storage facilities, etc.) over an entire system; the connection fee was the only way to reconcile the costs for that structure. He went on to state it was difficult to determine what portion of old infrastructure costs could be attributed property owners that were noW applying for City water. He then explained that was why Council sought the help of valuation consultants in establishing the amount for the connection fee, which was to reflect the increase in properly value as a result of City water. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon with regard to Councilmember Callies's July 25, 2005, stated concerns about the legality of the connection charge, Callies stated a flat fee of either the assessment amount or $10,000 (whichever was higher) does not take into account the benefit analysis required by Chapter 429. Callies went on to state she perceived the water policy to be a way of avoiding uncomfortable discussions with regard to water special assessments, although she could not confirm thaI. Callies went on to state she was not opposed to special assessments for water provided they can be demonstrated to be of benefit to the property and reflect the cost of the project. She also stated there were circumstances when the properly owner could not be assessed the entire cost of the proj ect because the cost would exceed the benefit, and the City would need to incur the cost or a portion of the cost. In CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 8 of 10 summary she stated the City should have a policy that would specially assess the properly for water benefits, and have a reasonable separate connection fee that reflects some portion of the infrastructure costs. Councilmember Turgeon stated the reason the policy was established as such was because it would be easier to administer. She then stated at that time the City had a plan to install watermains when streets were put it or renovated, the monies for the connections charges would realized over a lO-year, which turned to be 20-year; timeframe. Allorney Keane stated uniformity and simplicity were part of the discussions with regard to the connection fee. Director Brown stated the Wedgewood Drive proj ect was somewhat unusual because the special assessments were lower than typical because of the density. He stated he understood Allomey Keane to say the $10,000 amount was defensible. Keane clarified he had stated the connection fee needed to be just and equitable. Councilmember Turgeon questioned how the special assessment would be handled when watermain projects to similar density and lot size areas were significantly different in costs due to conditions like soil being bad, yet the benefit to the properly was the same. Mayor Love explained the stated the $10,000 connection fee for City water, which had been 7% of the median home value when established and was now 3% of the median home value, was a bargain and would still be a bargain if the figure rose to $15,000. He stated from his perspective the water system had the capacity to support additional subscribers, and he would like Council and Staff to determine how to communicate how good a value City water currently was and now was the time to apply. He then stated once the subscriber base had increased that would be the appropriate to reevaluate the connection fee. Mayor Love suggested Council adjourn from the discussion regarding the water policy and return to it at a future Work Session. Councilmember Turgeon stated she thought a work session on the topic of the water policy was in order. Councilmember Wellens suggested Council direct Staff to complete the Municipal Water Brochure explaining the existing policy as soon as possible and get that distributed to the Wedgewood DrivelMallard Lane/Teal Circle properly owners. He suggested a future Work Session should have a structure approach for determining what a new policy should be. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the Wedgewood Drive properly owners be used to assess the effectiveness of the Brochure. Mayor Love stated he would was not in favor on conducting another survey with the Wedgewood Drive area properly owners. It was important property owners understood the initial cost for City water was comprised of three elements: 1) the cost to install the watermain; 2) the cost to connect to the watermain; and 3) the individual properly costs to bring water from the watermain to the residence. He then stated the City needed a response to the question of water quality. Director Burton explained the properly owner would decide the method they would use to purchase the initial water improvement (would they finance the purchase, pay the cost up front, etc.). She then explained the City could say it had terms available but the City could not provide the specifics right then; determining City finance rates was more involved and varied by projecl. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 Page 9 of 10 Council asked Staff to report back on the questions raised (where possible) on the water policy on April 10 Work Session. Staff should also work with some of Wedge wood Drive/Mallard Lane/Teal Circle property owners on the water policy issue. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Administrator Dawson stated Shorewood's water policy was somewhat unique. Mayor Love stated he believed the system was complicated and convoluted. Councihnember Wellens questioned if it was common for cities to have special water assessments and connection fees. Administrator Dawson and Attorney Keane both stated two charges were fairly comn1on. Councilmember Callies stated the charges are common; Shorewood's policy is not common. 4. POLICY ON PRIVATE P ARTY PARTICIPATION IN CITY CONTRACTS Administrator Dawson explained a question had come up from Council about whether work on private properties may participate in public contracts. The specific maller that was raised was whether the private roadways in the Shorewood Ponds Association could be included with a City contract for a street overlay or sealcoating. Staff was asked to investigate the legality of such arrangements, and identify policy implications that might arise. Administrator Dawson then explained Staff had spoken with Attorney Keane, and the short answer is that such arrangements are permilled. The terms under which this type of work would be done were critical. Allorney Keane strongly advised that the City be involved in this arrangement only if the private parties agreed that they would not take action against the City for the quality of work or defects that may occur on their property. Administrator Dawson stated Staff recommended that interested parties be encouraged to contact the City's contractor, rather than having them included in the City's contracl. Director Brown stated it was often difficult to please all property owners affected by a projecl. He stated he believed there could still be instances of property owners allempting to hold the City liable for the work even if the property owner had signed a waiver stating they would not take action. Mayor Love stated there could also be an issue with how to distribute the cost savings between the City and the property owner. He then stated he would not want to have private property work completed as part of a City contracl. Councilmember Turgeon asked Staff to notify the property owners on Pond View Drive in the Shorewood Ponds Association of when the work was scheduled to be done and the name of the City contractor that would be doing the work. Councilmember Turgeon requested all private roads be subject to the same policy. Director Brown stated that was the current policy. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING March 13, 2006 PagelO oflO 5. REPORT ON SURVEY RESULTS - W ATERMAIN PROJECTS This was discussed as part of Item 3. 6. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 7. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Conncil Work Session Meeting of March 13,2006,9:15 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-6927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewQod.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM Date: March 22, 2006 Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members} Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/T~a~re~VVV-~ Craig Dawson, City Administratorw Michelle Nguyen: Appointment to Regular Full-Time Status To: From: Michelle Nguyen's 6-month probation period as Senior Accounting Clerk ended as of February 22,2006. . Michelle has shown that she can satisfactorily perform the requirements of the job, which includes various aspects of payroll, receipts and deposits, accounts payable, bank reconciliations, and other financial related duties. In addition, she has continued to perform all aspects of the City's utility billing process. A salary increase becomes effective with the appointment to regular full-time status. It is recommended that this increase become effective retroactively to February 22, 2006. Staff Recommendatioll Staff recommends that Ms. Michelle Nguyen receive regular full-time appointment by the City Council to the position of Senior Accounting Clerk, with the corresponding salary increase effective retroactively to February 22, 2006. n f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ... :iJ: J B CITY OF SHOREWOOD POSITION: Senior Accountant Department: Repo rts to: Finance Finance Director/Treasurer OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Performs accounting activities related to payroll, accounts payable, fixed assets, receipts and deposits, and assists the Finance Director/Treasurer in other financial duties. ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF THE POSITION A. Payroll 1. Prepare monthly and bi-weekly payroll- collect time sheets. Verify hours and distribute to proper account. Obtain City Administrator and Finance Director approvals for office payroll. 2. Enter payroll data - operate, monitor, control computer according to established routine for payroll applications. 3. Run corresponding reports and payroll checks. 4. Maintain payroll records, deductions and benefit files. 5. Prepare and submit payroll reports for Federal and State governments, PERA, and for deductions. 6. Record payroll transactions to the accounting system. 7. Prepare and submit all quarterly and yearly reports related to payroll, including W2 and 1099 information. 8. Respond to all inquiries related to payroll. 9. Responsible for regular data backups of automated payroll system. B. Accounts Payable 10. Track, sort, verify, and confirm incoming invoices and statements. Adopted by the Shorewood City Coullcil on Senior Accountant Page 2 11. Verify authorization for charges. 12. Prepare list for Council Approval. 13. Verify bills with list approved by Council. 14. Code disbursements to the proper account based on Chart of Accounts and Approved Budget. 15. Enter disbursements into accounting system and print checks and corresponding reports. 16. Prepare checks for distribution. 17. File vouchers and claims. 18. Prepare checks for monthly financial statements. 19. Respond to all inquiries related to accounts payable. 20. Responsible for regular backups of data on automated system. C. Receipts and Deposits 21. Deposit cash receipts daily. 22. Receipt more difficult transactions. 23. Data entry of daily receipts in computerized accounting system. 24. Run appropriate reports from computerized accounting system. D. Liquor Operations 25. Preparation of liquor fund payables. 26. Code disbursements to proper account, calculate discount. 27. Enter disbursements into accounting system. 28. Prepare checks for distribution. 29. Maintain Liquor Detail of Sales and enter deposits into accounting system. 30. Prepare and submit all government reports related to liquor operations. Senior Accountant Page 3 31. Monthly-prepare payables for financial statemenl. 32. Respond to inquiries by vendors and liquor management related to payroll and payables. E. Fixed Assets 33. Maintain fixed asset records in an accurate and timely method in accordance with the City's Capital Asset policy. F. Other Duties 34. Perform any accounting activity directed by the Finance Director, such as monthly billing of miscellaneous accounts receivable and preparation and submission of monthly sales tax reports. 35. Assist in budget prepartion. Enter budget data into computer and run necessary applications. 36. Perform clerical duties for Finance Director, including statistical typing. 37. Prepare monthly reconciliations of bank statements. 38. Perform necessary monthly journal entry transactions. 39. Prepare monthly financial statements and other necessary reports. 40. Assist in maintenance and updating of computerized accounting systems. 41. Assist Finance Director in maintenance of special assessment records and in inquiries relative to special assessments. 42. Deliver mail to post office daily. 43. Prepare labels for newsletters and special projects from the utility billing system. QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily, The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Senior Accountant Page 4 EDUCATION and/or EXPERIENCE Bachelor's Degree in Accounting and a mInImum of six (6) months experience In financial/municipal accounting; or equivalent combination of education and experience. LANGUAGE SKILLS Ability to read and interpret documents such as operating and maintenance instructions, policies, and regulations, ordinances, codes, contracts, and procedure manuals. Ability to prepare reports and correspondence. Ability to communicate effectively both verbally and in writing with supervisors, City staff, elected officials and the general public. MATHEMATICAL SKILLS Ability to make arithmetic computations using whole numbers, fractions and decimals. Ability to compute rates, ratios, and percentages. OTHER KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS, AND ABILITIES . Knowledge of municipal accounting and bookkeeping practices and procedures. . Considerable skill in using computer programs including Word, Excel, and Internet. . Ability to operate various types of office equipment, including ten key proficiency, ability to type 50 wpm, accurate data entry skills, and clerical skills. . Ability to organize and prioritize work. . Ability to work independently. PHYSICAL DEMANDS The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to use hands to finger, handle, or feel objects, tools, or controls and talk and hear. The employee frequently is required to sit; and reach with hands and arms. The employee is occasionally required to stand; walk; and stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific VISIon abilities required by this job include close vision and the ability to adjust focus. Senior Accountant Page 5 WORK ENVIRONMENT The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewQod.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator ~ Larry Brown, Director of Public Works - DATE: March 23,2006 SUBJECT: Lifeguard Services Agreement for 2006 The City jointly operates Crescent Beach with the City of Tonka Bay. Expenses for lifeguard services are shared by the cities. Minnetonka Community Education has provided these services in the past for five cities within the Minnetonka Independent School District and has submitted a proposal for 2006 Services. In 2005, Tonka Bay and Shorewood contracted with Minnesota Safety Services (MSS) for lifeguard services. However, MSS has informed Shorewood and Tonka Bay that they will not be providing lifeguard services in 2006. At its meeting on March 14, the Tonka Bay City Council approved the agreement for 2006 lifeguard services with Minnetonka Community Education. The proposed agreement from Minnetonka Community Education is attached. . The beach would be staffed in 2006 for approximately the same time period as in 2005 (June 3 through August 20, 2006) . The fee for services would be $3,224 in 2006; this is slightly less than the MSS's 2005 fee of $3,477. Sufficient funding is included in the 2006 budget to meet the proposed fees. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve and authorize the City Administrator to execute the Agreement for 2006 Lifeguard Services with Minnetonka Community Edncation. ,. f: . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ... #=-3L ~~ETO-l\r ~.... *+7 (") 't- o 0 ~ t ~o. ~ 0"" <V.lTy <r&"))V 1. Contractor's Service Proposed Agreement: Lifeguard Services for the City of Shorewood Summer 2006 Submitted by: Minnetonka Community Education (Contractor) 4584 Vine Hill Road, Excelsior MN 55331 February 13,2006 A. Lifeguard Services. The Contractor agrees to provide the city with qualified American Red Cross Certified personnel to Lifeguard the following beaches from June 3 though August 20. 2006 on a seven day per week schedule. . Crescent Beach - one guard form 12:00pm- 7:00pm B. The Contractor agrees to provide: . An appropriate number oflifeguards on duty at all times, according to any applicable industry standards or regulations; . Ongoing in-service trainings during the summer season for all lifeguards; . Supervision of lifeguard personnel; . Safety equipment (back board & First Aid kits) for the lifeguards 2. City Obligations. A. Beach. The City agrees to provide a safe, clean and well-maintained beach and beach area as stated in this agreement. This includes defined swinuning boundaries; sand and water free of debris and safety hazards; clean and sanitary restrooms; and a lifeguard station. The City agrees to provide a working telephone, rescue tubes, megaphone and lifeguard chairs as well as a safety boat with oars. B. Payment. The City agrees to pay the Contractor a total of $3,224 in two payments of $1,612 on July 15,2006, and $1,612 on August 15,2006, in return for services as stated in this agreement. 3. Reports. The Contractor will provide the city with all necessary information relating to the Lifeguard Services in order for the City to properly maintain the beach. On an as need basis the Aquatics Program Manager will report to the city representative in regards to incidents and/or accidents. At the end of the season (October 15, 2006) the Contractor will provide the city with a full report of beach activity during the season. 1 4. Insurance. The City is responsible for obtaining property and liability coverage for the beach. The Contractor will maintain professional liability and comprehensive general liability coverage for all employees in an amount consistent with Chapter 466 of the Contractor. 5. Indemnification. The Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its employees and officers from any and all liability, loss, cost, damages, and expenses including but not limited to property damage and personal injury, including death, which arise in connection with any acts or omissions of Contractor's employees. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor and its employees, officers, and agents from any and all liability, loss, cost, damages and expenses including but not limited to property damage and personal injury, including death, which arise in connection with the City's performance of this contract or in connection with any acts or omissions of city employees. 6. Liability. Employees of the Contractor and all other persons engaged by the Contractor in the performance of any work or services required, volunteered, or provided for herein to be preformed by Contractor shall not be considered employees of the City and any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein, shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the City, and other persons engaged by the City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by the City shall not be considered employees of the Contractor, and any and all claims that mayor might arise under the Worker's Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims by any third parties as a consequence of an act or omission on the part of said employees so engaged in any of the work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of the Contractor. 7. Terms of Agreement. Notwithstanding the date of the signature ofthe parties to this Agreement, upon acceptance by all parties, this agreement shall be deemed to be effective upon signature by all parties and shall remain in effect until October 1, 2006 unless earlier terminated by either party, with or without cause, upon 45 days written notice or as otherwise provided in this Agreement. 8. Default. If the Contractor or City fails to perform any of the provisions of the Agreement or so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement, this shall constitute defaull. Unless the party in default is excused by the other party, the non-defaulting party may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its entirety. 2 9. Subcontractors. The Contractor shall not enter into any subcontract for performance of any services contemplated under this Agreement nor sign any interest in this Agreement without the prior written approval of the City and subject to such conditions and provisions as the City may deem necessary. The Contractor shall be responsible for the performance of all subcontractors. 10. Authorized Representatives. The Parties to this Agreement shall appoint an authorized representative for the purpose of administration of this Agreement. The authorized representative of the city is: Craig Dawson, City Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 (952) 474-3236 The Authorized representative of the Contractor is as follows: Tim Litfin, Executive Director Minnetonka Community Education 4584 Vine Hill Road, Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 401-5043 11. Amendments. Any amcndments to this Agreement will be in writing and will be executed by the same parties who executed the original Agreement, or their successors in office. 12. Entire Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement of the parties is contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral Agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous Agreement presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. In Witness Whereof, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending to be bound thereby. City of Shorewood Date: Name & Title Minnetonka Community Education Date: Tim Litfin, Executive Director 3 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Countly Club Road Shorewood. Minnesota 55331-8927 Tel (952) 474-3236 Fax (952) 474-0128 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: March 23,2006 RE: Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Sealcoat Aggregate Engineering File 06-02 Each year the City of Shorewood encumbers $65,000 in the operating budget for the sealcoating of roadways within the City. Year 2006 is no exception. Attachment 1 shows the roadways that are to be sealcoated this year. Typically, the Cities of Shorewood and Tonka Bay have participated in a joint proposal process to take advantage of a volume discounl. Such is the case this year. Council may recall that the sealcoat proposal process has been broken up into two separate operations. The first operation is to obtain proposals for the aggregates directly form the supplier. The second portion of the project is to obtain bids for furnishing and placing bituminous oil, in addition to placement of the City-supplied aggregate. Therefore, this step is authorization for purchasing of the aggregate materials. Proposals for actually performing the sealcoating operations will appear on a future agenda. The material used for the aggregate is granite. There are only two suppliers within the Midwest area. The first supplier is Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., located in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The second is Dresser Trap Rock, Inc., located in Dresser, Wisconsin. Quotes were obtained and are summarized in Table 1. #,-30 Mayor and City Council Authorization for Sealcoat Aggregate March 23, 2006 Page 2 of2 SUPPLIER TOTAL QUOTE (1) City of City of Shorewood Tonka Bav Total (2) Martin Marrieta Materials, Inc. $31,081.98 $5,977.32 $37,059.30 Dresser Trap Rock, $44,373.23 $8533.32 $52,906.55 Inc. Table 1 Note: (1) Award of COil tract is based upon "Total Quote" per the specificatiolls. (2) Corrected amoullts to reflect proper sales tax. Table 1 demonstrates that Martin Marrieta Materials, Inc., has provided the low quote for the materials. Staff has researched the most recent oil prices that will be locked in, as part of the future sealcoat bids. Based on the research, it appears that the oil prices are higher than what was estimated originally. Therefore, staff is recommending a reduction in the amount of aggregate to be purchased from the 1,300 tons requested in the proposal, to an amount of 720 tons. The specifications allow for such an adjustmenl. Since the total weight of material delivered will actually be determined by the truckload, Staff recommends that the motion made include a contingency amount to allow for the variation in the total received. Based upon the unit prices obtained from Martin Marrieta Materials, Inc., staff recommends that the contract for the aggregate be awarded on a not-to-exceed amount of $] 8,000. Recommendation Staff recommends that the proposal for furnishing sealcoat rock be awarded to Martin Marrieta Materials, Inc., with the City of Shorewood's portion of the contract not to exceed $18,000. 2006 Seal Coating Street List .~ ~, "" ~ ,m ,m ".. "" Brackells Road Cardinal Drive Charleston Circle Chaska Road Deer Ridge Galpin Lake Road Glencoe Road Mayflower Road Murray Hill Road Munay Street Murray Court Park Street Stratford Place Summit Ave Wood Duck Circle South Shore Center Parking Lot ! '1/ , ,,~ 61El~ N . ., .. GALPII\I ,,~ ". ~, """", .., ~ 2006 ~ I'\NI"" BITUMINOUS SEALCOAT ~, AREA MAP ~ oo-c~ OF STREETS ",""""0iJI"f,," ." CITY or CITY PROJECT NO, 06 02 '" 03/27/0& SHORE'\IIODD otI1S1O"O(J. ~ ~- Attachment # 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474~0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: cc: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Pat Fasching, Secretary Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk cS> Larry Brown, Public Works Director March 27, 2006 Motion to Accept Vendor Services for Spring Clean-up On January 9, 2006, Council set May 20,2006, as this year's Spring Clean-up Day. Each year, quotes are requested from licensed trash haulers for Spring Cleanup Day. Waste Management and Waste Technology, Inc. submitted proposals. Waste Management provided the best pricing for the services requested. A copy ofthe quote from Waste Management is attached. As in past years, proposals were also received from Greenman Technologies ofMN, Inc. for Tire Disposal services and J.R.'s Appliance Disposal, Inc. for Appliance, Electronics and Motor Disposal services. Copies of the proposals are attached. This year, J.R.'s Appliance Disposal, Inc., is accepting lawn and garden items, such as lawn mowers, chain saws, leaf blowers, pressure washers, among others, provided that residents completely drain the items of gas, oil and other fluids. Staffrecommends approval to award the contract for Spring Clean-up Services to the finns listed above. Council Action Approval of a motion awarding the Contracts for 2006 Spring Clean-Up Services. #,_JE n t: .. PRINTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER ... r- iE!lCil""le~V~Ifi;I-"1 U n\l;.\!I[;;~ l!i ~;;;;tl,jI ~ ij ~ I FES. 9 2006 1\ PROPOSAL FORM" \. 1.~nY OFSHU~I::VVUq~ FOR SPRING CLEANUP SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA TOTAL QUOTE 34,595.00 QUOTER'S FIRM NAME: OFFICIAL ADDRESS: Waste Management PO Box 609 Winsted, MN 55395 $ PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: 800-450-9378 320-485-3736 To The City Council of: Shorewood, Minnesota 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 City Officials: 1. The following proposal is made for furnishing of all labor, materials and machinery necessary to perform curbside pickup and proper disposal of refuse items, placed by the residents of Shorewood curbside through out the City of Shorewood; in addition to providing pickup and disposal services at the Shorewood Public Works Facility, located at 24200 Smithtown Road. 2. The Undersigned celtifies that the Contract Documents listed in the in the instmctions to firms providing quotes or proposals have been carefully examined, and that the site of the work has been personally inspected. The Undersigned declares that the amount and nature of the work to be done is understood, and that at no time will misunderstanding of the Contract Documents be pleaded. On the basis of the Contract Documents, the Undersigned proposes to furnish all necessary apparatus to furnish all the materials in the manner specified, to accept as full compensation, therefore, the sum ofthe various products obtained by multiplying each unit price herein bid for the work or materials, by quantities thereof actually incorporated into the completed project, as determined by the Engineer. The Undersigned understands that the quantities mentioned herein are approximate only, and are subject to increase or decrease, and hereby proposes to perform all quantities of work as either increased or decreased, in accordance with the provisions of the specifications, at the nnit prices quote in the following Proposal Schedules, unless such schedule designates lump sum or plan quantity quotes. 3. PROPOSAL SCHEDULE: Quoter agrees to perfOlID all work described in the Specifications for the following unit prices: Spring Cleanup Services 2006 I PROPOSAL FORM SECTION 1.0 CURBSIDE PICKUP THROUGH OUT THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD Item Ouantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal (1) 1. Curbside Pickup 1 Lump sum $ $ 24,895 Service 42. 5,460 2. General Refuse 130 Ton $ $ SECTION 2.0 ROLL OFF CONTAINER PLACED ON DELLWOOD LANE Item Ouantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal (2) 1. Roll Off Container 10 Cubic Yards 1 Each $ 260. $ 260. SECTION 3.0 PUBLIC WORKS SITE - ON SITE SERVICES Item Ouantity Unit Unit Price Subtotal (3) 1. General Refuse 10 Ton $ 42. $ 420. $ 3,560. 2. On Site Personnel 27 Person Hrs $ 1 Total Quote = Subtotal (1) + Subtotal (2) + Subtotal (3) = $ 34, 595. 00 (Total Quote shall also be noted top left of page 1 of this proposal form) Spring Cleanup Services 2006 2 PROPOSAL FORM 4. The Contract shall be awarded to the lowest responsible firm with the lowest quote for the Total Quote, as defined above. The Owner reserves the right to delete any items of the proposal form. 5. In submilling this proposal it is understood that the right is reserved by the Owner to reject any or all proposals and to waive infonnalities. 6. In submilling this proposal, the Undersigned acknowledges receipt of Addenda Nos. issued to the Contract Documents. 7. If a corporation, what is the state of incorporation? 8. If a partnership, state full name of all co-partners. Official Firm Name: Waste Management By: Sheldon Swensen Title: Municipal Marketing Manager By: Title: Feb 8 ,2006 Dated Spring Cleanup Services 2006 o ~ ~ -; ~T-f Iii " OJ ~, ~ Recycled paper Q " Recycled paper f..J Kellie J. Bradt Sales ~Rti:~~iVllAIf-~ TECHNOlOGIES GunMAN TIRE RECYCLING DIVISION 12498 WYOMING AVENUE SOUTH SAVAGE, MINNESOTA 55378 Car: (651) 269-8435 Bus: (952) 894-5280 (800) 526-0860 Fax: (952) 894-5061 TECHNOLOGIES OF MINNESOTA INC. TIRE RECYCLING DIVISION February 6, 2006 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attention: Pat Fasching Dear Pat: Upon your approval, GreenMan Technologies ofMN, Inc. looks forward to being part of the City of Shorewood cleanup Saturday May 20, 2006. GreenMan Technologies ofMN will deliver a 12'cage (with lock) Friday May 19,2006, and pick up the loaded cage Monday May 22, 2006. Greenman Technologies will charge a fee of $465.00 to deliver and haul the trailer, process, and recycle the waste tires (plus fuel surcharge). The fuel surcharge is based on the average price for the Midwest region on the 1st Monday of every month. Please sign below accepting the above terms and conditions. Thank you for choosing GreenMan Technologies. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions, or additional service is required_ DATE GMTI 12498 WYOMING AVENUE SOUTH. SAVAGE, MI~INESOTA 55378. (952) 894-5280. FAX: (952) 894,5061 Customer/Agency: City of Shorew{lod Contact Person: Pat Faschin:: Title: Phone: (952) 474-3236 _ Fax: (952) 474-0128 Office (Billing) Address: 5755 Country Club Road Collec~on Site Address: 6/''-/d.OO Srn;+-I,-I--o <..Un 'Koo.-e:J Collection Date(s): Spring 5 - ..;10 -00 Collection Hours: From 13 · 00 f\ (YI Fees Collected By: Customer S (..-,0 r<.eu.JO ad Speciallnstructions/Remarks: ~ ~~ I23l Appliances: f2l Electronics: 0 Scrap Metal: 0 '{ires: 0 Batteries : 0 Bulbs: J.R.'S Appliance Disposal, Inc. 1.0619 Court.house Blvd., Inver Grove Height.s, MN 55077 Teiephone (651) 454-9:215 Fax (651) 454-8345 (800) 358-6563 Web<ite: Jrsappliance.eom e-mail: recycle@jrsappliance.eom SCHEDULINGIRESERV ATlON FORM Recyding Coordinator Cell: Fall To tf:ooPM J.R.'S Services Needed For Event (check all that apply) $10 per unit plus a $10 surcharge on all air conditioners and water soften.ers Commercial and gas/ammonia appliance fees will vary _$0.35 per pound plus $150 per roll offbox (recommended for> 100 units) >!:.-- Or, we can charge by the piece, see attached price list or make other arrangements $150 per ron offbox (20, 25, 30, or 40 yard boxes available) See attached priee list See allached price list See attached price list J.R-'S Appliance Pisposal, Inc. (RECYCLER) ensures.11 items coll.ected will be recycled according to Federal law and the laws cflhe State of MiIIDe.ota. J.R.'S is solely responsible for the safe removal ofall pCB's, Mereury, CFC's, Appliance metals, and Othcr hazardous wa.tcs, The Recycler retains the right to refuse any appliance. decmcd to be in ,ueb compacted or d<Stroyed condition which prevents the proper removal of hazardous wast.es andlor refrigerant according t.o law. The Recycler shall secure and main/ain .11 necessary PERMITS and APPROV ALS necessary to handle said items. The Recycler will also provide any nccessary CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE to the Curtomer, prior t.o start of work. INSURANCE shan remain in effect at all times and not b. m.terially changed. Special charges will be agreed to by both parties prior to accept.nce by either party. Customers shall pay within 30 days of the invoice datc. The Recycler shall INDEMNIFY and HOLD the Cu.tomer and, its employees HARMLESS from all claim" demands, and causes of action of any kind, chanu:;:tE:r. irte1uding the cost of defense thereof, J;esulting from the acts) ontissions, of the Recycl~r; of the organization1s respective officcrsl agents, emplQyees, and/or the individuals receiving benefit from the fund5 or items exchanged. '(elating to the a.ctivities conducted under this agreement. I Acc~pted for Customer: C;;:;J:r/:,,'k"'(J"/h f 'VI if Date: j- f'1-Dt:.> Title, _v1 >l. ~ h 07';71';;11 AcceptedforJ.R.'SAppliance: ,., _.r;-/'~ Date: //_;:< ;?r,:) ")"' Title: Administrative A"si8t~. ~ CUSTOMER: Kecp this original and fax 2nd copy back to J.R.'S Appliance . Printed on Recycled Paper. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-6927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2006 TO: Mayor and Council Members RE: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk uP Arbor Day Proclamation FROM: The enclosed resolution proclaims Friday, April 28, 2006, as Arbor Day, and encourages residents to observe Arbor Day by planting a tree. Recommended Action: Approval of a Resolution Proclaiming Arbor Day on Friday, April 28, 2006. :fJ:: 3 F n '".J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 06- A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 28, 2006, AS ARBOR DAY WHEREAS, trees use up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and turn it into life-giving oxygen; and WHEREAS, trees help conserve energy; that is, three properly planted trees around a home can cut air conditioning bills by ten to fifteen percent; and WHEREAS, trees turn urban "heat islands" into cool and comfortable "oasis", making the concrete jungle livable for all of us. NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council that the City of Shorewood hereby proclaims Friday, April 28, 2006, as the 134th anniversary celebration of Arbor Day in the City of Shorewood, and FURTHER, that the Shorewood City Council encourages all residents of Shorewood to celebrate Arbor Day by planting a tree and thereby hoping to ensure a green Shorewood and Minnesota in decades to come. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this 27th day of March, 2006. WoodyLove,~ayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS IN ZACHARY WOODS WHEREAS, Notice of Public Heming on the proposed vacation of certain drainage and utility easements in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, MiImesota, was published in the ExcelsiorlShorewood edition of the SUN-SAILOR NEWSP APER on the 9th and 16th days of March, 2006, and in the LAKERon the 11th and 18th days of March, 2006; mId WHEREAS, said Notice of Public Healillgwasposted in thi'ee (3) locations in the City of Shore wood; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 27th day of March, 2006 in the Council Chambers at the City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that part of the draiIIage and utility easements, located on the property at 6035 Galpin Lake Road, which easement is described in Exhibit A, attached, be and hereby is vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Milmesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of March 2006. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK :fI:: J ^' to. A, PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENT PROPOSED TO BE VACATED: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, Zachary Woods, Hennepin Connty,Minnesota, described as folloWs: Co=encing at the point of intersection of the northerly line of Murray Street and the easterly line of Lot 199, Auditor's Subdivsion No. 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees 59 minutes 55 seconds West along said northerly line a distance of 316 feet; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 05 seconds West and at right angles to said northerly line a distance of 120 feet to the south line of said Lot 1 and the 'point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 05 seconds West a distance of 10 feet to the north line of the south 10 feet of said Lot 1; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 55 seconds East along said north line a distance of 150 feet to an intersection with the westerly line of Outlot A, Zachary Woods, thence southerly along said westerly line a distance of 10 feet to the south line of said Lot 1; thence westerly to the point of beginning; AND That part of the easterly 10 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Zachary Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies southerly of a line 150 feet northerly of and parallel to the northerly line of Murray Street. Exhibit A CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD CITY HALL 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING D- -\ "Dr-, fi' F'- T" , " .;!..-I. - ~ Ii"..-";' " -;c: .t~' tf~! :;~.;.;.- "'1 '0;' I$~i$ lJlI " Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Chair Davis; Commissioners Hensley, Loheit (arrived at 7:09 P.M.), Moonen, Norman, Westerlund, and Young; CityCouricilLiaisOri Wellens; Public Works Director Brown Absent: None B. Review Agenda Commissioner Westerlund requested an Update on the Manor Park Pond Planting Project be added to the Agenda as Item 4.D. Westerlund moved, Moonen seconded, Approving the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 6/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2006 Hensley moved, Moonen seconded, approving the Minutes of the February 14, 2006, Park Commission Meeting as snbmitted. Motion passed 6/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR DUling Item 4.D Chair Davis returned to Mallers from the Floor to allow the public to address the Commission. Mark Rodgers, 6531 Kirkwood Circle, questioned the status of the proposed offleash dog area at the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park. He noted he was a Chanhassen resident and he enj oyed using the Shorewood City Parks. Chair Davis stated she did not think there was any change in status since the fall of 2005. She explained the status of the proj ect could be tracked on the Carver County web site under Carver County parks. She stated at the last meeting regarding the "dog park" the cost for the renovation went from $40,000 to $100,000 based on the "wish lists". She then stated Carver County had commitments from private organizations and Chanhassen, and the "dog park" renovation would move forward. Mr. Rodgers stated he had received a flyer for donations to the Park Foundation recently. Chair Davis indicated that the flyer was not sent out by the City of Shorewood. tt-1A CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2006 Page 2 of6 Mr. Rodgers also questioned proposed changes being considered by the Shorewood Park Foundation. Chair Davis stated the Foundation was considering a broader focus. 4. REPORTS A. Report on City Council Meeting Director Brown reported at the March 13, 2006, City Council Meeting Interim City Engineer Gurney gave a presentation outlining the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP). He stated the presentation was done in the format of a Public Hearing, and there were no public comments or questions following the presentation. He stated Staff would continue to work on the SWPPP plan which needed to be completed by June, 2006. He noted the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency . (MPCA) continued to revise theSWPPP requirements. Brown stated Council reviewed and approved the City's goals and priorities for 2006/early 2007. He would distribute a copy to the Commission in the next Commission meeting packel. Brown then reported Council recessed to a Work Session with regard to City water. He stated there was a proposed watennain project (the interconnect for Southeast and Amesbury water systems) on Sl. Albans Bay Road and Manor Road through Suburban Drive to the Parkview Crossing developmenl. A new drainage outlet structure for Manor Pond would be part of this effort. In response to a question from Commissioner Westerlund, Director Brown explained the current outlet structure is located near the bench on the south side of Manor Pond, and outlets down the small ditch along Manor Road. The new structure would require either additional ditching down Manor Road or pulling some other facility in place. In response to a question from Chair Davis, Brown stated there was consideration of increasing the size of the outlet to something greater than the current 6 inch outlel. B. Update on Winter Activity Chair Davis stated April 18, 2006, was the date for a joint work session with Deephaven, Excelsior and Tonka Bay regarding community wide winter activities for 2006/2007. She stated Shorewood would host the meeting and the meeting would be at 7:00 P.M. at the Shorewood Southshore Center Library. She asked Commissioners to come prepared to discuss their ideas. She then stated that Lenny Schmitz a member of the Carver County Park Board was interested in allending the meeting. He had told Davis their Lake Minnewashta Regional Park had conducted a candlelight cross country skiing event that was very successful. C. Music in the Park Chair Davis stated the entertainers for Music in the Park had been booked. With regard to the Children's Program she explained, "Nancy and Friends" were scheduled for June 21, 2006, and "The Magic Inside" was scheduled for July 19, 2006. With regard to the Friday Program she explained "Big Walter" was scheduled for July 21, 2006, and "The Divers" were scheduled for August 18, 2006. She then stated "Cyril Paul" could not be confirmed for June 23, 2006, until late March. She noted that "Nancy and Friends" would host an after show program where children could participate in puppet making for a nominal fee. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2006 Page 3 of6 Davis then explained the City had budgeted $2,200 for Music in the Park and the Park Foundation agreed to donate $500 to the Program. The Conm1ission asked Staff to contact the Park Foundation, on behalf of the Park Commission, and ask them to consider making another $395 donation which would fund the Children's Program costs. D. Manor Park Pond Planting Project Director Brown stated the Conm1ission's recommendation to accept Fortin Consulting's proposal for the Manor Pond Park Planting proj ect design would be on the next City Council meeting agenda. Commissioner Westerlund stated she. would ensure Director Brown was provided with copies of the proposals for the Manor Park Planting project from Fortin Consulting and The Kestral Group for distribution to Council. 5. BLACKTOPPING BADGET AND CARTHCART RINKS Director Brown stated the Commission had raised the question with regard to the feasibility of placing asphalt on the ground surface of the Badger and Cathcart hockey rinks. He explained Staff had researched the issue with the cities ofChanhassen, WoodbUlY, and Wayzata. The three cities had tried asphalt surfaces and the feedback they provided was they were not interested in placing asphalt surfaces on any of their remaining rinks. Brown reviewed the cons of surfacing the rinks with asphalt, which were listed in his report to the Commission on this subject dated February 13,2006. He stated the most significant problem was the intensity ofthe sun in mid-January and February that would result in significant ice mell. Brown stated Staff had recently been made aware that Carver had been testing some type of white surface for hockey rinks and Staff would try and get more information on this type of surface. Commissioner Loheit expressed concern with what appears to be a shortening of the season for the rinks, and he wondered if the ice on the rinks could be maintained past February 14"' each year. Director Brown explained that Tonka Bay was able to maintain ice for an additional 1 - I y, weeks because there were trees that blocked some of the intense sun around their rink. Brown stated that Staff s recommendation is to not put asphalt on the Badger and Cathcart hockey rinks, 6. SOUTHSHORE GARDEN CLUB A. Manor Park Shirley Rice Funding Balance / Adopt-A-Garden Fund Director Brown stated that Judy Famiok had been provided with the fund balance of $717.89 for the Shirley Rice account. For the six gardens the residents had adopted the City would donate $50 to each garden. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2006 Page 4 of 6 B. Status of Donated Trees From Resident Mark Babcock Director Brown stated in the fall of 2005 Mary Babcock offered to purchase six trees and pay for the planting of the trees on Manor Road along Manor Park east of the ballfield. He stated the trees can not be planted until seasonal weight restrictions were lifted May 1, 2006. With regard to a question on tree maintenance, Director Brown stated the trees would result in some additional maintenance. Director Brown asked the Commission if they had any concerns with the proposed planting of trees. Discussion ensued with regard to the screening effect the trees would have on the park, the residents and the users of the park. Discussion ensued regarding the pros and cons of various species of trees. Commissioner Westerlund raised the question as to whether or not the screening would provide opportunity for undesirable activities to take place in the park. Commissioner Nonnan questioned if there would be a loss of usable space because of the tree plantings. Director Brown stated the trees would be planted on the boulevard. Commissioner Westerlund noted residents walked over the boulevard to access the park. Commissioner Westerlund suggested the other residents on Manor Road near Manor Park be notified of the possible planting of trees. Director Brown stated Staff would provide the Commission with a graphic representation of Manor Road depicting the possible tree placement and a recommendation for the specie(s) of t'ee to be planted at the April 2006 Commission Meeting. C. Any New Projects Chair Davis suggested Item 6.C and Item 6.D be discussed together. The Commission asked that Staff prepare a chart which would identify: each City and park garden; the maintenance required for each garden; and who was responsible for the maintenance. In response to a question from Chair Davis with regard to maintenance of the City Hall garden, Director Brown stated a resident maintains the garden and unfortunately that resident was going to relocate. Director Brown explained he had received an email from Councilmember Callies stating the Freeman Park Plaza gardep. required annuals be planted each year and the Park Foundation was not responsible for that ongoing efforl. Chair Davis stated if the Park Commission was responsible for maintaining the garden, then maybe it could consider planting hardy vegetation that does well in a wet environment. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING March I5, 2006 Page 5 of6 Chair Davis suggested the next issue of the Shore Report secure commitments from residents for May plantings. In response to a question from Commissioner Hensley, Chair Davis stated the South Shore Garden Club may be able to assume responsibility for maintaining one more park garden. Director Brown stated that as part of the CIP the City had budgeted some funds for gateway improvements at the County Road 19 intersection. Director Brown stated the intersection required plantings. He stated Brower and Associates had drawn plans for a planting design. He then stated during the construction phase of the Cty Rd 19 Proj ect the Shorewood Shopping center owner stated he would pay for irrigation to be installed for watering the plantings on the Tonka Bay side of the intersection. Commissioner Hensley stated there are a number of organizations, such as the Scouts, that adopt projects. D. Freeman Park Maintenance of Common Gardens for Seniors 7. DETERMINE LIAISON FOR MARCH 27, 2006, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Chair Davis volunteered to be the liaison for 3/27/06 meeting. Commissioner Hensley asked Director Brown if there was an update on the proposed Chanhassen Boulder Cove development. Director Brown stated the Chanhassen Public Hearing for the development had been postponed twice. He stated a leller from Mayor Love, on behalf of the Council, which documented the concerns of the Shorewood Council, Staff, and properly owners had been drafted and he believed it had been sent to Chanhassen prior to the Public Hearing that was originally scheduled for March 7, 2006. He stated drainage and traffic, particularly along Strawbeny Lane and Church Road, were the major areas of concern. Commissioner Hensley questioned Director Brown's perspective on Cathcart Park. He stated the master plan for the Cathcart Park was for a small neighborhood park and it addressed the maximum demographics the park could satisfy. He explained the history behind the Park transitioning to Shorewood ownership even though it was located in Chanhassen. Brown asked the Commission if they felt the Park was overburdened, and what their perspective was on the possible impact of the 62 unit proposed development could be on the park. Chair Davis asked Jeremy Norman, the new Park Commissioner, to introduce himself to the Commission. Commissioner Norman stated he had been a Shorewood property owner since 1999. He applied for a seat on the Park Commission because he had a desire to give back to the community. He explained he had worked for Target's marketing department for the 12 years in the promotions area, with the last 6 _ 7 years in the events departmenl. He stated he believed his background could prove useful with activities such as Music in the Park. He then stated he had been involved with the Hopkins Park and Recreational organization which could also be of value. With regard to the sustainability of the Park Foundation, Director Brown stated the Foundation wanted to increase interest in the organization and broaden its focus. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING March 15, 2006 Page 6 of 6 Commissioner Hensley suggested the topic of open spaces be put on the agenda for the next Commission meeting that was not a joint meeting. He stated the subject of responsibility for open space was briefly discussed at the February 27, 2006, Council Meeting. Commissioner Young stated when Sl. Louis Park tried to address the issue of open spaces it became a much more difficult task than had been anticipated. Director Brown stated the Council had discussed the possibility of having a joint meeting with the Commission where the topic of the Park Commission's responsibilities could be addressed. .8. ADJOURN . Yonng moved, Moonen seconded, Adjourning the Park Commission Meeting of March 15, 2006, at 8:03 P.M. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.ci.shorewood.mn.us. cityhall@ci.shorewQod.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works DATE: March 23, 2006 RE: Authorization for Expenditure of Funds for Professional Design Services for Manor Park Plantings The Park Commission has recently been reviewing Manor Park with regard to water quality and the ongoing issue of goose droppings in and around the park. Out of these discussions, the Park Commission authorized Commissioner Judy Westerlund to obtain proposals for the design and installation of plantings around the Manor Park pond, in order to deter geese from the pond and playground structure. At the regularly scheduled Park Commission meeting of February 14, 2006, the Park Commission considered two proposals from firms involved in this type of design. Attachments I and 2 are proposals received from Fortin Consulting Group and Kestrel Design Group, respectively. Table I is a summary of the proposals. Firm Fortin Consulting Group Kestrel Design Group Design $1,150 $2,987 Construction and $9,320 (1) $1,318 (2) Construction Admin. Total $10,470 $4,305 Table 1 Notes: (1) This total utilizes the high end of the ranges provided ill the Fortill Proposal. (2) Dollar amounts were extrapolated from Kestrel's proposal from the hourly figures provided for constructioll versus design. All estimate for cOllstruction was not provided as part of this proposal. n tJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER '1;3 I _ Mayor and City Council Authorize Professional Design Services for Manor Park Pond. March 23,2006 Page 2 of2 Due to the differences in the proposals received, staff commented that the Park Commission consider recommending the award of a contract at this time just for the professional design services. The Park Commission concurred. It recommended to award the design proposal to Fortin Consulting, to develop two concept plans, and present them to the Commission. Costs of the identified work are on a not-to- exceed basis of $1 ,500, with funding from the Park Capital Improvement Program. Recommendation The Park Commission recommends award of the design proposal to Fortin Consulting, on a not- to- exceed basis of $1,500, with funding from the Park Capital Improvement Program. IVIH~-':::::':::::-':::::UUb Ib;':::::U IVl L W LJ Shorewood Park Commission Julie Westerlund 20425 Manor Road Shorewood MN 553311 Febl1llll'y 2, 2006 Fa< ;Dlz..~ ':;I~'::::: 4'(1 Ubt::d t-' .l:ll/\j'( I .~ Dear Shorewood Parlk Commission: Fortin Consulting is pleased to respond to your request for bids on your Manor Park buffer projeet. We ulnderstand you are tlying to get a general iidea of tbe cost of this project. We have dOI~e our best to outline some of the tasks and associated costs of the projeet. We understlnnd this is going to be a collaborative proj,ect inllluding the City, volunteers and FOrtiJll Consultmg. It is unclear at this time what role each group would play. Tberefore we bave outlined general costs and tasks to help you gain a better understanding of the process. We are available to answer questions. DESIGN Task Site visit to layout dimensions, discuss pond buffer on si ht Project team to furward any design uirementslrestrictionsl oals Rou des Site visiV on site me<lting. Spring of2006 to determine accuracy of assumptiions, observe water level, vegetation, bank stability, nmoff, Alr ust des' Determine budget, timeline, labor force timeline 2/1/06 Shorewood Wimer 2006 FCI FCI and Shorewood park commission Winter 2006 spring 2006 FCl Shorewood S ri 2006 Winter 2006 Design cost: $1,150..00 IMPLEMENTATION Task Coordinate implementation task; timeline Winter and Growing season 2006 Growillg season 2006 Obtain permits if FCI or city necess Ron h cost complimentary $750 $150 $250 Rou cost $750 $0-$250 Attachment #1 MAR-22-2006 16'20 Mew D 952 471 0682 P.02/07 1 call to mark FCI or City Growing season underwound utilities 2006 Stabilize site jf FC! Growing season $0- $2,000 needed (bank 2006 stabilization, surfilce runoff stabilization) Herbicide - 2 FCI or City. Need certified Growing season $400 applications of water Herbicide professional 2006 safe herbicide mulch - acquire and City and volunteers Growiing season 16 hours spread 2-4 inches dClilp 2006. After herbicide. Buy temporary fencing City Growing season $100 (materials) 2006 Install fencing volunteers Growing season 8 hours 2006 Project sign FC! Growing season TemDorarv 2006 comolimeIltarv Project sign City Growing season ent 2006 Locate and order FCI Growing season $150 olants 2006 Purchase plants. City Growing season 51500-$2500 I (materialS) 2006 Ten-asorb - if watering FCI Growing season $60 not available 2006 Plant delivery City Growing season $150 (materials-assumes 1 2006 Review site prep and FCl Growing season $SOO fix problems, make 2006 sure equipment and supplies are ready for planting day. Start layout. Layout plants and FCl Growing season 51000 supervise volunteers 2006 for day 1 (8 hours for 2 DooDle) Finish planting/fencing FCl or city Growing season 0-$1000 or whatever is left 2006 after volunteers ouit plant volunteers Growing season 30 hOUTS 2006 olantillll time Water available fur city Growing season Dlanti",z dav 2006 MAR-22-2006 16:21 Mew D 952 471 0682 P.03/07 maintenance checklist FeI Growing season $60 2006 4 hours weeding help FCI Growing season $300 and volunteer training 2006 or 2007 (1 trip) Implementation COllt: Supplies: 52,350.00 Tbis assumes no stabilization is needed. This assumes that mulch will be provided free from the city. Items in bold were included in this cost. Costs will vary depending upon final design. Labor: $3,160.00 This is the bare minimum_ We recommend you look seriously at the City, park commission lInd volunteer time availllbility lInd include other items lIS needed. Only items in bold w,ere included in this cost. This rough eost estilnate is based 00 the following in!ormaltioo: Julie Westerlund (lml FCl meusuremems: Square foot area is estimated to be 3873 Assume 3 grass patl1ll6 feet wide and 18.8 feet long = 338.4 feet wlo plants Therefore 3534.6 feet of planting area Assume all upland plllllting City specs(provided by Julie Westerlund): "We're looking for some help with the project. We'd lik:eto have it professionally designed to meet our goals (see below) and we'd like guidancel on the step-by-step process. We plan to use neighbors to execute the planting, bu~ will probably want to have a professional on site' to make sure we're doing everything right. The pond is small (about 1.2 acres). The approximate length oithe planting would be about 100 to 1 50 j~. Our goals for the project are: 1) deter geese from tlile area, whicl1 is next to the children's phlY area (the pea gravel that the kids play in alwa:ys has goose waste in it) 2) increase habitat for pond critters (frogs, dragonflies, butterflies, etc) 3) increase visual int1erest along the shoreline of the pond, 4) act as a buffer zone to filter runoff and pollutants" Comments: We have not seen t1u~ site during the growing season. We are not sure of the stability of the site, the amount of surface runoff; the roots of the trees, the stability of the pond edge, and the existing vegdation. All of this infonnation win influe:nce the final design. We ate unsure how much the city, or volunteers would like to take on. FCI encourages active participation by all interested parties. We will guide you through the process and MAR-22-2006 16:21 Mew D 952 471 0682 P.04/07 fill in where help is needed. Because it is unknown how much others plan to do, our costs estimates are balSed on what we have experienced with other groups in similar projects_ We assume the city ill responsible for finding volunteers and that Fer will teach the volunteers that arrive on planting day. We have an. idea of tile types of plants desired fortbis buffer. However. as more input is given the plant selections may vary, affecting the price of the plant cost esti.nul.te. Thank you for tbe opportunity to bid on this project_ It is a great idea and will be a beautiful addition to :your park. MAR-22-2006 16:21 Mew D 952 471 0682 P.05/07 (.\KESTItt.Ltt I - fl.'::~.." '~-'!I'l ~ ~ ~~ /o<~"::~- \ '1;/i~~~:,Jlijj;i!i _:f.......a" .t....JI.,.. J (~GR'O_uP"lt I..;Uld~(jlp~ An:hlter~UI'C l';C\)!IIj.(ic;lllk"h.(ll Natuml^rL':L~I'I:llll\illg Ddilll,::LLiml,Pt.:J'1IIilI.i1l!i,Milil-{il!..iot\ EllvinUllUL:II!;ll Ma~ll~' Phlllllill}> FllI': W~tJn.l1(I~, 1~'\kL'll. Rivers, I'ralde, S;]ViJlUl;I,Womlhllll] FebJ'uary 13. 2006 M,. Julie Westerlund Shorewood Parks Commission Shore wood MN KDG #2006-287 Dear Ms. Westerlund: Thank you for the opport.unity to suhmit Ii pmpnsal ror hnprovlng the. aesthetics and function:; of the buffer sun:ounding the pond of Manor Park. Wo;; look forward to working with you and the Shorewood Parks Commission. Listl~d below arc some of the. goal:-; you w(mld 'like thls project to achieve utling a professionally designed planting plan: . Dett!' geese ftom hanging a!'ound the children's play area . Increase habitat for pond crltters . lnc!'ease visual i.nte!'est along the shoreline of the pond . Create more of an established buffer zone to filter runoff and pol1utants . Uf.it volunteers from the community to implement the plan Since we have been involved wit.h Ii number of projcct~ that have successfully achie:;ved the goals you've described. here is a process we at the Kestrel Design Group propose: I) SITE ANALYSIS, SYNTHESIS, & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 1. McL:l at manOr Park and discuss and review the opportunities and constraints with the Shore wood Park.s Conunission or a representati ve chosen by the Parks Commission. H. Conduct research and in-depth field analysis of the sitt to verify the opportunities and conslraints inherent to improving the sileo II L Create a Base Plan based on plans provided by the city and ne.1d meaSurements conducted by the Kestrell)~sign Group. IV. Create two conceptual planting plans in cODpcration with the Shorewoou Parks Commission based on the aforementioned information and that will also take into account the cost of implementation using of volunteers. V. Review and approve a concept plan with the Shorewood Parks Commission. VI. Develop a Finai Planting plan that can be implemented by volunteers. 2) CONSTRUCTION IlUGETING AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAILS 1. Put together step-by-step, non-binding planting details (along with construction details if needed) that t;~n be llsed by volunteers for implementing the tin.alized plan. n. Provide management manual that Can be used by volunteers KO maintain and insure the projecl\! viability. ~ 1'1,1', KF..-STHF.l. DF.I)IGN CHOUl'. INC, .11;'Ui H;1I11'~.f.~()ll AW~llllt~. Sui!.t:. [ E~lilm, Mir1l1~~jll<1 .'1.14:,(; (052) il21:l-%OO F<L' ([lS2) [l~-19:-:lO www.k.esu'ddesi~lIJ,\TOUP,;;OIIl Attachment #2 MAR-22-2006 16:22 Mew D 952 471 0682 P.06/07 3) CONSTRUCTION AIDMINISTRATION & OBSERVATION 1. Adminihtcr conlitruction contracts and assist in sourcing and ~;ecuring necessary plants and at-her matcriats a;:.; needed, II, Conduct construction inspection~ observation, and implementatlOlll;uperv1sion or volunteers. 4) MEETINGS, PRESENTA nONS & P~;Rl\1l'l'TING t. Condnct meetings, presentations, and laying out the work at the site as necessary. II. Client will be responsible for securing aU needed permit;>.. 1100l< forward to dihcussi:ng this proposal in more det.ail with you before yt)ur next Shorcwood Parks Commission meeting, February 14. I would encourage you and the other members of your commIttee to review our web site at www.kesrreldesigngroup.com. Thank you again, Sincerely, Ted Harley Proj ect Manager ~ 'j'HE Kf..<;n'I~I~L DE..'iIGN CROUP, INC. 5J:~() I-hlllkt:r~oll AV~l111C, Sllil\::. 11~J.liI1;l, Mil1nL:~llr:l ,~i)1.'1(j (~ii~) !);1li-~)(){)O f;L\: (!J.'52l 028-1~la9 w\VW,ke~Ln~ldt'.~i~Jlgrol'p,(\lln IVIHr<-dd-o::::ljljb Ib; dd 1'1 L. W LJ '::I:::'d ~rrl !,1bCid t-'.Ij'(/Ij'( Manor Pond Planting Plan Proposal Hours 1) SITE ANALYSIS, SYNTHESIS, & DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Meet at Manor Park and discuss to review the opportunities and constraints with the Shorcwood Parks Commission or a representative chosen by the Parks COlll1l1i!ision".,."""" .,_,.,........ ....... .... ........ .... . ... .... ...n." .... 2 Conduct research and in-depth field analysis of the ,ite to verify the oppt)rlunitic, and constraints inherent to improving the site.""",..,.,. .,...",,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,,.,..,...,, 2 Create a l3ase Plan based on plans provided by the city and field measurements conducted by Kestrel Desi.gn Group, ....................... ....,.. ,.......... ,................. 4 Create two conceptual planting plans in cooperation with the Shorewood Parks Commissiorl, that take into account cost of implementation and the use of volunteers..... . n...... __n........ ... n......._.. n........... ........, ....."....." ",,,,,.....,....,,. 6 Review and approve a cOIlcept plan with the Shol'ewood Parks (~on1mission._.... __....... _n......... .........._.., .........'".,...,.....,.....,.,.......,..... 2 Develop a Final Planting plan that can be implemented hy volunleers_.................... 7 2) CONSTRUCTION BUDGETING AND IMPLEMENTATION DETAiLS f'ullOgClhcr step-by.'tep, non-binding planting details (along with construction det.ails if needed) that can be used hy volunteers ror implementing the finalized plan 2 Provide management manual that can be used. by volunteers..___................___....... 3 3) CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION & OBSERV.4110N Admini.st.erconst.rul;-t.ioncontract., ........._... ....._........n.._ ........... 3 Conduct construction inspections, observation, ~nd i.mpkmcmalion supcrvhion or volunteers,... '''' ,..""..".. "... "....,.... ....." ........." ..-..".. .-_.." --..,.... ,..-.. 12 4) MEETINGS, PRESENTATIONS & PERMITTING Conduct meetings. presentations, and laying ont the work at the site as necessary...... 6 Client will be responsible for securing alL permits Total Hours 49 Total Costs $4,305 ~ '["HF. KE'rI'HF.I. ])l',SJ(;N (;.HOl iI', I N(;.,'; I:{(; 1-l:Il\kl~r~I)I) AV(~l1lll~, Sllill.~ J l:,din:l, MinnClOO\;1 .55t\,;.!{; N!i2) !l'Jl{.!)(iO() F;lx mii~) !)2R.!D;-I9 www.kl:~I'I'l:lddigng"(\Hp.l'l)1l1 TOTRL P.07 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474.0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewQod.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 March 2006 RE: Buckley, Greg - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (06.03) BACKGROUND Mr. Greg Buckley owns the property at 25885 Birch Bluff Road (see Site Location map- Exhibit A, attached). The property is located in the R-1C/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district and contains approximately 21,781 square feet of area. The lot is technically a corner lot, having frontages on Birch Bluff Road and a "paper street", originally platted as Second Street (see Site Plan - Exhibit B). Mr. Buckley has applied for a setback variance to build an addition on the east side ofhis home, behind the existing garage, as shown on Exhibit B. The proposed two-story addition measures 8' x 24' and necessitates a 25-foot variance. As illustrated on Exhibit B, the required setback from the Second Street right-of-way cuts the property approximately in half. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION There is ample precedent for granting the applicant's request for a variance. The City has, on other occasions, granted similar variances for properties abutting fire lanes (platted rights-of-way leading to lakeshore). The most recent case involved a relatively substantial remodel/addition on Birch Bluff Road. A more pertinent case involved the property immediately west of the subject fire lane, in which case the owner was allowed ,. f: t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ... =It 8, A. Memorandum Re: Buckley Variance 14 March 2006 to build a garage 10 feet from the property line. While Second Street is not a fire lane, it is similar in that it will never be opened as a city street. Nor is it recommended for vacation as it provides access to a parcel of land located immediately south of the subject property. It is worth noting that the Second Street right-of-way is part of a small network of so- called "paper streets" south of Birch Bluff Road. Second Street and Third Street, to the west, are north/south rights-of-way, connected by Clara Avenue, which runs east and west (see Exhibit N). A number of years ago, the City examined the area in question relative to the future of these rights-of-way. The "Clara A venue Study" concluded that the streets were too substandard in width, did not respect topography and homes were built too close to them to upgrade into standard city streets. Nevertheless, it was decided that they would not be vacated as they did provide limited access to three large parcels of land on the south side of Clara Avenue. Since then, several things have occurred that support not opening the rights-of-way as city streets. Property served by Third Street to the west has been subdivided and share a common driveway over the right-of-way. Maple View Court (Wallen Ponds) has been constructed and provides some access to the parcel of land south and east of the intersection of Second Street and Clara Avenue. Finally, the property at 25865 Birch Bluff Road (immediately south of the subject property) was granted an incidental use of right-of-way permit to build one house on that property. So, while not reconunended for vacation, Second Street need not be developed as a city street, making it very similar to the fire lanes that currently exist in Shorewood. The 35-foot setback required from Second Street severely limits the buildability of the applicant's lot. Exhibit B illustrates the required setback relative to the existing home and the proposed addition. If allowed a 10-foot setback from the right-of-way, the applicant has adequate room to fill in the space behind the garage, which is already at a ten-foot setback. Note - at the time the home was built, the City did not require the builder to observe a 35-foot setback. The applicant's situation is considered quite unique and does not adversely affect the character of the existing neighborhood. As in similar requests relative to fire lanes, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a variance be granted, treating the right-of-way in question as a typical side yard. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Greg Buckley -2- ~ CI:l ~ c: o ...... Q) c: c: ~ Q) ~ CI:l .....J z....c: 0 1i: .. o . o ~ o. o ~ N o '\ >- ro III ro ~ c: o I- \ II 'I I 10 \ H~ I VlnOJ.fNVl'< )-. !( \ ---< L-" '<11~VlS ) }\ // I \ --{ '" \ \-J I 17"'''7;/j1 L.-:;:l':0t~O \ --{ Ita i '" / ~ L"," wH\/! >'\_. ~ I ......... o~ j i 7 ... ...... ;.. \ \ \" ~ ""~". -! L ,,/'-'---." 7 L .........~~~~ It I .... I "i~ ",-- i- f-- ~ ~ I ~- "''' \ " M'~OO~W' ~ \ ~ \.i. I I '\. I '\; I ~\ q : \Y1 f\\\- ~ II o < <lio ...(J;"c,\~ ~... ... ... ~I~"" )--- .., 0- < ~ - .., ~ - _ ~r . _ I . I ~... ... ... I-----' . 5 'f> j" ;- "'~I \- 1 (...~...... n ~ \"'1 ~ ...V~~ OIl'<f)l311n3 e J ~ ~~~ U ~ '" '" "-'.Q, .c 0 ::1_>:_\\ en c. \\ '\ , I \ \ / Vr- 1 I--- - ... ... ... ==1 ... ... ... ... \'" ~ \ '\ \\ ,\ \\.. ..1 lj -- ~V; \/:IY /'1 ... ~ o o o "" '""0' ,N"O I ...~ ;(\ -- o < OllZN31:101.l.NVl;lO - o ~ / ... '\ ... ~ J J. '----- - -VI::::: I I \ I / \ T Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Buckley setback variance I I -----.--..-.-.---- ----.------- -------.--' ----- -------~-~--_.~ .- - . .------------ -- -- ~-------- ---. ~.~ --l ::::0::::: :::I: m c:-:> :=: --I ---r1 <...~. >- -< :::c "- c:::>C:::> ..., ~ C/> C/> :::I: c= c:::> :::c :::c c:::::: m~ 3c:::> c:::> :=: CJ ..., .- m g;e;~ ~{;" Q: S"ri 0<<:) ~2:!~;::::~ u:;>g<nOO s......~urVJ ~!'..l~::::ft ~ f!~l a>~~ ~Ul: ~_:::s." -.--- '"C -" =- ~g" ~ g:_~ro ~ ~~~ o:c:;o-"" ,....~~~ S;if~ --- ~~a -:.~>- ~<1:C; ~13.~ ~ ~ N T ..( '. ."'id.tl. ~~ .:::~' 9101.' ....15.0 -'. .-.., --~ --~ ! -J \j1 i) ,~ , - ' ~ i i I . '.: J.~"k _ _ <.!l i .;... I t :"11 .' J I I '71bij_ I "-.'~ .> i'-j ~ \) \11 \}J ,,"" ja.S: \" --- \ f- ~-F 11-: --.l . \ ",.,-,..........\"\~' !~.~ , ' , _! ~ ........-.>.~ ~ I \J) .", I o ~:"I I I ,'" ' b'l '77 - i N I ,;b .' .;) ....... ,0 , I ! "',---' , I ~ " , " .....-~ 1 I ':."- >--.' .....-.?" , i ~ B7f.2.. I I -. ",,"~ ,%J.7 I I ,9"7':) <@tr:---~ ~ \ i , I , '-' r-:- ~ :i t.9: j Ul I I i i I I , 0\ N ~ ~ ~ '" "' \) I I ~ I ,_ ~ ~ I () Prophsed newadd'l' ~ I lion .%, 24- " ;:> Q 8 '" ,08 ;;; l~t~';j 3 . .~~=: . .<,,:c:_ .~~.1:'7~~ ,'!j74j 3 ~~7 0 ,.. ..> o /0 ".9 . ,,- ; I~ ~ : I I I i , I 1.------- Exhibit B SITE PLAN Tr~es marked are l~o" ': . I ';.--"- I circumference i '-.. lc,,- ~ -,..' ,,15'57 " ..-::::: -- 25 January 2006 Shorewood City Council & Planning Commission Country Club Lane Shorewood, MN To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to request a sideyard setback variance to the City Zoning Ordinance pertaining to a proposed addition to my house at 25885 Birch Bluff Road. The scope of the project is documented in the attached. The 24' x 8' addition to lower and upper levels of my house is to be used to create an additional bedroom/den on the upper level, and create a separate space on the lower level for computer/work study area for the kids. My lot is relatively nan'ow with side sloping topography. At the time the house was built, the interpretation was not made to require the 35 foot sideyard setback on the east side. The existing garage wall was built 10 feet from the east property line and the addition is proposed to line up with that existing garage wall. It would be consistent to interpret the east side setback again as a typical sideyard setback. I believe a variance is valid, pursuant to criteria set forth in Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1) The public street at the heart of the hardship is a platted street on paper only, and cUITently in use as a single residential drive only. The road is 22ft maximum width as determined during the Nelson's Right-of-Way Pennit (see City Council Meetings Feb. 9,2004) with topography issues on either side ofthe road. 2) My lot is narrow and the platted street 35ft setback was not interpreted or enforced when the house was built. If imposed now, the 35 foot east setback line would be in the middle of my house and the total sideyard setbacks would acquire 45 feet of the 78 foot lot width; both are issues which are unduly restrictive given my current plan and for any future marketability of my lot. 3) The addition is a build-out on the existing house to match/meet the existing garage 10ft set-back and sightline. The build-out will replace an area previously used as dog kennel. No trees or other structures need removal. 4) A variance, in same fashion as other fire lane variances granted by the City, would appear applicable in this case. I appreciate your consideration of my request. Sincerely Yours, I Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER Dated 25 January 2006 '" Greg A. Buckley Property Owner I )0 ,~t I -z.q I i I \ -4- i I , I t I -z.,. t-. ~-_.~- lfI.' i-f7'+10 ~ -+1 ; Ib' \ ( ,.. D- \~t .-t ~Is\,~ L\mru.\ItL r:l",-, -1ca1..l. : ''b<' .::::('- o'f~~V~'Uc. 1/4-!O(. j3rz- ~* GG~r-...,.y - -d I It --n- ~...f ~' \ (.pm~) I I ! . tl l\VI~ ~I\'\ Fr \.or i r ' \ . \ 4"" , I \ i ~. )' ~, ~F- La-v 'i),h 1"'5 10' lIf' fl > t ~\.ld''1r> J \'i- " ~. ..../ -_..._~! -r). 1." -=,T \'~'o ~L......-- ",'---' '1;0- J -------------- 1-t --'''---'''-1 _ ___......~____ ,.__ ~r j; N _._-'.._"....."~..~~... Exhibit D UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN EXISTING (,1 -J- I ~' 11 ! \~I , ~ 17.-' ! "'Z-'2. t ,.-- t---- tBf ~t ~cJ.;. Br<:. ~'j2:. I Ifb /f-_.,,,,,-- . 'Wle. c..L. . ~of (tA f ,));:; ~I ~12- La-v '/ ol.~ I "Zb .t:t- . -+--. r I r \0 , ~ ?--r c. 'P<>fc,k) Li\JH\9~ tAf 1>r" \OJ 9 {~' ~ iAMttl'l ~p ext, P.a-riGl T: I " '7' (1;:/ t l-t -t \J t------ .:::,-:=:=-~-.., ____ f~ -It 5Y. J. III r U\J'i-t >vv N : \ ~\\-:= \ ~ol\~oJA. UL. Yb l?b Exhibit E UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED \Of t 'tLf ~~f\ \1 It \ i I \ ~'V I I c++ -t--~..- .---~-. .. tf hI ~ -f-6 -t--' \0' --+-~~-~ '2Ii~-1~ =F;",,'l1 ~l2 (;>OM. u.+il i.l1 lov r- I ~-- I ~I""<<j"t.-- 2,.l.f1 rt ----~.....-- tt" ' ~\"'cl-. t/t.JII \..L-I-:lj 'lfOy"4i 4(~ \ r \0 fr .f'-; ., 1512- lJ.J..f.'t, C~Y. ; ( Vi> i~ l.f 1 l t ':'\ I \ \ i I '~, $'" 101 + r ,'11 \. i I +1 101 l1t~. I. ( I , ~ ~"t\sf-ri"\ Wl,.0t:.\ L~\J<(:.L {~ N ~ Ye:';;..lf~i?"-r~~a.c..- V"t~ Exhibit F LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING , cjf, I 10' I 1-'f 1 I I I +- ! I r, " ._'-'~_....-'-~~- f-- l~ 4e/- f---'- I 7.{,. tz1t . 'P;JtC7 , I z..z, 1 I I ~ 'f6rc.~ r r::lM\l'1 ~Il'\, ~ j.>~ lAY U+5d Ll1.1 .( /' Lev 7kr.:;o'3t- ~faj'i.- ~)(C.?1 ~y ~<l,t. ~ I ( \0 \ I \~ ' t%' \~f l t I )~I +' +1 Exhibit G LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - PROPOSED ..~. . ...~:',;..I.~ - ''';1''~ . ~l i ; ; ) '-Sl ~ .... ....v r- ~- .f~- b \\' ~ --' '=t ~ -=-- ~--.:., .~\: c . \l r . , ,-1 r" e- i-- ,j ! ,\ \1 I I , ~.... ~ .". .; \ -'.lI,~-!' \.\ ,. .__.~.__.J-.._ - .' Exhibit H PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION - NORTH h~..--.. I .....-. . /L:... / -...-...- -...- - --. / -.... ;t]' . ;' ... --==- :i~.-- /' __._n - ~-Jl. / , ....1 -1 t----.-.. 1 ,. _____A__...'. ,'__..._.. _, _ .-. ..-"-"" . - .~n r=J-----1 t--. , - Ll-"--[~:' i I Cl 7 F'- ....-. . i--';:~~- i .. C"- - ~-~ . ~ .. '::"ZJ . . -l;f .- --:-:- .L! 1 .... .. ~ t~ .{ Jf ~. Exhibit I PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A nON - EAST r;,ll--- - . >. . ~\*'~\ . ~rn'~ - \,) - t :j .~~-_..__.' .' ~ 1 I~=-~.. .~~ \ \h=-1r~1 -- .-1 I] :~ -it; l-!-]i 1 ,I t-- ---/1 ==- =r'~:'-\ - -J I' ~.. \~rl' :J (:l: ~ ~lf r\ . .~\\ I ' r~J', =-, I- rl _... . - \. _ _ t== - _..-"~. 1==:":--'- .- ---- I IJ) III 0.0:. - Exhibit J PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH \' I a....- k >.,~>... ,......'.., . ";.:..;.-.;.:.,:- --.) .:''';:.:_-.-' '",/ 'I '<.. -~ .- "-'.. ~ -- o . ::.j - I ~r:c' --:H j Ir~--t= -, i! F \ \. r ; .-i ~ " \.-..- . ." . ~ -1 2. --:... \----- . ---- - ~ ~~ \ ~~- -.....--- -..1 ~~ \;-. ----I e C \ .n"_ __..__' ~ \ . ! \- .....-----.. - ! \ .. -.------j '.. ___n----~~-:- \\ ~ l . ___.n._.' _ ..._...,__....._ ...--.-",,__..--0 i I ! I 1 ! I Exhibit K PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A nON - WEST Exhibit L PHOTO-SECOND STREET Exhibit M PHOTO - EXISTING EAST ELEVATION CLARA A VE.!SECOND ST. 052 99 r N l~JJ -~ ~ r& 021 OB ..,... M,Slc rtrt o ~. [9'Q9 z e-o- n.~ a>< om ::;<->, --rqnv ZL-9-1 :J\fAI fT:3 ~ ~ -';""'-Sil ., ]" '-4 t"'l~ 0 C) 0 "' "" vi'i "' '" . ",'., ~ ----..~---- ",,' \":"" ,\ "{>,: _ q: ~"'~v6'vZ. ~ M.Str.Bv..6BN . as'ss'., 61' LO~ M,SI,ll..OS L~'2Lv \: . m '::t~:g QE~~,~t& 00' a; N v v ., ~ "' ~ m N 0 0", !:J ~ . ~N ~ N in ~ ~ . m ~ ~ 0 z ~ 0 ~ " ;1; 0 ~, 10:1'012 ....' 2' iD1Ino ~"'" , '. \J o C:! ~ 03 !:J ~'~ I \ ~ ~-:t.:.- .6 ~' (,.., X~ (. .~ J'~1g,~w.~g,~I;;bJ.l" '^,ON.", ffl w-8'O~6':"H:ra(jN'-'~21~~II" "_. ',9b,/8L ~LI ~ If) ~ ,".'I&;.m.__' 'r=~!!ft ~"C'-N to to., ,,' , p:) ,lIf -J, "~l!IIIo"'''' IJ1 .t.I,~~!;~---.~.-IIl':;'a~N8 dX.;:;~ '!--.. .......... ~ - -~ :0.# ~t'I':1.<:) ;'W ~. .. .d:lli!. - <,.1;,,0' 0:1- B!(Jtrl J,Jl:lON 99!O~1 :r~"\'l; z . L 101 21 1bj Ifi. ;6S"!>vl HUlON .:10 U:lV .:10 18\;f'~,~~: ~ ..;~:\_---... ~ Exhibit N VICINITY \l" ~ '" ...;} ct ~ ::l- 6 > ~" C:! S'.,\ ~o-'. ',9.', ~t!o>'" "06'....... f- a ~~~ > ~ a Cl Vl W 0:: OJ o I'"i n <.0 N N f- a ---1 ffciifi\ 1....._ 1~IHt(-':::::l::J-.:::::tJl::JO tJ'(;:"':-O b1.'::::: bt:l4 ':'U':L':::l 1""'.l::J.:::::/t.l'::::: March 16, 2006 City of Shorewood c/o Planning Department 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: 25885 Birch Bluff Road - Setback Variance To Whom It May Concern: We would like the Planning Commission to know that we support Bridget and Greg Buckley in their request for a setback variance in order to build an addition onto the southeast area of their home. Si~l~)II~' ,JI~~ (..--1' .. /E!f<.-UU ~ Don & Laurie Mann 25880 Birch Bluff Road Shorewood, MN 55331 TOTAL P.02 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GREG BUCKLEY WHEREAS, Greg Buckley (the Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 25885 Birch Bluff Road in the City of Shorewood, said property legally described as: "All of Lots 11 and 12 and the east 15 feet of Lot 10 and Lot 13 as measured along the north and south lines thereot~ all in Block 2, Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff (Lake Minnetonka), Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof'; and WHEREAS, the Applicant wishes to build an addition to his home approximately 10 feet from the east boundary of the propeliy, which boundary abuts a platted street right-of-way known as Second Street; and WHEREAS, the property is zoned R-l CIS, Single-family ResidentiallShoreland, which zoning district requires a 35-foot setback abutting a street right-of-way, and the Applicant has requested a 25- foot setback variance to build the garage; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 14 March 2006, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Conunission at their regular meeting on 21 March 2006, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request for a variance was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 March 2006, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Plamling Conunission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City Staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT I. The subject property is located in an R-l CIS, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district and contains approximately 21,781 square feet of area. 2. The subject property is occupied by the Applicant's existing home. 3. The subject property abuts a 22-foot wide, plalled street right-of-way named Second Street, which is currently being used as a driveway access to property south of the subject property. 4. Several years ago the City of Shorewood conducted a study of existing platted, but undeveloped street rights-of-way in the area, which study concluded that the rights-of-way in question would not be vacated and would be retained by the City. 5. The Applicant proposes to construct an 8' x 24', two-story addition on the east side of the existing home. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicant has established an undue hardship and has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the appropriate sections of Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicant's request for a setback variance to build a room addition 10 feet from the east boundary of the property. C. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shore wood this 27th day of March, 2006. ATTEST: Woody Love, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474~0128 . www.cLshorewaod.mn.us . cityhall@ci.shorewQod.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Conunission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 March 2006 RE: Bury, Blair and Sharon - C.u.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (06.04) BACKGROUND Blair and Sharon Bury have applied for a conditional use permit to construct an attached garage on their property, located at 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive (see Site Location map- Exhibit A, attached). The floor area of the new garage, when combined with an existing attached garage, brings the total area of accessory space on the property over 1200 square feet. The property is zoned P.U.D.lS, Planned Unit Development/Shoreland and contains 59,077 square feet of area. Exhibit B shows the location of the existing house, garage, and the proposed garage. The existing house contains approximately 3560 square feet of floor area in the two levels above grade. The existing garage contains 760 square feet of floor area. The proposed garage contains 810 square feet, which brings the total area of accessory space on the site to 1570 square feet. The existing garage is end loading from the north, while the proposed garage addition will be perpendicular facing east along with the house (see Exhibits C and D, attached). ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use pennit. Following is how the applicants' proposal complies with the Code: n f: .. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ... -#= B. B. Memorandum Re: Bury CUP 14 March 2006 a. The total area of accessory space (1570 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principal structure (3560 square feet). b. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the P .U.D./S zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). c. The proposed garage complies with the setback requirements of the P.U.D./S zoning districl. Hardcover on the property will go from approximately 17.3 percent to 23.1 percent, remaining in compliance with the 25 percent maximum. d. As shown on Exhibits C and D, the new garage addition will be integrated into the architecture ofthe existing home. As such the rooflines, materials and architectural character ofthe garage are consistent with the principle dwelling. In light of the preceding, the applicant's request is considered to be consistent with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit be granted as requested. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Joe pazandak Blair Bury -2- -/ J-J t:I_ ~ m~ rC~~ ~f>~'\;"" ,I \/ I 1;<:.. '" ,,,,. ~ X::~ ~ ~~, ,," ~ .... l Vt ~ ~ L- i- - llaJ.~V:.lfjJ.V:l '-. HSllVW ','0 ' ' ','~, '~ ~i ~ ~ ~ OV ~ ~ ,\ n "'" -/- ~ r .' : ',' ,~';,TII\1'/ I \\\\~",.... \ ~ ..",00"" I----::: \_ J '1 ~ ~ -I~; ""'",. \ ~ 1\ ~::---i JW r= -;;::-~.- ""\~ \ / """" ~ / ,;>. _ II l' F\ ~ ~ 7j ~ J. '------ .\ ~ ~ i --;~ ~ ' , , ' n~~~ :\\'> ~ '---~ \ ~.~~~ =l '7 _JJ: ,- K ~~'--- ~ 'r=-- c-- ,..;;, 1..0 I \..:::/ ------- ~~-=:' ' ~J.. ro ..l<: c .8 Q) c c ::::::: Q) ..l<: ro ....I ~ ~ ~ ) "~\' ~ ~ ""'" (!) '> b !1l P, \-. ::;~I --- m ... ~ ~) .... () :> - o >. :~ U z...... ~ ~ ~ ~<l1: ~_ - ~ ~J-- f2)[Y if( -----.: "'=::::-..J. ~~ ---:: ~ ~ " o . o ~ :3 o Exhibit A SITE LOCA nON Bury conditional use permit o ~ N . I 1l0Inll.ln.."..._m~ @ ~'"'"" '-'d 311S ilK 'QOOMilllOHS 11111 'I1a1nOI O!lt8t !NOH ~'Mng :~NI<IVll~ crv ONV~OOd ')pao NOLI.lOav OmnlOlld x !iOllto01I~~ ,,,,.'" """'.. """"" ...... 'iUva Bn5S[. x x x u~n~ ~,,~,,~~ , ~~~ a 3. n S S I <;la"'ll.H; "" '''''''' "''''' , ""''''''' ....." ',I.';IYJlt/r.! -- 1l0.l?~J.NO? ~i1Hil9 ~, tllNOHd "''''' , """" """"" :.171'.110" .lIfI'ol~' llil3NIt;lNiI'M:lnJ.?mfJ.9 :J.?l'J.MO':l .." 'O:l'llH9ISt!J.1Yl1lMlG J.?i1JJH?llY '1IU?r~d ~o~ , UU5 NW"'ll!'q~:JltlI on""" Pi.qSJl1lfl~t9t ........-.,...".." ONOd , .I / / / I , . I I I I' / / / ./ ./ / / ,/ / // / .- .- // _/ -- --~- 01'6 --- { I ~ V I I / / I / / / / / I / / / I ! , !'O . li /9 '" I I / / I I I i / / / / / / I / / / I I I I '~ I I i I / I I J I / If' ro I l ,fi ro I i' ~ 19 ~ " ' -A; a; ./ ;' / / // / I I I I I I / ' I / / / / / / I / / / / / I I I I I I ' / / I / / I I ,/ I I I / ' I . / I / ! / ! I / I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I , , _/ I I I I ! I I I / / / ( / ( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / / ./ /// / / I I l I / / / I i / I l I -l / / I / I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I , I \ \ I i \ \ i I \' I \ \ \ V3'103dIOOfv'l\ \ I I i I. .' i 1 \ // I 1 \ ,,/ / i \ '" /' 0 ~ / ...... ",/ Ol en // I -,'" ,,/ / / ' I / I I I .' I / / / / / / I I I ! I I I I I I I I I / .j f I I I ( , I I ,/ I / / / / I I I I I / ! I I I I I I \ / , / , / I / / I I I I \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ I. ~ '" I I I I I / / , , I I / _ ~v6 - _----- _"6\>6 --- =-=:t,v6.----- -.----- _- 1'1'6-- ___ 9\>6 ----------~ ---- ----.-- I I I I I I i I I I I I / / / , I / / ,/ -- .-- -- -- _'7"- .-- -- -- --- --- -- --- --- --- --- OO'!;~~ M.Onz~.lIllS ____ 91>'6 -------- .---- -< /18, ------ I / , I I, I / I I , , , , \ , .\ \ 'I \ I I \ ~ '" \ \ I , I I / ./ / / / . / --- / , / ---- I I I I I I , I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I ~ '" I \ \ \ , I I , I I --.-- Gi) SITE PLAN SCALE: ,1~ = 10'.0" EXISTING AREAS &!~~.:.:.:.:.:.:.::..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:E::a .EXl~T1NG HARDCOVER PROPOSED CHANGES TO HARDCOVER I I , , I DRIVEwAY.'. CONCNETe.. ....... -, .ROClC...,.,..... DECK._........... HOUSC&~e 6TAlRS.... TOTAL.. .......5.600f!O.l'T. . .. MlNUS 109 SQ. FT." . .... 5.4111SO.FT. .. 100 6a.fT. . ......NOCI1ANGE.. ..100 SQ. FT. , J I I ' I I,' I II . MINUS 93SQ. FT. " .. ..... ,ADD3,313SQ.FT. ~.... ..NeTAOOS15SO-Fr.= . . MINUS so sa. FT. ~ . ...1,407SO.FT. ...3.7113SO.fT. ...2,1I35SQ.FT. ....OSO.fT. .54,477SQ.FT. ....370SQ.FT. .....2,e20SCl.FT. ....fiOSQ.FT. . afrsCJ. a.90.s0.f1is . \ '., " ...10,240 so FT. ...16,63IISQ.FT. ......:<3.\% ~CEN.(6J:\iAADCOVER.... ......17.3% Ii 1\ I \ I I I I I '\ I \ , \ , \ f I ....a. I ' "- /11'1 ,'--." ,',~--::"~ \ , , ~ - __".. I Cln01NOO I " , " (-:"---~-:/' , I I ..'.. .. '191)(3' (o It I ,~-",,, I A- I' I , II 7' ./ I .fP'/ ~ .,' !,' ,v / /1.) ~,'/l/' ...../ ~no.l~:) / I' , / M3N " 1,J'sM) ,.a-:r ~,' / ,);039 ~ I I 1 €V6 -...~../... " " , -, , '-..1 " I ,-.. , " . I I ,.._... vv6... .. I "', I " I , X ,,' '. / " 'v' " ,\ " I " I : I I \ \ \ I, I \ I I I I I I . 1 ~ '" , , 096 --.. -', .- I I I J I --.- ~'O,..,.." " ---- ~~ - ,00 , " lWM ~Qln08 =:Lst>GI. ~.. / /, EW~'lSl)(3 ')!:)OH:lc:l'r"OSQN\l" :lOV::lW'J.Sl)(3SS:n 'NOO'i'OOVWDMaN AIl~;!,\OO\S:N " 6'"" i5' \ \ /" _9~9 I / I 1 J I I I ~, OJ, I ' I I o .- ,-- I', r- "'II I 'I""'" ~ r /"'1.......... II C3flOWa~3801 L:-" r 'II V3t1V.1lVl-k1lN'lSI){S ::::"';:.. I -/i . ....I"''''~~ / 1,-::- II "P("'o pos l:'"_ ..... I I I I ra.~e/ add i +; 0 n. I ' I I I I I I J I I I I I I '-, ~ \ . ;,\ , I ':"h/ \, f.' OJ ,,- 1\ /1\ /1 I \ / I \ / I L-':k_L-':~_1 I / \ j I \ I I I \ I I lL__ \11 l I I \, " ;\ _.....~ \ . I " , . , LPG ""\.--<,%,-'.9i--' . ~O' ,< ~~ I> / -- / l /0 I I / '/ I / ~ d '" Ol / , ~ \rl It -- /L I / to. // /. / 4 /. .// //,/ / ~ ~ ......../ /// //. ~ ./ " ' .~ ~/ ,,/ // /(J /.../ .// ./ /~ .../ / //;i ..... ./ ",,..""" // ,/ ,../ / / . ,.."",,,,, ".,."," //0' ,...-...-"'/. .///// ~ .....,.. "'.'" ~ // / / I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , , I , I , .' I I I I I I , / , , , , , , , , , , I , , , , , , , \.._--,,' "- dl' / / ,/ _/ / ,/ I \ I I \ \ .. , , I <0 I dl' \ I II V ,\ , \ : \ , ., , ' , ' '- / 4'6' , . '- " I....., I' ,...... /~ : ....-.. .' (5\, I , " " ~ I , , , '- , , , , , \ ---...,/,,' " " ,f 11l1MElI.IiNl'\I1;RlElNOl.S' ! " ': ,~, , ~ : t7..!L 1 . -0' , ~ ....~, '" ,- , - , , , , , , ' , ' .... ~, " '-, '- I , I , , , , , \,' -,', , , " " -'.-- p 05.3 // '!l- '" -' , , , , , , , -,..,..... _/ , , , , , , , , I , , , , I I I , I I ~ / , / - / _/ - _/ // // -- ,/' --- /- - / -- ,/ -"-- -- --- -- \ ; --- ..,...~.- '. , , , ,.- " ---- ,"-.. , ' ....., , o I '... , , , , , , 10l1pO MJJO,ao.S9S '. , ,:' '- I , ,;,--- ? / , , I I (J' ,/ I . / E h'b' B II X 1 rt SITE PLAN " , , ....., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ....' " "" '-, , 6 0 uJ l d.e-i / / , , , , , , ..... , , , , ..... , , '- , , , '- \, ' I: ., I' I / () ------ '- , '- , " \ i ) I if;' OJ / / , _ t...."-" ! II \ \ \' / \? /Q; f'\ . . ElU5T1t-= ------- . '" ~ .-...... . ". '.1 W.TCHEIUS'TlHGt~ OCII [J] II] [J] [J] [J] IEIH.!JJ I1JI [Q] IEIJ[lJI [J] [j] IDHlJI 1I][J]1l1I1IJl[J][j][IJJ[; !!JI-UJl-~ II: PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1 AS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'.0" . ~" -~1~ ~ . ~ '-"'--4- - ~'~ ~ ~ Exhibit C PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATION - FRONT I I "U-,~ "U'-l I"U'" I I -+ ~~ " ~~ . '" 11, ..j ~j I I ~ ,j ----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----L ~ j 1 ~ j Exhibit D I PROPOSED BUILDING ELEV A nON - I NORTH CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE TO BLAIR BURY WHEREAS, Blair Bury (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 28160 Boulder Bridge Drive, in the City of Shore wood, County of Hennepin, legally described as; "Lot 4, Block 1, Boulder Bridge"; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of additional garage space on the north end of the home, the area of which, when added to the area of existing accessory space on the property, will bring the total area of accessory space on the property up to 1570 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional use Permit for the construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his reconunendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 14 March 2006, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Plalliling Commission at its regular meeting on 21 March 2006, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 March 2006, at which time the Plalliler's memorandum and the minutes of the Plalliling Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of theCity of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in a P.U.D. Planned Unit Development (single- family residential) zoning district and contains approximately 59,077 square feet of area. 2. The total proposed accessory space (1570 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure (3560 square feet). 3. The total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the P.U.D. zoning district in which it is located (4000 square feet). 4. The design and materials of the proposed attached garage are consistent with the architectural character of the existing home. 5. districl. The proposed attached garage complies with all setback requirements for the P.U.D. zoning- CONCLUSION A. The application of Blair Bury for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth herein above be and hereby is granted. B. This approval is subject to the following: 1. That the proposed garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential nature. 2. That the Applicants are hereby advised that the City Code provides specific regulations relative to home occupations and any future use ofthe garage for other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with such regulations. C. The City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Applicants with a certified copy ofthis Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SHOREWOOD this 27th day of March 2006. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR -2- CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-6927' (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474~0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityha!l@cLshorewDod.mn.u5 Celebrating 50 Years' 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Plalming Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 14 March 2006 RE: Sass, Mark - Minor Subdivision/Combination FILE NO.: 405 (06.05) BACKGROUND Mark Sass owns the two properties at 22690 and 22740 Murray Street (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He has arranged to purchase a strip of property, approximately 10 feet in depth from Brent Sinn, the property owner to the north (6035 Galpin Lake Road). To accomplish this, they have applied for a minor subdivision and combination that will rearrange the boundaries betwecn their lots (see Exhibits B and C). All of the subject parcels are zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland, and are occupied by single-family homes. Mr. Sass' lots are somewhat substandard in terms of lot area. His intent is to bring these lots into compliance with R-1C standards. The Sinn parcel is substantially oversized for the R -1 C zoning district. ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDATION This request is considered very simple, and Mr. Sass is to be commended for upgrading his two lots to conform with current zoning standards. As a result of the lot line rearrangement, Parcel A will have 21,000 square feet of area, and Parcel B will have 21,630 square feet. The additional depth will not only bring the two lots into compliance with the R-1 CIS area requirements, it will also provide him more flexibility for any future construction on the lots. ". .. . PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ." #8.C. Memorandum Re: Sass - Minor Subdivision/Combination 14 March 2006 The Sinn property has some potential to be further divided, but that largely depends upon coordination with property owners to the nOlih or to the east. The proposed reanangement does not adversely affect the ability to redivide the property. The lot line rearrangement also involves vacating the existing drainage and utility easement that was platted as pmi ofthe Zachary Woods development (Sinn's property), in exchmlge for new drainage and utility easements along the new north property line and around the perimeters of the Sass lots. A public hearing to consider the vacation has been scheduled for the 27 April City Council meeting. It is recommended that the proposed division and combination be approved, along with the vacation of the existing easement. This approval is subj ect to the applicant providing deeds for the new easements and a title opinion for review by the City Attorney. The division/combination should be recorded within 30 days following Council approval of the request. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Mark Sass -2- z....c:. ~ .. .. .. & S .. " ~ .. .. . .. .. b o '(fj Ci3 o >< W o :<J ~ . . . . . o "-b~30:)N310 .. .. .. .. ... (j) "t'l ... o .0 o (.) .... ill > .... <Il (.) - >:: <:Il IJ) (J) ro J:: ;:: i'\l ..r:: (.) 'l- o >. - U Exhibit A TION SITE LOCA rranuement Sass lot line rea '" -0 qJ ~ ~ ~ ~.. -+ - ~ ~J ~ _ '1:..$ ~-f. -t ~ ~ '6 1"5 I~ Is.s I~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~: ~I ~: I " I i ~ : : ~ I : . SS I "< I ~ ~ I ~ i; ,w ~ I (). ~ I - 6'''' ~ I ~ I ~ 0_'" -7 """-I dO> L;'" I ~ ~ &: I ~ : I :: I \3 I ~ :0:: ~ : ~ I () <;::; r" I (/) I I I ,n u",,___,_ ''c'3'----: I CD ExhIbit B I ~,~ PROPOSED SASS PARCELS ON \\-It pLA i Of 7..ARCH/>.R'f '/loaDS E./l.STERI..'/ LINE. of \..01 '\99 ",S 5\10'11\'1. I ~~ 0. ~ -. ...-' g. ' "E ~~ ~ S 08'59 55 Ud ';; __'4,.74-- -', ., 0' ' ) , ~ c....... ~.... __'39.00-- "- \6.2 (O<~~OOOS)( --c-- . : '6.40 ("0'" - 'l " _ _ 1\ f ~'t \~ .',' --------- 0 ' 1'0 8, _ .,' ----- J..-,:' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,_.. if .>\'''' _--y----:-- - - - I '1 _-L..~;; r;: -- ,,' ------ _- I ~ ,I _ --'- -:- __'21.50-- I I ~ ,,\0' I K-- : S 08'59'55" E,f I ~ ,,' ~ I ,"'-,: I · ::f!J I; ! :1 I~ g.l'-<I<cl' " I~ I~ '~".."lgl I ~ ! ,': I '," I " : · : "~r;;---I----- ! : I I i";, ~ I " : <:\) I ~ ,;4,\ ~ I I '\: t3. I · I . SF ~ I 'I "" "" I i IW,,'~\~I I ~ ~ I~ 1\0' ""liE, ' ~ I." I ."':rl 'l.l' " . I' . ~,(~.l cn.'~F;rwll- ~~w ...... 0"' ILOI""Ji:',::e,-,-o", OJ Iw< en '<t '\5'~-1' () I ti1 L5:: . ~ (J) I W W I OJ"-' <t<)~1 0....,10 ,~ .'i ~ .O.::!: 1".' . ~~!!> - ~ " I~- :z'~\~:E:I~i~ ~ ~. ~ \3 I~~ : 'II~: '5 I ~! ~ u : ~ : ! 1 I . I [' :s ~ I , I I ~~ x I I ....... w I I I I \. I I I \'o I I I~ I : \ I I I.' : \ " I I I~~ I ; ".... I I~~ I : '-'- ;"'51/"- _ c" __! ---______m_-------------+-- \ ~l!l, 0 .,;\ --j--------- I 0' ,,~,. _ I" ------ J I .- ' - OO'Oll- ~/ 00'0., "- , -' M ,,90.00.00 N I- - ________0 _J----l I Iii > < " '1 ~ e \!ill: ~~ ~~ ~~ :~ !ilz <:I", S il:i~ ~ ~~ ~o .. ,'" " 0'" 0'" cci~O) tC.~ -,0) '''' 'V> I I I ,_ I I I I ,- I I ',,/' I (") I I () I C' f-d I () I _J I I w, I' , I ~g I tRg I ~j I z' I I I I I I I I ~ I I I I I ~ I f (I) 0' I I. I " "-' " LCJ ,n / ,- " ~ ~ " " z ti 5 ~ ~ .; "., ~ I' W " 0'" jol" , gtR 0- Ij~ ;: I z ffi I ~ ~ I . ~ I ~ ~ I o ~ I ~ I I ., , ' \ """"~ , , , , , , , , , , , , , r--r-~-- : .' ----t-- o Oq', I ---- - l' : ,.... c - " '- OO'Oll nn"n-l:d.-- "",- ~9 "''- ~ ~6_ .. ::2;:;J . Ul ,,[\I"'\.l.">IlS\ N, '" 1 "'; J-.Q'I' w,,' \'v \ J & "1 )J(,,) 0"<;\ . oO?'lol;:)~ yv :~ (5 ~ l" 9-_----:" \ \ ? -- ~.t~ ~! ':", . \ -~ \0:.1 . o~ . I .;, !: ~ ~ II : ~~! ~\ J t= :~:~,3.. ~ 01\ {~Ole/) 0 -> ...r + ~\\ ",>Z:\JJS 1- ~ I'i, Y H 0 if: .J / . , \ 1 -+.; ( .oo'i;,L\ - ~J r ll! \ M I!..'G. ~\ob~ c.-- ~\ ;2 \ \" (..;. 1 e. .-- " .:1 . ..... (I . _--- ~--- ~ .~; \ \ I-' :..uJ \ ~ . c-3 \;: - l>l 's \ ~ 'I-t: \ Ul I c\..I. \1= /' ~ - f. \~ 0 9 \::5____ .' ('l) \ ". u,l \1 i '2 Ill' . \ 4:: I Il-\ \ ---3 ...1 r "1 \. ~ '" Vl .:. ~ ..~.. J ..~ ~ ~A,~~: 'Z ' f\ \ ~~tYr/,'1 /I(j" --Z \-- ..... \J /;,7/ I I: \ (j ~ q ~I , !.<u (- r ;:::> ---- ______ \ 1/ / l \ ~ -,-' ~Qilio ------. \ l. &111 I . ~ . ....... /\1 '::1 . ,~ '" , I .'. ~ CJ ..1541;7 ~"92,lc21:>.<.;-~-J I .Q. . \'1/r:::Ji' o2i:.rv .51-66'~~ . V ~ .. o9~ I"> -.:::..J ' "0 61 2 ~. - Lf) ~ 2 W ex cD . Q .. ~ & L :;r' ~ u. '5> ~ Q; I" .t.!.. - .0 . Q.~ 0~&3 \~ ~ \!.l' 2~ t:=:. II k 1:). Ul' c:- ,.,. .;0. 0:5 <;;;;:.CJV . --.. . ...---'> Q ~ wl .;E ,__..: \ :s ~'jl 04' .c....; Cf) '(J .A: '2~,fO Jl~1 .00'02 n "3 "<;() '" . I g;-~. I . If} \). --~~ ..~.~ . ---. ,.... _- '. cf1 _--0 ~.... ---~J..OZ -; \~\~'v.uoL --"O~ - 'i d ','t,0 ~ '" <::>.0 ",...I a od} :3. o _ (\.........,('). ,Ii:;"""::r-. .\ . ..'tiS .01:. 3. r- .:c -;r: <D -r 1---1 (j . :> '1:: ~ N \ \ I I I \'. 'j \ ,- , ( -" I. \ .- c~~ . 1 . \"- .. o .> --\ / ~ 0(. ..,.. ) 6 ~ ..a - Exhibit C PROPOSED SINN PARCEL CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR SASS AND SINN WHEREAS, Mark Sass, and Brent Sinn (Applicants) have an interest in certain real propelties in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into three parcels legally described in Exhibits Band C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements as provided in Exhibits D and E, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 14 March 2006, a copy of which is on file at the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 21 March 2006, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 27 March 2006, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's reconunendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicants and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Mark Sass owns the two properties at 22690 and 22740 Murray Street, both located in an R-l CIS, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland zoning district and legally described on Exhibit A (Sass Parcel A and Parcel B), allached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Brent Sinn owns the property at 6035 Galpin Lake Road, also zoned R-IC/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and legally described on Exhibit A (Sinn Parcel). -1- 3. The Applicants propose to subdivide the property as described in Exhibits B and C. 4. The subject properties are occupied by three single-family homes. CONCLUSIONS A. The real properties legally described in Exhibit A are approved for division and combination into three new parcels, legally described in Exhibit Band C, subj ect to the Applicants recording the drainage and utility easements described in Exhibits D and E, contemporaneously with this resolution. B. The Applicant shall record this resolution, together with the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibits D and E with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the celiification of this resolution. C. The City Clerk will furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of March 2006. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2-