The URL can be used to link to this page

082701 CC Reg AgP , ,-'" ..~.~ ,.:- CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Love_ Garfunkel_ Lizee _ Zerby _ Turgeon _ B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes August 13,2001 (Att.-#2A Minutes). B. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes August 13,2001 (Att.-#2B Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed/rom the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked/ollowing removal from Consent Agenda. . A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.-#3A Claims List) B. Approval of South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Budget (Att.-#3B Finance Director's memorandum, summary budget) C. Approval of Excelsior Fire District Budget (Att.-#3C Finance director's memorandum, summary budget) D. 2002 Budget and Tax Levy Status Report (Att.-#3D Finance director's memorandum) E. Final Acceptance for Covington Road! Vine Hill Road Trail Improvement Project and Authorization for Payment (Att.-#3E Public Works Director's memorandum, Proposed Resolution) F. Authorization to Execute Stipulation for Dismissal re: Eller Case (Att.-#3F City Administrator's memorandum) G. Approval of a Temporary Gambling License - Southshore Senior Center, 5735 Country Club Road (Att.-#3G Proposed Resolution) .. " CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - August 27, 2001 --Page 2 of 3 ,:, 4. 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consider a Resolution to Establish a Shorewood Economic Development Authority (SEDA) (Att.-#4 City Administrator's memorandum, Proposed Resolution) 5. 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Discussion on Organized Refuse Collection (Att.-#5 Planning Director's memorandum, survey results) 6. PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of A wards to Former Park Commissioners for their Service on the Park Commission . B. Report on Live Cable Casting from Jeff Foust, City Representative to the LMCC C. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 2002 Budget Presentation by Tom Skramstad (Att.-#6C 2002 LMCD Budget) 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 8. PARKS. Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held August 14, 2001 (Att.-#8A Draft Minutes) 9. PLANNING. Report by Representative A. Variance Request - Setback and Variance to Structurally Alter a Nonconforming Structure (Att.-#9A Planning Director's memorandum, draft resolution) Applicant: James Russell Location: 26080 Birch Bluff Road B. Concept and Development Stage Plans for a Residential Planned Unit Development (Att.-#9B Planning Director's memorandum) Applicant: Lecy Construction Location: 6185 Apple Road C. Variance Request - Setback (Att.-#9C Planning Director's memorandum, draft resolution) Applicant: Gaylord and Monica Pahl Location: 5100 Anthony Terrace D. Variance Request - Setback and Variance to Structurally Alter a Nonconforming Structure (Att.-#9D Planning Director's memorandum, draft resolution) . Applicant: Scott Olson Location: 6125 Ridge Road ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - August 27, 2001 ..\~Page 3 of 3 E. Licensing Ordinance - Massage Therapist (Att.-#9E Draft Ordinance) F. Report regarding Interim Ordinance 10. GENERAL A. Appointment to the Land Conservation and Environment Committee (Att.-#lOA City Administrator's memorandum) B. Appointment to Shorewood Park Foundation Board of Directors (Att.-#10B City Administrator's memorandum) C. Authorization of Interim Revenue Commitment to Excelsior Fire District for Land Purchase (Att.-#1OC City Administrator's memorandum, Proposed Resolution) 11. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS 12. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. Gideon Glen 2. County Road 19 Intersection 3. T.H. 7/41 Project 4. Update on Johnson case (Att.-#12A4 City Administrator's memorandum) B. Mayor & City Council 13. RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION 14. ADJOURN 9-1 CITY OF SHO EWOOD REGULAR COUN IL MEETING AUGUST , 2001 PUBLIC SIGN-IN SHEET For the record, please print your name and address below. Thank you. Name Address 9' 6e* 1. J,/{) f'1/P/L Ij//ld. r/ev] 2. K~ ~ ~l5S *-1\V,'e..vt.c~$h~ 3.{}~;L, (y n'!: /2JIllfAf/\ (~1 SJ]iAJ I ~"" ~. 'j""'-.-""+-[' " A. 4: --.. ,; ,) 5f/5 tclUJ /dJ~ ~MtI'UtI~R, . A ). t)J~co(. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. \ CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 27 August 2001 A Special meeting will be held at 6:45 pm for the purpose of interviewing a candidate for the Land Conservation and Environment Committee ~. . . Acting Mayor John Garfunkel will preside at the Council meeting. Mayor Woody Love will not be present due to the death of.his mother on August 23. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staff is recommending approval of the 2002 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department as presented by Chief Litsey at the budget work session. "\. '; l ' Agenda Item #3C: Staff is recommending approval of the 2002 Excelsior Fire District as presented by Chief DuCharme as presented at the budget work session. . , ., " ..~ Agenda Item #3D: Action had been scheduled to accept the 2002 proposed budget and to set the proposed 2002 tax levy at this meeting. Fina1levy limit numbers from Hennepin County will be available September 1. Rather than face the possibility of having an incorrect levy figure, this item is being rescheduled for September 10. (The final date to act on the proposed - i.e., not-to-exceed - tax levy is September 17.) This item is on the Consent Agenda as an update. Agenda Item #3E: Staff is recommending that City Project 99-04, known as the Bituminous Trail Improvements for Vine Hill Road and Covington Road be accepted for the City's perpetual maintenance, and that final payment in the amount of $34,775.03 be made to Hardrives Inc. Agenda Item #3F: The stipulation for dismissal (i.e., the settlement) agreement regarding the Eller case was prepared by Eller's attorney in a not-too-timely matter. The proposed agreement is included in a separate envelope, as it is still a matter under attorney-client privilege. This item has been placed on the Consent Agenda for reasons one may ascertain in Attorney Hoff's memorandum. ft ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 27 August, 2001 Page 2 of 4 I Agenda Item #3G: Staff is recommending adoption of a resolution to approve a Temporary Gambling License for Friends of the Southshore Center. The date of the raffle is Thursday, December 20,2001, at the Southshore Center,. 5735 Country Club Road in Shorewood. Agenda Item #4: As required by statute, a Public Hearing is required to consider a resolution to establish an Economic Development Authority. At prior work sessions, the City Council has stated agreement with the concept of creating an EDA. An immediate activity for the EDA would be facilitating the construction of public safety facilities. The enabling resolution has been revised as directed by the City Council. The first meeting of the EDA would occur by October 8,2001. Agenda Item #5: As required by statute, a Public Hearing is required for the City Council to consider a resolution announcing its intent to "organize" refuse collection. The Planning Commission has begun work on this project, and has recommended that the City Council take formal action necessary to begin the process. The Commission has undertaken an effort to understand community sentiment on this matter by providing a survey in the City newsletter and website. To date, 270 surveys have been received; a tabulation of these surveys is attachment. After the public hearing is closed, the City Council should announce its intent to organize refuse collection. This action will start a 90-day comment period by interested parties. . Agenda Item #6A: Former Park Commissioner, Paula Berndt, will be presented with a certificate for her service on the Park Commission. Agenda Item #6B: Jeff Foust, City Representative to the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission, will report on live cablecasting of Council meetings. Agenda Item #6C: Tom Skramstad, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District representative,.. will provide a brief overview of the LMCD 2002 Budget. Agenda Item #9A: James Russell has reapplied for a variance that was considered by the Planning Commission in December 2000. His current application contains modifications to his original plans that respond to recommendations made by Staff and the Planning Commission. The revised plans bring the property into better compliance with R-IC/S zoning standards. As part of its recommendation, the Planning Commission stated that the applicant should be required to obtain a permit for incidental use of the public right- of-way for the driveway. Approval of the plans.as presented, with corrections proposed by the applicant to be incorporated into the resolution approving the variances, requires a four-fifths vote by the Council. Agenda Item #9B: Roy and Ruth Lecy propose to' subdivide the property located at 6185 Apple Road into four single-family residential lots. The proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum area requirements and are consistent with the land use designation \: Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 27 August, 2001 Page 3 of 4 \ recommended for this area. Based upon comments by nearby residents, the applicants revised their application to a planned unit development (P.D.D.). The road has been eliminated in favor of two common driveways. The lots have been concentrated on the westerly two-thirds of the site, and the applicant will grant a conservation easement over the rear 30 to 40 percent of the site. In summary, the preliminary plat for Apple Road meets or exceeds the requirements of Shorewood's development regulations. Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for the next meeting. . Agenda Item #9C: Gaylord and Monica Pahl propose to add a deck and remodel their house at 5100 Anthony Terrace. The house was constructed prior to current zoning requirements and does not comply with the 50-foot rear yard setback. Therefore, a setback variance for the deck and a variance to alter a nonconforming structure are required. It is recommended the applicants be granted a variance to rebuild the center portion of the existing roof, and a rear-yard setback variance for the construction of the deck. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval. Approval requires a four-fifths vote by the City Council. Agenda Item #9D: In 1999, Scott Olson received setback variances to replace his house at 6125 Ridge Road. Mr. Olson is now proposing a variance revision simply to enclose the lower level of the existing house, replacing existing decks and building a new porch. The same type of variances that were approved in 1999 is required for the revised plans. The Planning Commission has recommended that this new, revised request be approved, subject to conditions noted in the staff report. Approval requires a four-fifths vote by the City Council. Agenda Item #9E: The City Council has taken action to allow massage therapy as a permitted use to licensees in certain commercial zones. Staff has drafted an ordinance to license massage therapists for Council review and discussion. Council should identify any modifications it wishes to have included in the final version of the ordinance. . Agenda Item #9F: At its August 13 meeting, the City Council considered a recommendation from the Planning Commission to establish an interim zoning (i.e., moratorium) ordinance for certain commercial development. Council requested more information regarding the properties that would be affected by such an ordinance. This report will be presented at the Council meeting. Agenda Item #lOA: This item is a motion to appoint an individual to the Land Conservation and Environment Committee. At the Special Council meeting earlier this evening, Council interviewed a candidate for this appointment. Approval requires a simple majority vote by the Council. Agenda Item #lOB: The Shorewood Park Foundation has nominated Roxanne Martin to serve on its Board of Directors. The appointment would run through February 28, 2003. A simple majority vote by council will approve this appointment. Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of 27 August, 2001 Page 4 of 4 .1' I Agenda Item #lOC: The Deephaven City Council has authorized $300,000 as an interim revenue commitment to the Excelsior Fire District for purchase of property at 24140 Smithtown Road. Per the recommendatIon of the Fire District Board, Shorewood should be responsible for the remaining funds required for the purchase. The Council should authorize $250,000 to be used as an interim revenue commitment, with the conditions in the staff recommendation. Agenda Item #12A4: No great surprise, but the plaintiffs in Johnsons v. City of Shorewood et alia have appealed the decision in the federal court. This item is included for Council information; City Attorney Keane will be present to respond to Council questions (if any). Agenda Item #13: The City Council has scheduled an executive session for a performance review with the city administrator. In view of Mayor Love's absence, this item should be rescheduled to September 10, 2001. . . l \; CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 13,2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING D U~\l~l Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Councilmembers Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Attorney Keane (arrived 7: 17 P.M.) B. Review Agenda . Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda for the evening. Councilmember Turgeon requested Item 9B, A Discussion of the Process Utilized Regarding the City Administrator's Evaluation Form be added to this evening's Agenda. Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, approving the Agenda as amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes July 23, 2001 Lizee moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2001, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes July 23, 2001 . Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2001, as amended on Page 2, Item 5, change "Berglien" to "Bergslien." Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Garfunkel moved, Turgeon seconded, approving the Motions contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein: A. Approval of the Verified Claims List B. Establish October 27,2001 as the Fall Clean-Up Date C. Authorization to Advertise for Light Equipment Operator D. Appeal for Extension of Time Appellant: Matt Phillippi Location: 21155 Minnetonka Boulevard #}f+ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 2 of 10 ~I' E. Approval of RESOLUTION NO. 01-045, "A Resolution Approving a Temporary Gambling License for Sons of the American Legion Post 259, 24450 Smithtown Road." F. Authorization to hire an Assistant Liquor Store Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Ms. Norma Rivkin, 5815 Echo Road, addressed the Council with her request on behalf of the Garden Club. She stated the Garden Club would like to work on the woods behind the Southshore Community Senior Center. She requested the City complete the steps near the bridge as well as provide a small stipend for the purchase of some bulbs to be planted in that area. She also stated a Boy Scout Troop would possibly be available to help with the removal of brush in the area. In the event the Troop would not be available for the project, she also requested being able to utilize a chipper with the chipped wood then being recycled for use as a garden path. . Engineer Brown explained the bridge was in place prior to the construction of the Senior Center, and there were nothing currently planned for replacement of the steps. In addition, he noted the Department of Public Works had tried to clear the area, but had received complaints from some surrounding residents that considered the removal of deadfall to be detrimental to the wildlife in the woods. While he was not personally opposed to the brush removal, he suggested perhaps the Garden Club work with the neighbors to see if agreement could be reached regarding removal of the brush. Ms. Rivkin also noted seniors from the Center were also willing to volunteer for participation in this project. Mayor Love thanked Ms. Rivkin, the Garden Club, and all volunteers for interest in the project. 5. PARKS Engineer Brown stated no meeting of the Parks Commission had taken place prior to this meeting, thus, there was nothing to report. The next Parks Commission Meeting would be held on August 14,2001. 6. PLANNING. Report by Representative . Commissioner Pisula reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 7, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Interim Zoning Ordinance on Commercial Uses Director Nielsen stated a draft ordinance had been presented to Council as a result of a discussion held by the Planning Commission, at Council's request, regarding a moratorium being placed on commercial development in a C-3 district in excess of thirty thousand square feet, either in additions or new construction. He noted the Planning Commission was supportive of a twelve-month period of time in which to study issues pertaining to this moratorium. Further, he explained the intent of the moratorium was to review and examine the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning standards utilized by the City. Councilmember Garfunkel questioned the number of properties to be affected by this moratorium. Director Nielsen responded he knew there would be three commercial areas affected, and while he did not . . CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 3 of 10 know the exact number, he estimated there were approximately less than twelve parcels that would be affected. Further, he stated, in response to Councilmember Garfunkel's question, there was no special significance to the use of thirty thousand feet as a designation utilized in the moratorium. Councilmember Garfunkel then questioned whether the focus of discussion should relate to specific size or to the term "community scale." He stated he was concerned with the timing of this issue, as it appeared to be heading off actions of certain commercial developers. He further noted it seemed as though a very small number of parcels would actually be under direction of this proposed moratorium. Councilmember Lizee stated her belief that to some degree this issue was a reaction to the CUB Foods proposal recently heard through the planning process. She stated she heard concerns from residents regarding potential changes in size of buildings and land use in the area. With a moratorium, she noted, the City would have the ability to review ordinances that mayor may not change from current use. In addition, she stated a moratorium would provide the City the opportunity to examine working documents, such as the Comprehensive Plan, to be sure it was understandable in its meaning and intent. Council member Turgeon stated she viewed the moratorium as time to consider the impact on residents' safety, health, and general welfare of the community as related to definitions within the Comprehensive Plan. While she believed the Comprehensive Plan to be a strong document currently, she also thought a moratorium would allow for a broader perspective to be gained as well. She believed it important to consider all commercial parcels rather than one specific development as had been done in the past proposal from CUB Foods. Further, she stated she liked how the moratorium could tie into the visioning process for the future. There seemed to be little commercial space for the City, thus making it important to plan for its future use. Councilmember Garfunkel stated he was concerned that only one potential applicant seemed to be immediately affected, and that it seemed to him to bea bit like sharing the rules with the players of a game and then saying they could not play for one year. Council member Zerby stated he noticed with the most recent hearing regarding large-scale commercial use that there seemed to be a number of questions raised by many parties involved in the process that required further review. He viewed the proposal for a moratorium as being asked to step back and review plans for the future of the City. Mayor Love agreed with all Councilmembers. He stated there was a concern for individual property rights and that concern may be productive in the process of consideration of a moratorium. However, he was also concerned that development was never completed in an area such as Shorewood, and many concerns needed to be addressed. With regard to the recent CUB Foods proposal, he noted a small grocer was not able to be competitive, and the grocer had worked with Mr. Taube to find solutions. Although the process worked to support the ordinances and Comprehensive Plan, he was shocked at communications piece of the process. He stated he heard residents incensed that this property owner could apply for development of this property, even though it was a right of the property owner to do so. He noted it now seemed to be a question for the property owner and the community as to what could go there. He stated he typically was not supportive of moratoria, but as a result of the seemingly confusing communication and information process, he was quite concerned. Councilmember Zerby suggesting extending dialogue to a developers and property owners to find what could potentially work in the area for all property owners. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 4 of 10 Councilmember Garfunkel stated a moratorium, in his mind, was to preclude the type of request such as the one submitted by CUB Foods. Administrator Dawson stated a moratorium was an opportunity to explore what was needed in the community. For example, something larger could also be recommended for that space as a possible outcome of dialogue. He noted it was not so much a strengthening of language to avoid what was being submitted; rather he viewed it as a need to review the economic market and see what the community as a whole wanted for the future. Mayor Love stated this was the first time he had considered examination of a moratorium, and he was doing so because there seemed to be a breakdown in communication in the planning process. Councilmember Turgeon noted she had the opportunity to consider a moratorium previously in her experience with the City regarding Senior Housing, and she found it gave time to reconsider types and kinds of housing suitable for the City. She also explained it was very valuable as long as dialogue remained open with all parties and involved the developer and community. In addition, she saw a moratorium as the potential for excellent communication and a better understanding for residents' wishes. Mayor Love recognized Mr. Stan Taube in the audience as being the owner and developer of the . Shorewood Village Shopping Center, and offered him the opportunity to address Council regarding this matter. Mr. Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road, stated as a developer he was very proud of his developments because he had tried to work with the community in all of his projects. He stated he initially drove past the Shopping Center and thought it could be better. As a result, he bought the property for two reasons. The first reason was to make it better, and the second was to make a profit. He stated he had made improvements to the interior on an interim basis, and that CUB Foods approached him regarding the public's anticipated request for a more convenient larger-scale store. He noted the Shopping Center was located on two state highways, and as such, dictated something larger than what was currently being utilized. Mr. Taube also stated he was not especially proud of the previously submitted proposal to the Planning Commission; however, a new firm had been employed to rework the plan and had done so. He stated he did not believe it was fair to change the "rules of play" at this point in time. Further, he stated a small- scale grocer would not be profitable at the Shopping Center location. The traffic issues would also need to be addressed regardless of who became the grocer at that location. In addition, he believed people would drive to another nearby city for the same kind of store often utilizing the same streets that were cause for concem as part of his previous proposal. . He commented he became concerned when he saw governments trying to overreact due to the fear of an impact on a community. As a result of this thinking, he believed a moratorium such as this one would have a negative impact on the community as a whole. Mr. Taube further explained he understood the concern, but requested he be allowed to have a chance to have his newest proposal reviewed. He stated he had pending eminent domain legal issues regarding his site and asked that Council allow good faith efforts to continue in all matters. Mayor Love questioned Attorney Keane about the negative impacts to initiating a moratorium with regard to liability for the City. Attorney Keane explained the law in Minnesota was well-developed allowing cities latitude in legislatively planning for the City and the subsequent broad policy issues. He noted the case law researched supported moratoriums with one minor exception. He then noted a case where there CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 5 of 10 were concerns regarding targeting and discriminating against one owner. Attorney Keane encouraged Council to broadly consider all properties in Shorewood as well as what was to be accomplished with the moratorium. He then referenced the condemnation proceedings underway as part of the Highway 7 reconstruction project, reviewed the process that would be utilized to realize just compensation for all parties, and asked Council to consider all implications of a moratorium prior to making a decision on the matter. Mayor Love then asked if there were other people interested in addressing Council on this matter. . Denise Koehnen, 6095 Lake Linden Drive, stated she had lived in the City for thirteen years and appreciated the layout of the community. In addition, she knew the residents that agreed with the last CUB Foods proposal had not organized. She believed the reality of the current grocery situation to be that people were going to find easier, faster ways to get their food. She further stated the community needed new tax base dollars, and she believed there was a number of residents that wanted a large-scale grocery store, such as CUB, in the area. In addition, she thought the Shopping Center was not being well used at this time, and she requested Council consider the site for development. She further stated it seemed as though a decision had been reached in the matter, as a lack of decision was a decision in and of itself. By default, the situation would remain, and Lake Linden Drive was still a safety concern for her two children on a daily basis. Councilmember Turgeon requested Ms. Koehnen's help in making neighbors aware of the open house meetings in September of this year to discuss concerns regarding Lake Linden Drive. Karen Boynton, 6155 Riviera Lane, stated she knocked on approximately 160 doors when the original CUB Foods proposal was being considered, and she heard only one person in favor of a large-scale store being in the area. She noted Driskill's store allowed for ease and convenience in shopping for groceries where CUB Foods would not allow for that same ease, as it was too big. She requested the City continue to keep the community involved in this process. Mayor Love stated he had heard Mr. Driskill report the site was not currently economically viable, and the site would eventually be developed. Ms. Boynton responded she was aware of that future development, however, she did not believe it needed to be "shoe- horned" into the community and increase traffic on the roads. Mayor Love again stated a moratorium would apply to all commercial sites with a C-3 district, not just this site. . Councilmember Lizee stated she saw this issue as a traffic issue versus a design issue, and it was important to consider the impact of the commercial sites in the City related to traffic. However, she was also hearing there needed to be concern for singling out an individual property and liability issues associated with such action. Council agreed, and briefly discussed questions related to moving forward with a moratorium. Councilmember Turgeon questioned Director Nielsen regarding the Planning Commission's current work schedule for the remainder of this year. He responded something in the work plan would need to be adjusted in order for the moratorium issue to be studied. Councilmember Garfunkel questioned whether the preapplication stage of the Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow latitude for discussions to take place regarding issues of concern. He noted the Council had talked in general about commercial development; however, he believed the residents would continue to view it only in consideration of the CUB Foods proposed development of that one site. Council member Turgeon suggested bringing it back at a later date for discussion after further specific information regarding the issues of concern could be made available to all parties involved. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 6 of 10 Mayor Love directed staff to bring specific information to Council regarding how the application could be considered as well as a discussion of concerns related to commercial development of sites in Shorewood. B. Simple Subdivision/Combination Applicant: Bill Hoh Location: 5310 Vine Hill Road Director Nielsen reviewed the background information regarding this matter, noting the applicant proposed building an addition on the north side of his existing home. In order to comply with the side yard setback requirement of the City, he had arranged to purchase a strip of land from the property to the north thus, necessitating the request. Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, approving RESOLUTION NO. 01-046, "A Resolution Approving Subdivision and Combination of Real Property for Bill Hoh, 5310 Vine Hill Road." Motion passed 5/0. 7. GENERAL A. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - Vacate Drainage/Utility Easements Applicant: Tim and Terri K10uda Location: 20250 Excelsior Blvd. . Mayor Love opened the Public Hearing at 8: 18 P.M. Director Nielsen reviewed the background regarding this request. He noted the applicants had purchased the property and the vacant parcel to the east of it. The parcels had been combined and requested a drainage and utility easement situated on the old property line be vacated. No utilities were currently located within the easement. Mayor Love closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:20 P.M. Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, approving RESOLUTION NO. 01-047, "A Resolution Vacating Certain Drainage and Utility Easements for Tim and Terri K1ouda, 20250 Excelsior Blvd." Motion passed 5/0. . Mayor Love closed the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M. B. Update on Community Visioning Project Administrator Dawson reported the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., had revised a proposal regarding the Phase 2 portion of the Community Visioning project as requested by Council. He noted this revision included changes in the work plan and estimated costs for this portion of the project. In addition, the revised proposal included estimated costs for the cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay to potentially participate in this phase of the visioning process. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain, vice-president of the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., was present and stated he had revised the proposal as requested noting presentations to the other cities' Chamber of Commerce Meetings would be included as additional services if needed. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 7 of 10 Mayor Love stated he believed this project to be very vital for Shorewood as well as other cities, such as Excelsior, that would be dealing with commercial development at entrances to the city. He stated he believed all South Lake Minnetonka cities should discuss future development of the area as a community, as it would impact all cities and residents. Mr. Chamberlain stated either commercial development areas would be willing to work together or they would work at odds. He noted needs and services of cities change, and market niche stores, such as those found in many of Shorewood's commercial development sites, would need to change as well. He noted the issues that the Council had heard regarding these development areas would only increase over time depending on the needs of the market; however, he did not anticipate these issues of concern being removed. Mayor Love stated he clearly supported trying to include other member cities as part of the visioning project. He noted there had been other instances in the past when the cities working together had certainly proved fruitful for all parties involved, and he hoped the other cities would be willing to be part of this request, as it would impact them all. . Council member Garfunkel questioned the impact of the visioning project should only one other city agree to work with Shorewood in this process. Mr. Chamberlain explained the visioning plan would be different depending upon who was involved; however, he believed a portion of the value of the process to be going through it, not necessarily the end result. Dawson commented Shorewood was the only city whose borders touched all five of the South Lake Minnetonka cities. Further he believed there would be great value in finding commonalities with all of them. Zerby moved, Garfunkel seconded, accepting the proposal presented by the Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc., for the Phase 2 portion of the Community Visioning project, presenting it to other city councils, and taking action as to the extent to proceed after making the presentations. . Council then agreed to have Shorewood City Councilmembers present this proposal at all other South Lake Minnetonka city council meetings as part of their commitment to the process. Motion passed 5/0. C. Financing for Excelsior Fire District Site Administrator Dawson reported the Excelsior Fire District had signed a purchase agreement with owners at 24140 Smithtown Road in Shorewood for future use as a potential public facilities site. Closing of the sale was expected to occur in mid-September of this year. Given the impending conclusion of the sale, various financing options were being considered by Member Cities of the Fire District. One of those options included the City putting forth funds for up to one year. Finance Director Burton noted the City had the potential for planning cash flow accordingly at a competitive rate. Mayor Love stated he believed this to be a solid investment for the City yielding a competitive rate of return. There were no objections heard from Council regarding proceeding with this option. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 8 of 10 8. ENGINEERINGIPUBLIC WORKS A. Authorization of Expenditure of Funds for Engineering Design Services for the Glen Road! Amlee Road Area Drainage Engineer Brown reported City staff had been reviewing the Glen Road drainage area with regard to several issues discussed at previous City Council meetings. Since that time, other residents had inquired about resolving similar issues within the Arnlee Road area. The City had already begun preparing feasibility reports regarding the Glen Road issues. With further consideration, it was considered practical to include the Arnlee Road drainage concerns as part of those feasibility reports to be prepared by WSB and Associates. He also suggested the use of City staff to reduce expenditures for this proposal. In addition, he suggested an open house meeting be conducted in September with residents along Glen Road, Arnlee Road, and Manitou Lane to receive input as to the specific drainage issues present. Councilmember Turgeon expressed heartfelt thanks to Engineer Brown and City staff for all the hard work in bringing these issues to resolution. . Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, authorizing an expenditure of funds from the Storm water Management Fund for Professional Engineering Design Services for an amount not to exceed $13,000. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Zerby stated he was glad this project was making progress and potential solutions were being found for the residents. Councilmember Lizee stated she was confident in the abilities of Engineer Brown, City staff, and WSB and Associates, to do an excellent job on this project. B. Authorization of Expenditure of Funds for Engineering Design Services for County Road 19 Intersection Engineer Brown reported Hennepin County had agreed to allow the City to act as lead in the design for the County Road 19 intersection project. WSB and Associates had prepared a fee schedule for the project representing 8.4 percent of the construction costs. Engineer Brown stated this figure was noteworthy because it was considered typical for design costs to be approximately 15 percent of construction costs, and this fee schedule represented substantial savings to the City. . Engineer Brown also outlined the principles proposed by the County for the design and construction of the project. He noted it was the City's intent to use Municipal State Aid funds for its portion of design and construction costs for the intersection project. Zerby moved, Lizee seconded, Accepting the Proposal and Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for Professional Engineering Design Services by WSB . and Associates for the County Road 19 Intersection Project. Council member Lizee commented she liked the information shared by Engineer Brown regarding this proposal and noted in particular she was glad to see neighborhood input had been incorporated into this proposal. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 9 of 10 Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Love thanked Engineer Brown for all his hard work regarding moving this project forward in a timely manner. 9. REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff 1. Gideon Glen Administrator Dawson noted progress continued to be made with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding reimbursement for Gideon Glen. In addition, a Work Session Meeting of the Watershed District would include presentation of a refined concept plan and funding for future use in this project. . 2. County Road 19 Intersection Administrator Dawson noted there was nothing further to report at this time regarding this project. 3. T.H. 7/41 Project Engineer Brown reported this reconstruction project had begun at the intersection of State Highways 7 and 41. He hoped the curb and asphalt could be completed prior to snowfall with the last layer of asphalt and final dressing to take place next spring. In addition, he noted the construction engineers working on Highway 7 near Excelsior were also involved with this reconstruction project so he believed communication and coordination between the two projects to be adequate. B. A Discussion of the Process Utilized Regarding the City Administrator's Evaluation Form . Councilmember Turgeon briefly reviewed the process currently being utilized in evaluating the City Administrator's position. She noted the current timeframe called for formal evaluation to take place in January of any year making it difficult for new Counci1members to be an effective part of the process. Councilmember Garfunkel suggested concluding the evaluation by December of any year as an alternative. Council agreed. C. Mayor & City Council Council member Zerby questioned whether meetings had been scheduled with residents living near the Skate Park as part of a commitment made by the City to discuss impacts of the park in that area. Administrator Dawson stated a meeting would be scheduled with residents in that area. Attorney Keane then reported Metricom, having hung wireless Internet equipment on the City's east watertower, was no longer succeeding as a business and had petitioned the bankruptcy court for action. Metricom requested the abandonment of all equipment in place as part of the petition. Attorney Keane anticipated the City's current lease with Metricom would be extinguished, and suggested the City contact the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust regarding the possibility of making use of the infrastructure currently in place. He stated he would report on this matter in the future to Council. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 10 of 10 .' Mayor Love stated he had received a letter praising Public Works Department employee, Charlie Davis, for his commendable efforts in returning lost articles to a resident. He stated this letter spoke highly of Mr. Davis and the Public Works Department. Engineer Brown stated the City was very fortunate to have conscientious people working on staff for the City. 10. ADJOURN Mayor Love noted a ten-minute recess would be taken prior to convening the Work Session Meeting scheduled for this evening. Lizee moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the August 13, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting at 9: 17 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . Woody Love, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator . CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 8:00 p.m. or immediately following Regular Meeting MINUTES 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING tr]RAFT Mayor Love called the meeting to order at 9:33 P.M. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Love; Council members Garfunkel, Lizee, Turgeon, and Zerby; Administrator Dawson; Engineer Brown; Finance Director Burton; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: None . B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor Love reviewed the Agenda for the Work Session. No changes were noted. 2. PROPOSED 2002 BUDGET A. Overview . Administrator Dawson explained the Legislature had made significant changes in the property tax system and local government revenue authority this past year. He noted the City's levy increase was approximately $117,000. He further noted Shorewood provided essential services at a very reasonable cost to residents. Staff members performed at a high level with economy and efficiency and professional staff consistently spent countless extra hours to meet and exceed high expectations of performance. Reductions in the general operating budget would compromise the City's ability to deliver essential services in many ways. Mayor Love stated he realized the tough position cities were in with regard to the shift in tax burden. He noted it would certainly be in the best interest of the five South Lake Minnetonka cities to sponsor a forum where legislators could speak to this matter and the needs of the entire South Lake Minnetonka community could be explained to them. Administrator Dawson then reviewed the major features of the Proposed 2002 General Fund Operating Budget. He noted the first two items were the Police and Fire Budgets and respective chiefs were present this evening to present that information to Council. .:IF c2 f3 B. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) Chief Bryan Litsey presented information to Council regarding the proposed 2002 SLMPD budget. He thanked Council for participating in facility tours last week. He then reviewed the proposed SLMPD budget, noting there was a number of factors affecting the budget increases. One of these changes included a revision of the funding formula used for each member city from a fluctuating percentage-based contribution to a set percentage-based CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 2 of 3 contribution. He also noted rising energy costs and health insurance as well as a new radio system implemented by Hennepin County. The cost of the new radio system would be absorbed over the course of the next seven to eight years, and a fund had been previously designated as saving for this purchase. In addition, Chief Litsey noted an increase in wages and benefits for the coming year. He stated it was an important goal to provide competitive wages for retention and recruitment of personnel. He also reported the department was fortunate to be able to include a full-time community service officer as part of the SLMPD for the coming year. Council arrived at consensus regarding budget approval. C. Excelsior Fire District Excelsior Fire District Chief Mark DuCharme was also in attendance this evening and provided a brief overview of the Excelsior Fire District Proposed 2002 Budget. He briefly explained the process utilized in preparing this budget for Council, noting there would be an approximate 19% increase in the budget overall for next year. He stated this was in part due to a new program aimed at recruiting and retaining qualified firefighters and emergency service personnel. He explained the Fire District was committed to high expectations and professionalism from its staff. Typically, he planned on recruiting approximately two people a year; however, this year there had been a tremendous amount of . community support with approximately twenty people applying for training. Other factors . . contributing to the increase in the budget this year included payment toward Workmen's Compensation insurance, fire prevention programs, the new radio system being implemented by Hennepin County, and additional capital transfers. Mayor Love commented the recruitment efforts by the Fire District were resoundingly successful, and he praised Chief DuCharme for a job well done. In addition, he noted, in this case, there was a large expense which cities were grateful to pay for outstanding service. He also explained there would possibly need to be discussions over the next few years concerning a special taxing district for the South Lake area regarding budgeting for the Fire District. Council gave consensus for approval of the proposed Excelsior Fire District Proposed 2002 Budget. Administrator Dawson and Council thanked the chiefs for presenting this information noting special gratitude given the lateness of the evening. D. City Budget Review . Finance Director Burton stated a brief review of the proposed city budget would take place, rather than a line item discussion. Administrator Dawson noted reductions in certain transfers to capital funds, such as equipment replacement and street reconstruction projects for the upcoming year. He also briefly reviewed changes in the use of equipment certificates, impacts on the budget due to the community visioning project, a change in funding election activities, recodification of the City's Code of Ordinances, changes in engineering staff, funding plans for parks and recreation programming, fees for professional services, information technology purchases, and staff services related to the formation of the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA). Further, he noted there were anticipated increases in the City's pay plan for employees, health insurance, and energy costs. Finance Director Burton explained the City proposed working with a $3,000,000 General Fund budget for the Year 2002. She noted there would be an approximate 3.6% increase in revenues for next year. In addition, she stated expenditures increased by approximately 11% this year. As a result, an additional levy would be required this year, as $427,000 would need to be replaced due to lost state aid. In spite of the fact a Truth-In-Taxation Hearing was not mandated by the State this year, staff CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES August 13, 2001 Page 3 of 3 recommended scheduling that Hearing anyway as it would be a beneficial communication tool for the City. Council agreed with staff s recommendation to schedule consideration of setting the proposed (i.e., not-to-exceed) 2002 property tax levy and acceptance of the proposed 2002 budget at the August 27, 2001 City Council meeting. 3. OTHER There was nothing further to report at this time. 4. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Zerby seconded, adjourning the August 13, 2001, City Council Work Session Meeting at 10:29 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLYSUBN.nTTED, . Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary Woody Love, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator . . Check Approval List/or 08/27/01 Council Meeting ''', Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 30958 MINNEHAHA CREEK W REIMBURSE MAILING COSTS APPL 8/16/01 $25.54 TOTAL FOR MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED $25.54 30959 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 AUGUST UNION DUES 8/16/01 $156.90 TOTAL FOR AFSCME COUNCIL 14 $156.90 30960 BRAUN PUMP & CONT SEWER LIFT REPRS 8/16/01 4041 $175.50 TOTAL FOR BRAUNPUMP & CONTROLS $175.50 30961 BROWN, LAWRENCE EXPENSE REPT THRU 7/11/01 8/16/01 $15.98 30961 BROWN, LAWRENCE EXPENSE REPT THRU 7/11/01 8/16/01 $50.65 30961 BROWN, LAWRENCE EXPENSE REPT THRU 7/11/01 8/16/01 $133.10 30961 BROWN, LAWRENCE EXPENSE REPT THRU 7/11/01 8/16/01 $159.74 TOTAL FOR BROWN, LAWRENCE $359.47 30962 CHAMPION AUTO STO WINDSHIELD WASHER FLUID 8/16/01 0-98757 $10.80 TOTAL FOR CHAMPION A UTO STORE #344 $10.80 30963 DAWSON, CRAIG EXP REPT 7/11-8/9 8/16/01 $366.20 TOTAL FOR DAWSON, CRAIG $366.20 . 30964 EISCHENS, JAMES MILEAGE 8/16/01 $1.12 30964 EISCHENS, JAMES MILEAGE 8/16/01 $1.11 30964 EISCHENS, JAMES MILEAGE 8/16/01 $1.12 TOTAL FOR EISCHENS, JAMES $3.35 30965 EXCELSIOR ACE HARD SPRAYER PARTS 8/16/01 476122 $1.66 30965 EXCELSIOR ACE HARD BULBS FOR WASH BAY 8/16/01 479469 $25.52 TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR ACE HARDWARE $27.18 30966 G & K SERVICES PW UNIFORMS 8/16/01 073101 STM $492.41 TOTAL FOR G & K SERVICES $492.41 30967 HERMEL WHOLESALE 8/16/01 307702 $79.99 30967 HERMEL WHOLESALE 8/16/01 307702 $687.72 30967 HERMEL WHOLESALE 8/16/01 307703 $14.54 30967 HERMEL WHOLESALE 8/16/01 307703 $562.68 30967 HERMEL WHOLESALE 8/16/01 307704 $149.82 30967 HERMEL WHOLESALE 8/16/01 307704 $593.94 TOTAL FOR HERMEL WHOLESALE $2,088.69 . 30968 HOPKINS PARTS COM FILTERS/FUSES/BULBS 8/16/01 51110 $27.20 30968 HOPKINS PARTS COM SANDER DISC 8/16/01 51589 $12.67 TOTAL FOR HOPKINS PARTS COMPANY $39.87 30969 ICMA RETIREMENT TR 8/14/01 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 8/16/01 $1,268.67 TOTAL FOR ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 $1,268.67 30970 JONES, MITCH REIMBURSE FOR ADV SURVEY -EA 8/16/01 $750.00 TOTAL FOR JONES, MITCH $750.00 30971 LUGOWSKI, JOSEPH SEC 125 REIMBURSEMENT 8/16/01 $181.54 TOTAL FOR LUGOWSKI, JOSEPH $181.54 30972 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 8/16/01 60317140 $369.35 30972 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 8/16/01 62489126 $309.47 30972 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 8/16/01 62494118 $143.10 30972 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 8/16/01 65563127 $385.60 30972 MIDWEST COCA-COLA 8/16/01 65576129 $267.39 TOTAL FOR MIDWEST COCA-COLA BOTTLlN' $1,474.91 30973 MINNEHAHA CREEK W SURETY/DEPOSIT PERMIT #01-093 8/16/01 $5,020.00 TOTAL FOR MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED $5,020.00 :#311 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount MINNESOTA GFOA GFOA CONFER 9/19-9/21 $200.00 ... . 30974 8/16/01 TOTAL FOR MINNESOTA GFOA $200.00 30975 MN CHILD SUPPORT P CHILD SUPPORT - C SCHMID 8/16/01 $173.51 30975 MN CHILD SUPPORT P CHILD SUPPORT - R CARLSON 8/16/01 $119.60 TOTAL FOR MN CHILD SUPPORT PMT CTR $293.11 30976 NORTH STAR ICE 8/16/01 04121611 $129.00 30976 NORTH STAR ICE 8/16/01 04121801 $69.60 30976 NORTH STAR ICE 8/16/01 05121804 $32.40 30976 NORTH STAR ICE 8/16/01 07121514 $112.80 30976 NORTH STAR ICE 8/16/01 08121613 $110.40 30976 NORTH STAR ICE 8/16/01 08121616 $109.20 TOTAL FOR NORTH STAR ICE $563.40 30977 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE 7/29-8/11/01 8/16/01 $59.05 30977 PAZANDAK, JOSEPH MILEAGE 7/29-8/11/01 8/16/01 $101.43 TOTAL FOR PAZANDAK, JOSEPH $160.48 30978 PERA 8/14/01 PAYROLL 8/16/01 $1,930.57 30978 PERA 8/14/01 PAYROLL 8/16/01 $2,105.36 TOTAL FOR PERA $4,035.93 30979 POMMER COMPANY, I PLAQUE-PAULA CALLIES 8/16/01 48696 $13.89 . 30979 POMMER COMPANY, I PLAQUES-BERNDTITHEMIG 8/16/01 48697 $112.77 TOTAL FOR POMMER COMPANY, INC. $126.66 30980 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/16/01 021437-00 $1,304.01 30980 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/16/01021437-00 $184.18 30980 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/16/01 021438-00 $110,95 30980 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/16/01 021438-00 $2,775.84 30980 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/16/01 021489-00 $987.51 TOTAL FOR QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO $5,362.49 30981 SCHARBER & SONS IN TORO BLOWER & AIR FILTER PART 8/16/01 2021388 $85.65 TOTAL FOR SCHARBER & SONS INC $85.65 30982 SHOREWOOD TRUE V TOILET PARTS 8/16/01 43433 $22.34 30982 SHOREWOOD TRUE V TOILET PARTS 8/16/01 43434 $6.01 30982 SHOREWOOD TRUE V SMOKE ALARMIWASP SPRAY 8/16/01 43497 $41.11 30982 SHOREWOOD TRUE V TOILET BRUSH/CLEANER/BATTERI 8/16/01 43640 $23.49 30982 SHOREWOOD TRUE V CLEANSERS 8/16/01 43681 $5.30 . TOTAL FOR SHORE WOOD TRUE VALUE $98.25 30983 TONKA UNITED SOCCE DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND-EDDY 8/16/01 $50.00 TOTAL FOR TONKA UNITED SOCCER ASSN $50.00 30984 US FILTER DISTRIBUTI METER READER REPAIRS 8/16/01 7486704 $114.00 TOTAL FOR US FILTER DISTRIBUTlON GROUP $114.00. 30985 ZEE MEDICAL SERVIC 8/16/01 54208555 $25.78 TOTAL FOR ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE $25.78 30986 ADVANCED IMAGING S JULY CONTRACT SVC 8/22/01 003591 $150.00 30986 ADVANCED IMAGING S AUGUST CONTRACT SVC 8/22/01 003823 $150.00 TOTAL FOR ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS INC $300.00 30987 AFSCME COUNCIL 14 AUGUST UNION DENTAL PREM 8/22/01 $224.22 TOTAL FOR AFSCME COUNCIL 14 $224.22 30988 ALBINSON GIDEON GLEN COLOR REDUCTION 8/22/01 C130028 $89.55 TOTAL FOR ALBINSON $89.55 30989 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. AUG CONTRACT SVCS 8/22/01 $120.00 30989 ANDERSON, KRISTI B. AUG CONTRACT SVCS 8/22/01 $120.00 TOTAL FOR ANDERSON, KRISTI B. $240.00 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amolmt ;.& 30990 CHECKPOINT SECURIT FIRE SYSTEM TEST/ANNUAL ALAR 8/22/01 430750 $275.00 TOTAL FOR CHECKPOINT SECURITY SYS $275.00 30991 CULLIGAN BOTTLED W 8/22/01 071188 $31.74 TOTAL FOR CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER $31.74 30992 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/22/01 121476 $1,417.05 30992 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/22/01 121477 $12.60 30992 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/22/01 121477 $1,515.70 TOTAL FOR EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPAN $2,945.35 30993 HEAL THPARTNERS AUGUST DENTAL PREM-NON-UNIO 8/22/01 14954653 $77.29 30993 HEAL THPARTNERS AUGUST DENTAL PREM-NON-UNIO 8/22/01 14954653 $32.06 30993 HEAL THPARTNERS AUGUST DENTAL PREM-NON-UNIO 8/22/01 14954653 $32.05 30993 HEAL THPARTNERS AUGUST DENTAL PREM-NON-UNIO 8/22/01 14954653 $421.36 TOTAL FOR HEALTHPARTNERS $562.76 30994 HENN CTY RECORDER REC FEE RESOLUTION 01-047 8/22/01 $30.00 TOTAL FOR HENN CTY RECORDER $30.00 30995 LAKESHORE WEEKLY ANNUAL SUMMARY FINCL REPT 8/22/01 66859 $923.40 TOTAL FOR LAKESHORE WEEKLY NEWS $923.40 . 30996 MN SUN PUBLICATION ESTABLISH SEDA 8/22/01 441689 $64.35 30996 MN SUN PUBLICATION WASTE COLLECTION 8/22/01 442315 $35.75 TOTAL FOR MN SUN PUBLICATIONS $100.10 30997 NORTH STAR ICE 8/22/01 04122311 $33.00 30997 NORTH STAR ICE 8/22/01 04122512 $90.60 30997 NORTH STAR ICE 8/22/01 05122514 $30.60 30997 NORTH STAR ICE 8/22/01 07122213 $131.92 30997 NORTH STAR ICE 8/22/01 08122308 $63.00 TOTAL FOR NORTHSTAR ICE $349.12 30998 POMMER COMPANY, I COUNCIL PLATES 8/22/01 48725 $56.44 TOTAL FOR POMMER COMPANY, INC. $56.44 30999 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/22/01 022184-00 $6.81 30999 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/22/01 022186-00 $35.72 30999 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/22/01 023873-00 $55.41 30999 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/22/01 023873-00 $1,009.48 30999 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/22/01 023882-00 $1,737.45 . 30999 QUALITY WINE & SPIRI 8/22/01 023885-00 $1,026.56 TOTAL FOR QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS CO $3,871.43 31000 SAM'S CLUB 8/22/01 073101 $184.00 31000 SAM'S CLUB 8/22/01 073101 $127.00 31000 SAM'S CLUB 8/22/01 073101 $63.39 TOTAL FOR SAM'S CLUB $374.39 31001 STAR TRIBUNE LEO/ENG TECH ADS 8/22/01 $804.60 31001 STAR TRIBUNE DAILY NEWSPAPER DELIVERY 8/22/01 8647709-080 $23.65 TOTAL FOR STAR TRIBUNE $828.25 31002 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/22/01 234451 $46.15 31002 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/22/01 234451 $2,052.00 TOTAL FOR THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPA $2,098.15 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 42485 $755.29 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 42808 $424.67 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 42925 $645.00 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 43029 $106.83 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 43270 $433.19 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 43344 $223.59 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount ~ 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 43425 $442.48 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 43785 $221.38 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 44221 $1,327.98 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 44333 $505.61 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22101 44334 $661.92 31003 WM. MUELLER & SONS 8/22/01 44441 $666.89 TOTAL FOR WM. MUELLER & SONS, INC $6,414.83 31004 XCELENERGY 8/22/01 0326-600-56 $188.93 31004 XCELENERGY 8/22/01 1732-704-10 $2,461.12 31004 XCEL ENERGY 8/22/01 2095-300-56 $2,750.99 TOTAL FOR XCEL ENERGY $5,401.04 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34299500 $10.10 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34299500 $57.34 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34314600 $18.83 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34353600 $19.84 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34353600 $163.86 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34353700 $14.88 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 34353700 $175.24 31005 BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY 8/28/01 3602400 $93.19 . TOTAL FOR BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY $553.28 31006 BELLBOY CORPORATI 8/28/01 21907600 $1,079.85 31006 BELLBOY CORPORATI 8/28/01 21907700 $169.45 31006 BELLBOY CORPORATI 8/28/01 21907800 $573.70 31006 BELLBOY CORPORATI 8/28/01 21963900 $874.25 31006 BELLBOY CORPORATl 8/28/01 21964000 $203.20 31006 BELLBOY CORPORA TI 8/28/01 21964100 $117.15 TOTAL FOR BELLBOY CORPORA TION $3,017.60 31007 BEST ACCESS SYSTE EDDY STATION LOCKSETIKEYS 8/28/01 MN-134544 $160.50 TOTAL FOR BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS $160.50 31008 BURTON, BONNIE AUG EXPENSES 8/28/01 $37.14 TOTAL FOR BURTON, BONNIE $37.14 31009 DAWSON, CRAIG AUG EXPENSES 8/28/01 $19.76 TOTAL FOR DAWSON, CRAIG $19.76 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 144394 $1,207.50 . 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 144729 $19.20 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 144729 $1,485.95 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 144730 $1,595.40 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 145259 $18.40 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 145259 $1,077.45 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 145594 $720.90 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 145595 $18.40 31010 DAY DISTRIBUTING 8/28/01 145595 $906.40 TOTAL FOR DAY DISTRIBUTING $7,049.60 31011 DEM-CON LANDFILL IN CHURCH RD CEMENT 8/28/01 2360 $30.00 TOTAL FOR DEM-CON LANDFILL INC $30.00 31012 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFE WOODHAVEN WELL HAZ CHEMICA 8/28/01 27220000400 $100.00 31012 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFE AMESBURY WELL HAZ CHEMICAL F 8/28/01 27220000500 $100.00 31012 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFE SE AREA WELL HAZ MATERIALS FE 8/28/01 27220000600 $100.00 31012 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFE BLDR BRIDGE WELL HAZ CHEMICA 8/28/01 27220000700 $100.00 31012 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFE BADGER WELL HAZ CHEMICAL FEE 8/28/01 27220000800 $100.00 TOTAL FOR DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY $500.00 31013 DJ'S MUNICIPAL SUPP VESTS/EARPLUGS 8/28/01 4031 $233.61 . . Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount TOTAL FOR DJ'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY INC $233.61 31014 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/28/01 123834 $47.50 31014 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/28/01 123840 $1,157.85 31014 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/28/01 124564 $2,850.80 31014 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/28/01 124565 $19.00 31014 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/28/01 124565 $330.40 31014 EAST SIDE BEVERAGE 8/28/01 126895 $2,607.90 TOTAL FOR EAST SIDE BEVERAGE COMPAN $7,013.45 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 412991 $80.78 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 412991 $181.98 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 412992 $373.00 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 412992 $80.78 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413020 $399.33 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01413776 $1,125.31 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413777 $60.93 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413778 $834.30 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413782 $284.75 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413783 $40.62 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413784 $333.72 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413793 $914.12 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413794 $96.55 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 413795 $417.15 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 414406 $430.75 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 414407 $142.51 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 414414 $143.91 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 416770 $51.48 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 416770 $2,322.98 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 416775 $25.50 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 416775 $1,148.98 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 416793 $1,395.55 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 417468 $214.14 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 417469 $220.05 31016 GRIGGS, COOPER & C 8/28/01 567500 ($19.31) TOTAL FOR GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY $11,299.86 31017 HARDRIVES, INC PV #4 FINAL VINE HILUCOVINGTON 8/28/01 $34,775.03 TOTAL FOR HARDRIVES,INC $34,775.03 31018 HAWKINS WATER TRE WATER CHEMICALS 8/28/01 369662 $2,121.87 TOTAL FOR HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT $2,121.87 31019 HOISINGTON/KOEGLE PROJ-SHOREWOOD VISION SCOPI 8/28/01 $200.00 TOTAL FOR HOISINGTON/KOEGLER GROUP $200.00 31020 HONEYWELL PROTECT SEMI-ANNUAL ALARM MONITORIN 8/28/01 675PS183 $172.53 TOTAL FOR HONEYWELL PROTECTION SERV $172.53 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285817 $144.99 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285817 $322.60 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285818 $293.10 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285819 $42.80 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285820 $41.50 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285820 $753.11 31021 JOHNSON BROS LIQU 8/28/01 .1285822 $386.70 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1285822 $509.22 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1288550 $66.15 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1288550 $241.20 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1288551 $749.44 ~:W');'ili'::~~ffi",'il<,t,~r::~':ii;;~,,'tm~{~~t"i:r;llirtL~:,i.t::';'""t:::~:m~,~\"'~"!IT:t!'~rr~~~i2,%i7:;;;i;,;':'&!';:~~~;',.:(;',"i{~~i,<,:~:{;'3~~',;~1!":'~':n'!r:':f:~:;;"'";:',.,:;',~~l,~\.' m"'i;i';r.;m:,,\';,,,~",:::~.:>~~,;.~~':r",,,~,?!;al';'lm~,~i;':'r:;:t:"'~~'''''~t:~r,,:'~:;,,;,~l:;mm~;mm"~~~\\'tr';<.I!~",,~~M1m":\11:'.m:;:~m'"E,,,>t:!6n%:"">~ Thursday, August 23, 2001 Page 5 of 8 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1288551 $368.05 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1288553 $268.80 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 1288553 $806.95 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 165819 ($67.50) 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 166229 ($5.51 ) 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 166230 ($0.86) 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 166231 ($9.65) 31021 JOHNSON BROS L1QU 8/28/01 166232 ($9.65) TOTAL FOR JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO. $4,901.44 31022 LK MTKA CONSERV. 01 WATER PATROL INV 8/28/01 $3,285.72 31022 LK MTKA CONSERV. 01 3RD QTR LEVY PYMT 8/28/01 $5,955.94 TOTAL FOR LK MTKA CONSERV. DISTRICT $9,241.66 31023 M/A ASSOCIATES INC. BOWL CLEANER 8/28/01 021471 $95.34 TOTAL FOR M/A ASSOCIATES INC. $95.34 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 308412 $640.90 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 308413 $97.50 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 308423 $2,574.65 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 308424 $97.50 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 308427 $1,220.20 . 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 311247 $3,246.30 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 311248 $12.80 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 311249 $1,558.20 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 311250 $62.00 31024 MARK VII 8/28/01 311262 $1,652.00 TOTAL FOR MARK VII $11,162.05 31025 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 8/28/01 9660/9691 $32.40 31025 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 8/28/01 9660/9691 $32.40 31025 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 8/28/01 9661/9692 $68.85 31025 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 8/28/01 9661/9692 $68.85 31025 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 8/28/01 9662/9693 $40.50 31025 MARLIN'S TRUCKING 8/28/01 9662/9693 $40.50 TOTAL FOR MARLIN'S TRUCKING $283.50 31026 MEDICA SEPT INS PREM 8/28/01 10124410220 $366.45 31026 MEDICA SEPT INS PREM 8/28/01 10124410220 $646.12 31026 MEDICA SEPT INS PREM 8/28/01 10124410220 $4,509.98 . 31026 MEDICA SEPT INS PREM 8/28/01 10124410220 $366.45 31026 MEDICA SEPT INS PREM 8/28/01 10124412259 $1,222.21 31026 MEDICA SEPT INS PREM 8/28/01 10124412545 $1,549.18 TOTAL FOR MEDICA $8,660.39 31027 METRO COUNCIL ENVI SEPT WASTEWATER 8/28/01 0000725656 $24,791.80 TOTAL FOR METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT $24,791.80 31028 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO BRAKE CABLE 8/28/01 84681-00 $50.95 31028 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO SPRINKLER HEADS 8/28/01 84771-00 $385.84 TOTAL FOR MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY $436.79 31029 MUNITECH, INC. SEPT SVCS 8/28/01 7742 $4,675.00 31029 MUNITECH, INC. SEPT SVCS 8/28/01 7742 $3,825.00 TOTAL FOR MUNITECH,INC. $8,500.00 31030 NORTH STAR ICE 8/28/01 04123009 $69.60 31030 NORTH STAR ICE 8/28/01 07122909 $34.80 TOTAL FOR NORTH STAR ICE $104.40 31031 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 8/28/01 155764 $225.00 31031 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 8/28/01 155765 $225.00 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 31031 PAUSTIS WINE COMPA 8/28/01 155766 $225.00 TOTAL FOR PAUSTIS WINE COMPANY $675.00 31032 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 8/28/01 77055517 $86.20 31032 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 8/28/01 77055518 $33.14 31032 PEPSI COLA COMPANY 8/28/01 77055524 $39.92 TOTAL FOR PEPSI COLA COMPANY $159.26 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 3244044 ($115.85) 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744194 $346.55 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744194 $196.50 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744194 $121.00 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744195 $24.00 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744196 $208.00 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744196 $352.85 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744196 $479.15 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 144198 $432.00 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 744198 $87.00 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 144198 $184.30 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746327 $217.88 . 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746328 $148.80 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746328 $613.10 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746328 $86.97 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746330 $37.00 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746330 $173.75 31033 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRI 8/28/01 746330 $462.42 TOTAL FOR PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS $4,055.42 31034 QUEST DEX 8/28/01 00924120600 $188.36 TOTAL FOR QUEST DEX $188.36 31035 QUEST 8/28/01 $48.44 TOTAL FOR QUEST $48.44 31036 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF ADOBE ACROBAT CLASS-P HELLlN 8/28/01 C52517 $139.00 31036 SCIENCE MUSEUM OF ADOBE ACROBAT CLASS-P HELLlN 8/28/01 C52517 $139.00 TOTAL FOR SCIENCE MUSEUM OF MN $278.00 31037 SO LK MTKA POLICE D SEPTEMBER BUDGET 8/28/01 $44,902.67 TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA POLICE DEPT $44,902.67 . 31038 SUN PATRIOT NEWSPA ESTABLISH SEDA 8/28/01 741 $43.38 TOTAL FOR SUN PATRIOT NEWSPAPERS INC $43.38 31039 THOMAS & SONS CON PV#3 FREEMAN PK SEWER/WATER 8/28/01 $15,960.24 TOTAL FOR THOMAS & SONS CONSTR INC $15,960.24 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 189331 ($79.20) 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 196606 ($236.00) 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 234565 $2,072.05 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235121 $11.20 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235127 $1,536.15 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235182 $1,657.85 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235294 $63.00 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235308 $23.75 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235308 $1,638.00 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235796 $11.20 31040 THORPE DISTRIBUTIN 8/28/01 235196 $2,417.90 TOTAL FOR THORPE DISTRIBUTING COMPA $9,115.90 31041 TONKA BAY-CITY OF GROSS % OF SALES RENT DUE 8/28/01 $8,839.70 TOTAL FOR TONKA BAY-CITYOF $8,839.70 Check # Vender Name Description Check Date Invoice # Amount 31042 TOTAL PRINTING SERV INSPECTION NOTICES 8/28/01 1524 $175.44 TOTAL FOR TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES $175.44 31043 TRI COUNTY BEVERAG 8/28/01 93233 $153.75 TOTAL FOR TRI COUNTY BEVERAGE & SUPPLY $153.75 31044 TWIN CITY WATER CLI JULY BACTERIA ANALYSIS 8/28/01 7742 $60.00 TOTAL FOR TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC $60.00 31045 UNUM LIFE INSURANC SEPT PREM-L TO 8/28/01 $12.03 31045 UNUM LIFE INSURANC SEPT PREM-L TO 8/28/01 $13.67 31045 UNUM LIFE INSURANC SEPT PREM-L TO 8/28/01 $13.96 31045 UNUM LIFE INSURANC SEPT PREM-L TO 8/28/01 $221.11 TOTAL FOR UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO $260.77 31046 VINTAGE ONE WINES, I 8/28/01 5827 $201.00 TOTAL FOR VINTAGE ONE WINES,INC. $201.00 31047 WINE MERCHANTS 8/28/01 45507 $234.00 31047 WINE MERCHANTS 8/28/01 45508 $234.00 TOTAL FOR WINE MERCHANTS $468.00 31048 XCELENERGY 8/28/01 0145-009-26 $33.15 31048 XCEL ENERGY 8/28/01 0408-607-95 $72.61 . 31048 XCEL ENERGY 8/28/01 0615-308-36 $3.14 31048 XCEL ENERGY 8/28/01 0677-702-26 $884.23 31048 XCELENERGY 8/28/01 1285-101-66 $17.59 31048 XCEL ENERGY 8/28/01 1373-808-26 $7.89 31048 XCEL ENERGY 8/28/01 1440-708-46 $240.63 31048 XCELENERGY 8/28/01 1564-303-36 $7.63 31048 XCEL ENERGY 8/28/01 1605-305-56 $107.42 31048 XCELENERGY 8/28/01 1724-866-54 $87.53 31048 XCELENERGY 8/28/01 2001-503-26 $15.91 TOTAL FOR XCEL ENERGY $1,477.73 TOTAL CHECKS $271,097.21 . PAYABLESAPPROVALS For 8/27/01 Council Meeting . . Prepared by: (!OtlINU:'L f' J!k. Catherine Elke, Sr. Accountant Reviewed by: ~~ Bonnie Burton, Fi ce Director Date: 8--~3-0 J Date: ~/O/ Date:~1 t-~ PI awson, City Administrator . Payroll Register Check # Last Name First Name MI Check Amt Check Date 1082 BURTON BONNIE M \,713.25 8/\4/01 1083 EISCHENS JAMES E 901.22 8/14/01 1084 ELKE CATHERINE M 776.34 8/\4/0\ 1085 FASCHING PATRICIA L 781.67 8/14/01 1086 GROUT TWILA R ~91.07 8/14/01 1087 HELLING PAMELA J 709.95 8/14/01 1088 JOHNSON DENNIS D 1,042.19 8/1 4/0 1 1089 KALLEST AD STEPHEN N 929.66 8/14/01 1090 LEDWITH JAMES R 21.91 8/14/01 1091 LEDWITH MARIE E 29.37 8/1 4/0 1 1092 LUGOWSKI JOSEPH P 1,003.71 8/14/0\ 1093 MOORE JULIE K 272.6\ 8/\4/0\ 1094 NICCUM LA WRENCE A \ ,884.89 8/1 4/0 \ 1095 NIELSEN BRADLEY J \,045.86 8/1 4/0 \ . 1096 P ANCHYSHY JEAN M 1,0\7.89 8/\4/01 1097 PAZANDAK JOSEPH E \ ,436.42 8/\4/0\ 1098 RANDALL DANIEL J \,103.20 8/\4/0\ 1099 SCHMID CHRISTOPHER E 584.3\ 8/\4/0\ 1100 SCHNEEWIN JACQUELYN K 911.24 8/\4/0\ \101 STARK BRUCE H 930.63 8/14/0\ 1102 SW ANDBY DONALD R \,187.\4 8/1 4/0 \ 216877 BECKMAN JENNIFER A 205.80 8/14/01 2\6878 BROWN LA WRENCE A \ ,808.64 8/1 4/0 1 216879 CARLSON ERIK M 637.53 8/1 4/0 \ 216880 CARLSON RICHARD E 91. 73 8/14/01 216881 DA VIS CHARLES S \,015.57 8/1 4/0 1 216882 DA WSON CRAIG W 1,574.77 8/14/01 . 216883 DUFFY DA VID C 153.70 8/14/01 216884 HELGESEN PATRICIA R 830.85 8/14/01 216885 HIRSCH DANA M 161.17 8/14/01 216886 KARELS PAUL C 156.99 8/14/01 216887 KRAUSE HEIDI E 65.33 8/14/01 216888 LATTERNER SUSAN M 359.77 8/1 4/0 1 216889 LUCERO MATTHEW G 202.82 8/1 4/0 1 216890 MANSHIP AUSTIN A 86.20 8/14/01 216891 MARRON RUSSELL R 40.10 8/14/01 216892 MASON BRADLEY J 1,027.81 8/14/01 216893 NEUMANN TIMOTHY A 113.55 8/14/01 216894 POUNDER CHRISTOPHER J 892.31 8/14/01 216895 SORENSON HEIDI M 39.37 8/.\4/0\ 216896 SWECKER LANCE M 160.97 8/14/01 Thursday, August 23, 2001 Page 1 of2 Check # Last Name First Name MI Check Amt Check Date 216897 THURSTON DOROTHY M 243.66 8/14/0 1 216898 TODD CHRISTOPHER M 132.98 8/14/01 216899 WALES MELISSA L 119.12 8/14/01 Total of Checks $29,295.27 . . Thursday, August 23, 2001 Page 2 of2 PAYROLL APPROV ALS For 8/27/01 Council Meeting Prepared by: ~11~. ~ Catherine Elke, Sr. Accountant Date: ~~~ 3-0 I . Date:~d3~/ Date: ~ ~J. OJ . "" CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX(952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM Date: August 21, 2001 . Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer ~ Craig Dawson, City Administrator ~ 2002 Police Budget To: From: Police Chief Bryan Litsey presented his 2002 Budget to the City Council at the budget worksession held on August 13,2001. The Council will recall the following highlights: . . The Member Cities ofthe SLMPD agre~d to a new funding allocation for the 2002 budget year. Under this new allocation, Shorewood's funding obligation is 46.0%, compared to 44.8% in 2001. . The SLMPD Coordinating Committee has recommended an 8.3% budget increase for 2002. . Shorewood's contribution is $599,000 for 2002, compared to $539,000 in 2001. The City Council will recall that each of the four member cities must approve a budget by September 1. Failure to do so results in having the current year budget established as the next year budget. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is requested to approve the 2002 South Lake Minnetonka Police Budget as presented by Chief Litsey. ft \,J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER -#38 / ~ /Tn' {!;~. PRELIMINARY 2002 BUDGET PROPOSAL . ? (Not For General Distribution - Work Session Only) PREPARED BY CHIEF DRY AN LITSEY . . ......~~, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW Cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood, & Tonka Bay JUNE 28, 2001 . . 2002 BUDGET PROPOSAL OVERVIEW By - Chief Bryan Litsey This is my third year of preparing a budget for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department. Like the budgets I prepared for the years 2000 and 2001, my budget proposal for the year 2002 is a true representation of what our police department needs in order to continue offering the high caliber of law enforcement the residents have come to know and expect. In order to achieve this objective, I went through an internal assessment of where we have been as an organization, where we are at now and where we want to be in the future. This approach has worked well for me in the past as evidenced by my last two budget proposals passing through the administrative review . process with no significant modifications and subsequently being adopted overwhelmingly by the Coordinating Committee as well as their respective City Councils. I do not subscribe to the practice of purposely preparing a budget on the high side in order to give the appearance later on in the process that significant concessions are being made. This type of charade builds mistrust between the participants and slows the process down. You can rest assured, therefore, that this budget proposal has already gone through close scrutiny from within our organization and is being presented as a realistic assessment of our needs in the coming year. I have prepared the attached spreadsheets which give a breakdown of anticipated line item expenses and revenues along with a corresponding narrative which summarizes each category. In addition, I have highlighted in the ensuing paragraphs some additional comments I would like to make about my budget proposal. This is the first budget to be impacted by the funding formula change that was officially made to our Joint Powers Agreement in December of2000. This amendment received unanimous support from the Coordinating Committee and was approved overwhelmingly by each of the four City Councils that fund our organization. This change was predicated on the Funding Formula Study that was commissioned by the Coordinating Committee at my recommendation, which suggested fixed percentages over the then current demand formula be used to determine each member cities fmancial contribution to our police department. The independent consultant who conducted the study, James Runn, came up PAGE 2 - CHIEF'S OVERVIEW OF 2002 BUDGET PROPOSAL with the following fixed percentages based upon historical data and other mitigating factors: Excelsi~r G reelllwood 29.5%) 8.50/0 Sborewood Tonka Bay 46.0% 16.0% '" Please refer to the report prepared by Consultant James Hurmfor more detailed information. One of the inherent advantages of the new funding formula is that the percentages will remain constant after this transitional year, unlike the previous demand formula which was subject to annual fluctuations. In this transitional year, however, a noticeable shift occurs in the funding of our organization, with the City of Excelsior receiving significant financial relief and the other three cities absorbing the difference. The City of Shorewood assumes the greatest increase in terms of actual dollars. This shift was anticipated at the time the amendment was being considered and was presented as such. Nevertheless, this presents a challenge for me as an administrator in trying to prepare a budget during this transitional year. I am confident, however, that the funding formula change is now a moot point because of its widespread acceptance at the time of adoption. The budgets of the past two years, coupled with the effective management of our resources, has allowed our police department to make significant inroads in a number of critical areas. My 2002 budget proposal preserves and builds upon these gains so that we continue to move forward as an organization. I am confident that the political powers to be along with their administrative support staff will once again see this as a reasonable budget that gives each of their cities quality law enforcement at an exceptional value. There is no question that the communities we serve benefit from an enhanced level of law enforcement services that none of them could duplicate on their own fmancially. This was vividly illustrated in the study commissioned by the Coordinating Committee last year to look at the formula used to fund our police department. In the report prepared by Consultant Jim Rurm, reference was made to this beneficial arrangement and included a cost comparison between our organization and neighboring police departments using a ratio based on number of residents. Needless to say, our agency had the lowest cost per resident among those surveyed. This certainly bolsters the position that our Joint Powers Organization offers a good "bang for the buck" for all four cities (No pun intended.) A number of factors will impact the budget in 2002. Some of these are hard to predict, . . . . PAGE 3 - CffiEF'S OVERVIEW OF 2002 BUDGET PROPOSAL such as the volatility of energy costs, which over the past year have dramatically increased the expense of operating our fleet of vehicles and maintaining our police station. Adding to this is the spiraling cost associated with providing health insurance benefits for our employees, which by all indications will experience double digit increases once again. Weare also faced with the loss of supplemental funding for emergency management due to the restructuring of the grant program that will no longer provide individual funding to local cities in Hennepin County. Some of the more predictable increases include the long awaited switch over of the Hennepin County Communications System to 800 MHz in mid-2002. This latest upgrade in technology comes at a significant price tag that will be quite costly for public safety agencies such as ours that are part of the Hennepin County system. Fortunately, my predecessor had the foresight to establish the Designated Radio Fund to help offset the fmancial impact and allow us to gradually absorb the cost to the operating budget rather than all at once. I have added to this fund since becoming Chief of Police and feel we are in a better financial position than many of our counterparts to make this transition. The Designated Radio Fund will now be debited for communication expenses with annual revenues coming into the fund from the operating budget that will increase each year until reaching parity. (See Appendix A.) I have discussed this with CPA Stuart Bonniwell and he has no problem operating in this manner. Another anticipated increase is in the area of personnel, which is our number one budgetary expense. I have addressed this in more detail in the ensuing paragraphs. Characteristic of most budgets, the cost of personnel consumes the largest percentage of our budget. It is important to note, however, that personnel are also our most important asset. Weare fortunate to have exceptional personnel during a period of time when the recruitment and retention of quality personnel is a major problem for most law enforcement agencies. In order to achieve this objective I have made a conscious effort, with the support of the Coordinating Committee, to make our organization more competitive in a number of areas such as wages, benefits, career development and advancement opportunities. The impact on past budgets has been lessened somewhat by the departure of some of our more senior personnel through retirements, career changes and up scaling to larger agencies. This trend is reversing itself, however, as a result of accelerated pay and benefits being extended to our new hires with experience and our current personnel gravitating toward the higher end of the wage and benefit scale. In addition, there is a carryover from 2001 in regard to the salary and benefit increases that were agreed upon with union and non-union employees after the 2001 budget was adopted. These increases will not be fully reached until 2002, when our staffing levels are expected to stabilize and there should be a full complement of personnel for the PAGE 4 - CHIEF'S OVERVIEW OF 2002 BUDGET PROPOSAL majority of the year. The financial impact of rolling over the Shorewood Community Policing Position into our regular complement of officers should be fully realized in 2002. This conversion was part of the 2000 budget, but the benefits of this added position have yet to be realized for any meaningful period of time due to staffing shortages. This increases our authorized strength from 13 to 14 full-time officers, but our organization still has the fewest full-time officers in relationship to our population base than any of the other police departments surveyed in the Lake Minnetonka area. The cumulative average in the geographical area surveyed is one officer for every 680 residents while our police department has a ratio of one officer for every 862 residents. (See Appendix B.) As part of the 2001 budget, authorization was given to create a part-time Community . Service Officer (CSO) position. The need for this civilian position has existed for quite some time to help free up our police officers from some of the more routine tasks that do not require the same level of expertise. We were fortunate to have the ideal person for this position within our own ranks. This person is David Hohertz, who has been affiliated with our organization for the past eighteen years as a reserve officer and seasonal park patrol officer. He was able to work this part-time CSO position into his already busy schedule, which includes family obligations, working his primary job at Methodist Hospital and working the seasonal part-time position of Park Patrol Officer in the Excelsior Commons Park. I profiled both David Hohertz and the CSO position in my last two Chiefs Newsletters. (See Appendix C.) The value of having a Community Service Officer (CSO) in conjunction with a person the caliber of David Hohertz was quickly realized shortly after the position became a reality . in March of2001. The need for his services has far outweighed his availability on a part- time basis. These include, but are not limited to, parking complaints and enforcement, patrolling the parks and trails, maintenance of equipment, transporting evidence to the county and state crime labs, miscellaneous errands, overseeing crime prevention projects and assisting the administrative and clerical staff with a number of details. There is already a demonstrated need to expand the CSO position to a full-time status, which is a cost-effective way to accommodate the increasing requests from the cities we serve for services that do not require taking a police officer away from their primary responsibilities. There is also an added value in making this a career position in that David Hohertz, who is very much interested in going full-time, can make this his primary job. The feedback I have received to date has been positive in terms of expanding the CSO position to full-time, since the need has been clearly demonstrated. It is obviously a less costly approach to addressing some of our staffIng needs than adding a full-time " . . PAGE 5 - CHIEF'S OVERVIEW OF 2002 BUDGET PROPOSAL police officer, even though our organization should increase our complement of police officers when compared to our counterparts in the Lake Minnetonka area. (See Appendix B.) I am proposing the transition from a part-time Community Service Officer position to a full-time Community Service Officer/Crime Prevention Specialist position that will be phased in during 2002 to help spread out the impact on the budget over two years. My budget proposal reflects this taking place on April 1, 2002. It should be noted this position is not intended to provide animal control services, which, if assumed by our agency would require a much greater allocation of money, resources and personnel. The current arrangement for animal control through the Orono Police Department has for the most part been working out satisfactorily. One of my fmancial strategies since assuming my current position has been to use any excess revenue at the end of a budget year for capital improvements. The Coordinating Committee has been supportive of this approach, which has led to expenditures being made for such things as computer upgrades, new furniture for the front office and a new phone/voice mail system for the police station. In addition, it has allowed us to increase the balance in several of our designated funds to more comfortable levels. I anticipate following this same strategy in 2002 if there are favorable revenues at the end of this year. This will lighten the load on capital expenditures having to be supplemented by the operating budget. Another consideration that needs to be taken into account in 2002 has to do with the officers union contract. Although it was settled for 200 I and 2002, there is a re-opener in the contract for health insurance benefits or some sort of "cafeteria plan" in 2002. The cafeteria plan approach would have an equalizing effect between single employees and employees with dependents which could raise the employer contribution significantly. This would be in addition to the already large increases expected for health insurance in 2002, with the rates still pending but anticipated to be in the 12 to 15 percent range. Several options are being explored in regard to the aforementioned re-opener in the officers union contract, but it is unlikely there will be any settlement before my 2002 budget proposal needs to be approved. As a contingency plan, therefore, money in reserve has been factored into the equation to help ease the fmancial impact of any such settlement. This would, however, have a continued impact on the operational budget in future years. I will continue in 2002 to aggressively pursue outside sources of funding as well as to manage effectively our expenses and revenues and build upon my efforts over the last two budget cycles to upgrade our technology, equipment and facility. This has been a challenge when it comes to preparing a budget, since at the same time I have been trying PAGE 6 - CHIEF'S OVERVIEW OF 2002 "BUDGET PROPOSAL to increase our staffing levels to meet the needs of the community and provide more competitive compensation in order to retain good personnel. This has meant having to fine-tune the budget in a number of areas in order to increase the budget in other areas. Even though the net effect has been increases above the rate of inflation, the costs have not been excessive given what has been and will be achieved. I feel my 2002 budget is a reasonable request and, in fact, probably errs on the side of being too lean. Even so, I would feel comfortable working with this budget if left intact. . . 2002 BUDGET REQUEST BY CITY SOUTH LAKE MlNNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT *"'** FIRST YEAR OF FUNDING FORMULA CHANGE *"'** Addition of.Ful/- Time Community Service Officer-Crime Prevention Special/st CITY BUDGET PERCENTAGE TOT AL SHARE INCREASE OVER 2001 CHANGE $1,302,050.00 29.5% $3~,104.75 $6,441.25 1.7% GREENWOOD $1,302,050.00 8.5% $110,674.25 $13.251.50 13.6% SHOREWOOO $1.302.050.00 46.0% $598,943.00 $60,111.00 11.2% TONKA BAY $1.302,050.00 16.0% $208,328.00 $19.496.25 10.3% TOTALS $1,302,050.00 $99,300,00 8.3% 2001 CONTRIBUTIONS BY CITY CITY BUDGET PERCENTAGE TOT AL SHARE INCREASE OVER 2000 CHANGE EXCELSIOR $1,202,750.00 31.4% $377,663.50 $27.269.36 7.8% GREENWOOD $1,202,750.00 8.1% $97,422.75 $6,114.83 6.7% SHOREWOOD $1,202,750.00 44.8% $538,832.00 $19,518.21 3.8% TONKA BAY $1.202,750.00 -15.7% $188,831.75 . $8,498.61 4.7% TOTAL $1,202,750.00 $61,401.01 5.4% SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DEPARTMENT PROJECTED EXPENSES - 2002 BUDGET Addition of Full- Time Community Service Officer-Crime Prevention Specialist ITEM CATEGORY AMOUNT 50100 Salaries Full-time $861,300 50200 Salaries Overtime $60,500 50300 Salaries Part-time $63,000 50500 FICA/Medicare $16,500 50600 PERA Pension $85.300 50700 Insurance Benefits $102,000 51000 Contract Services $8,450 52100 Equipment Leases $16.900 52200 Repairs & Maintenance $27,700 52300 Utilities $21,100 52400 Janitorial & Cleaning $5,700 52500 Printing & Publishing $5,200 52800 Care of Persons $100 53000 Supplies $36,900 54000 Uniforms & Gear $11,000 54500 Travel. Conferences & Schools $10,500 55000 Building Rent $38,400 56000 Insurance $40,000 56100 Subscriptions, Memberships & Police License Fees $3,850 57000 Special Projects $9,650 58000 Capital Outlay $52,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $1,476,050 '. . '. PROJECTED REVENUES - 2002 BUDGET (Excludes Cities Contributions) .. SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE DE.PARTMENT Addition of Full-Time Community Service Officer-Crime Prevention Specialist . ITEM CATEGORY AMOUNT 40110 Court Overtime $5,000 40120 Excelsior Park Patrol- Dockmaster $19,000 40130 Shorewood Special Details $15,000 42100 State Peace Officer Aid $81,500 42200 State Training Reimbursement $5,500 42300 Emergency Preparedness Grant - (Funding No Longer Available) N/A 43100 Minnetonka School District $7,000 43200 Copies of Documents, Photos and Tapes - Fingerprint Requests $2,500 43400 Security Details $5,000 44000 Investment Income $13,000 46100 Sale of Vehicles $12,000 46400 Forfeitures $1,000 46500 Misc. State Reimbursement $7,500 TOTAL INCOME $174,000 COST TO CITIES (EXPENSES MINUS INCOME) $1,302,050 " .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us . MEMORANDUM . Date: August 21,2001 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer ~ Craig Dawson, City Administrator ~ 2002 Fire Budget From: Re: Excelsior Fire District Fire Chief Mark DuCharme presented his 2002 Budget to the City Council at the budget worksession held on August 13,2001. The Council will recall the following highlights: . · The member cities of the Excelsior Fire District agreed to anew funding allocation for the 2002 budget year. Under this new allocation, Shorewood's funding obligation is 42.12%. · The total EFD budget will increase from $565,000 in 2001 to $675,000 in 2002. Major increases will occur in capital facilities funding and recruiting. · Shorewood's contribution will increase from $240,000 in 2001 to $284,500 in 2002. · A majority of member cities must approve a budget by September 1. Mound Fire District In addition, Shorewood's portion of the Mound Fire District Budget is $9,300 for 2002 compared to $8,100 in 2001. The increase is in anticipation of authorizing a full time fire chief/inspector position. RECOMMENDATION: The City of Shorewood's combined total cost for fire protection services is approximately $295,000 for 2002, compared to $236,000 in 2001. The City Council is requested to approve the 2002 Excelsior Fire District and Mound Fire Department Budgets as presented. n ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~3(!., , .. . Excelsior Fire District Proposed Budget 2002 . . Tax Parcels EXCELSIOR FIRE DIS~ Proposed Budget 2002 Allocation by City using Joint Powers Agreement funding formula for 2002 Proposed 2002 Budget $ 675.455 Dollars Percent Dollars Percent Population Parcels Percent Calls Percent Deephaven $7,723,677 29.14% $533,310,200 29.70% 3,853 1,580 23.98% 330 16.35% 24.76% Excelsior $2,801,200 10.57% $164,684,400 9.17% 2,393 898 13.63% 599 29.68% 15.67% Green od $1 716,327 6.48% $117,380,300 6.54% 720 347 5.27% 110 5 50 5.67% Shorewood** $10,891,160 41.09% $742,48 ,640 41.35% 7,13 2,923 44.36% 771 38.21% 42.12% Tonka Bay 3,3 , 97 12.72% $237,845,600 3.25% 1,547 842 12.78% 208 10.31% 11.79% $26.504.361 100.000A, $1.795.705.lli! 100.00% 15.649 100.00% 6.590 100.00% 2.018 100.00% 100.00% $675.455 (Using 2001 Hennepin County Assessors' valuations and current 3 year call data less calls to 255 Mill Street, Excelsior) * Population estimates are Metropolitan Council's based on the 2000 Census. (Most Current) ** Total 2001 Tax Capacity, Market Value, Population and Parcel Count less reduction for The Islands served by the Mound FD. Tax Capacity 1999 Pay 2000 Estimated Market Value Including Personal Property Est. Population* % Change in Tax Capacity 11.0% 12.2% 11.9% 9.7% 11.4% % Change in Market Value 11.6% 13.8% 15.4% 12.4% 17.4% % Change in Popultaion 3.9% 1.9% 2.1% 5.8% 2.8% Deephavcn Excelsior Greenwood Shorewood Tonka Bay 3 Year Call Data Sum of all Cities' Calculated Factors/5 Share of Cost % Change in Parcels 0.1% -0.6% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% % Change in Call Average 9.3% 8.9l'1o 11.1% -1. 7% 10.6% % Change In C 19.64% 20.71 % 21.10% 18.39% 21.31 % 19.55% ExceLSIDR FIRe DISTRICT 339 3 RC STR.EET EXCELSIOR., MINNESOTA 55331 CHIEF MARK OUCHARME OFFICE 952.401 .SSC 1 FAX 952.474.3144 Special Notes for Qperatine Budeet FY 2002 Recruit Firefighter Cost Projection $ 40,200.00 Increase in Facilities Fund 40.000.00 $ 80,200.00 . Projected Increase in Budget from the Transition Coordinator: FY 2002 $ 635,000 12.4% With Recruitment Cost Proposed Budget: FY 2002 $ 675,454 19.55% Without Recruitment Costs: FY 2002 $ 635,254 12.4% . eXCELSIDR FIRE DISTRICT Recruit Firefighter Cost Analysis May 11,2001 Per Item Fireflahter 10 FirefiQhters Class - Firefighter I $450.00 $4,500.00 Class - EMT/1 st Responder 450.00 4500.00 Physicals 275.00 2750.00 Turn Out Gear 1100.00 11000.00 . Helmet 125.00 1250.00 Boots 125.00 1250.00 Gloves 60.00 600.00 Hoods 50.00 500.00 Uniforms 220.00 2200.00 Jackets 125.00 1250.00 Badge 80.00 800.00 Materials for Education 125.00 1250.00 Insurance 10.00 100.00 Testing 125.00 1250.00 Certifications 50.00 500.00 Pager 450.00 4500.00 Misc. 200.00 2000.00 . Estimated Total Year 1 Cost $4,020.00 $40,200.00 . Page 1 . Less Conservative Projections Year Operations % of prev. yr. Equipment % of prevo yr. General total CIP/Debt Total % of prev. yr. 2000 $ 310,854.00 $ 95,000.00 $ 405,854.00 $ - $ 405,854.00 2001 $ 410,000.00 131.89% $ 95,000.00 100.00% $ 505,000.00 $ 60,000.00 $ 565,000.00 139.21 % 2002 $ 440,000.00 107.32% $ 95,000.00 100.00% $ 535,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 635,000.00 112.39% 2003 $ 465,000.00 105.68% $ 100,000.00 105.26% $ 565,000.00 $ 140,000.00 $ 705,000.00 111.02% 2004 $ 492,000.00 105.81% $100,000.00 100.00% $ 592,000.00 $ 180,000.00 $ 772,000.00 109.50% 2005 $ 520,000.00 105.69% $105,000.00 105.00% $ 625,000.00 $ 216,000.00 $ 841,000.00 108.94% 2006 $ 555,000.00 106.73% $110,000.00 104.76% $ 665,000.00 $ 221,000.00 $ 886,000.00 105.35% 2007 $ 592,000.00 106.67% $115,000.00 104.55% $ 707,000.00 $ 217,000.00 $ 924,000.00 104.29% 2008 $ 628,000.00 106.08% $120,000.00 104.35% $ 748,000.00 $ 219,000.00 $ 967,000.00 104.65% 2009 $ 666,000.00 106.05% $125,000.00 104.17% $ 791,000.00 $ 219,000.00 $ 1,010,000.00 104.45% 2010 $. 705,000.00 105.86% $ 130,000.00 104.00% $ 835,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 1,055,000.00 104.46% 2011 $ 750,000.00 106.38% $135,000.00 103.85% $ 885,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 1,105,000.00 104.74% 2012 $ 795,000.00 106.00% $ 140,000.00 103.70% $ 935,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 1,155,000.00 104.52% 2013 $ 845,000.00 106.29% $ 140,000.00 100.00% $ 985,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 1,205,000.00 104.33% 2014 $ 900,000.00 106.51% $ 145,000.00 103.57% $ 1,045,000.00 $ 219,000.00 $ 1,264,000.00 104.90% 2015 $ 955,000.00 106.11% $145,000.00 100.00% $1,100,000.00 $ 218,000.00 $1,318,000.00 104.27% 2016 $1,013,000.00 106.07% . $ 150,000.00 103.45% $1,163,000.00 $ 216,000.00 $ 1,379,000.00 104.63% 2017 $1,075,000.00 106.12% $ 150,000.00 100.00% $1,225,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $1,445,000.00 104.79% 2018 $1,140,000.00 106.05% $ 155,000.00 103.33% $1,295,000.00 $ 217,000.00 $ 1,512,000.00 104.64% 2019 $1,210,000.00 106.14% $ 155,000.00 100.00% $1,365,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $1,585,000.00 104.83% 2020 $1,282,000.00 105.95% $160,000.00 103.23% $ 1,442,000.00 $ 216,000.00 $ 1,658,000.00 104.61% 2021 $1,358,000.00 105.93% $160,000.00 100.00% $1,518,000.00 $ 217,000.00 $ 1,735,000.00 104.64% 2022 $1,438,000.00 105.89% $165,000.00 103.13% $ 1,603,000.00 $ 218,000.00 $ 1,821,000.00 104.96% 2023 $1,525,000.00 106.05% $ 165,000.00 100.00% $1,690,000.00 $ 218,000.00 $1,908,000.00 104.78% 2024 $1,6_!5,OOO.00 105.90% $ 170,000.00 103.03% $1,785,000.00 $ 217,000.00 $ 2,002,000.00 104.93% 2025 $1,710,000.00 105.88% $ 170,000.00 100.00% $1,880,000.00 $ 220,000.00 $ 2,100,000.00 104.90% ~--- Notes: This revision prepared 8/15/00 JCH Assumes increased personnel & additional and higher cost equipment Debt payments run 2005 to 2024. $2,520,000 debt issue 6/1/2004, $480,000 set aside 2000 to 2004. 2025 starts $220,000 depreciation set aside. CITY OF UNO 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cilyofmound.com W7_ MEMORANDUM August 13,2001 FROM: ALL FIRE CONTRACT CITIES KANDIS M. HANSON, CITY MANAGE~q.J. \ TO: . SUBJECT: 2002 FIRE CONTRACT BUDGET PROPOSAL' Enclosed is the 2002 Fire Contract Budget Proposal. It follows the same fonnat and approach as used since 1982, with the exception that we are now using market value instead of assessed value; Capital outlay for 2002 consists of fire station upgrades, a digital camera, a personal computer laptop, and a new fire engine pumper. Although we are proposing the purchase of a new vehicle in 2002, we are continuing to set aside monies ($40,000), in the Fire Truck Repair Account as we have since 1991. Keeping this amount in the budget will assist in planning for future purchases of major firefighting equipment. . As in past years, we have reviewed the annual increase for the Fire Relief Association. As you may recall, from 1982 until 1992, we have been collecting a 10% annual increase for this purpose. In the 1991 budget, we reduced the annual increase to 4%. In the 1992 budget, we again included a 4% increase. For 1993, a 7% increase for the fire pension contribution was approved. For 1994, a 4% increase in the contribution was approved. For 1995, we had a 4% increase in the contribution and an additional 2 % in the contribution to address the unfunded liability issue that had been discussed within the actuarial report that the Fire Department had prepared as of 12/31/94. The Department requested a pension benefit increase in 1995 but we asked for an actuarial as of 12/31/95. That'was completed in the sprj.ng of 1.996 which indicated that an increase of$35 or a monthly benefit of$460 would be affordable without any increases in contributions from the cities in the fire district. The Department's request was approved by the Mound City Council effective July 1, 1996. Another actuarial was performed as of 12/31/97/99 which indicates that current investments are doing very well and that the unfunded liability issue is still a concern as we look at the future of the @ prinl~d on r~cyc/~d pap~r fund and that based upon this actuarial, the unfunded liability amount should be "zeroed out" by December 31,2009. On August 25, 1998 the Mound City Council passed a resolution approving an increase in monthly pension benefit for the Fire Relief Association to $510 effective September 1, 1998. For 2001, the contribution from the cities towards the Fire Relief Association was set at a 4% increase over the 2000 contribution. Firefighter's hourly wages, which are paid on call, have been disbursed at $7.00 per hour for 2001, an increase of 50 cents from prior years. Effective January 1, 2001, the Mound City Council approved the Fire Department Relief Association's request to an increase in pension benefits to $585.00 per month. We feel that an additional 3% increase in pension contribution for the year 2002 is a justifiable validation of the skills which these volunteers bring to the service of the Fire Department. The extended leadership of a fire chief and the fire inspection needs are being addressed through a full time fire chief position and we have budgeted $58,000 for this position in 2002. The Fire Department is very proud of their equipment and the service that they provide. The City . of Mound is proud of having such a dedicated group of individuals who volunteer their time for the safety of all of the citizens in the fire service area. Firefighting continues to be complicated and more sophisticated in many respects. More and more time is required of firefighters now than ever before. Being able to provide excellent equipment, training opportunities and financial incentives to attract and keep firefighters around for 20+ years is critically important to the future of the Mound Fire Department. The Department is at a full complement of 37 firefighters who take their firefightingjob very seriously. They do receive the full support of the entire fire district and we are very proud of what they do to protect the residents from fire or other safety related hazards. Please review this information and the proposed budget and contact Greg Pederson, Fire Chief, or myself, if you have any questions. cc: Greg Pederson, Fire Chief Gino Businaro, Finance Director . A - MARKET VALUE 2001 2001 .2000 2000 ,I VALUE PERCENTAGE VALUE PERCENTAGE MINNETONKA BEACH 162,978,100 8.81% 121,497,900 7.96% MINNETRISTA 318,877,700 17.25% 270,324,600 17.72% ORONO 487,896,500 26.39% 395,187,800 25.90% SHOREWOOD 38,529,800 2.08% 30,955,100 2.03% SPRING PARK 121,399,800 6.57% 101,854,200 6.68% MOUND 719.291.100 38.90% 606.077.200 39.72% 1.848.973.000 100.00% 1.525.896.800 100.00% . ." The total Mutual Aid hours in 2000 was 136 (down 23 from 1999). Each City was allocated 50 hours for Mutual Aid calls. C - COMBINATION OF MARKET VALUE AND FIRE CALL HOURS MARKET VALUE PERCENTAGE 3 YEAR AVERAGE FIRE CALLS FINAL PERCENTAGE MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA ORONO SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK MOUND 8.81% 17.25% 26.39% 2.08% 6.57% 38.90% 4.93% 14.53% 13.68% 1.02% 10.15% 55.68% 6.87% 15.89% 20.04% 1.55% 8.36% 47.29% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% LUUL BUDGET BREAKDOWN RELI EF FIRE DEPT ASSN TRUCK 2002 2001 BUDGET CONT REPAIR COST COST MINNETONKA BEACH 30,637 7,494 2,749 40,880 33,191 MINNETRISTA 70,827 17,326 6,355 94,507 80,332 ORONO 89,322 21,850 8,014 119,187 100,791 SHOREWOOD 6,930 1,695 622 9,247 8,079 SPRING PARK 37,273 9,118 3,344 . 49,735 46,671 MOUND 210.841 51.576 18.917 281 :334 240.086 445.830 109.060 40.000 594.890 509.150 .' . AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND BALANCE BALANCE JANUARY 1, 2001 ESTIMATED 2001 REVENUES ESTIMATED 2001 EXPENDITURES ESTIMATED 2001 FUND BALANCE ADD 2002 ESTIMATED REVENUE LESS 2002. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES PROJECTED BALANCE DECEMBER 31, 2002 236,480 403,270 (373.270) 266,480 485,830 (705.830) 46 .480 . . OPERATING COSTS CAPITAL OUTLAY (FIRE TRUCK REPAIR) FIREMAN'S RELIEF PENS.ION 445,830 40,000 109.060 . TOTAL 2002 FIRE COSTS 594.890 2002 COST BREAKDOWN FOR EACH CONTRACTING CITY MINNETONKA BEACH 594,890 X 6.52% 40.880 MINNETRISTA 594.890 X 15.78% 94,507 ORONO 594,890 X 19.80% 119.187 SHOREWOOD 594,890 X 1.59% 9,247 . SPRING PARK 594,890 X 9.17% 49,735 MOUND 594.890 X 47.15% 281.334 TOTAL 100.00% 594.890 . AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND. RECAP OF COSTS BY CITY ../ 2002 2001 2000 1999 MINNETONKA BEACH 40,880 33,191 28,663 29/74 MINNETRISTA 94,507 80,332 73,512 76,979 ORONO 119,187 100,791 96,059 99,492 SHOREWOOD 9,247 8,079 7,236 8,949 SPRING PARK 49,735 46,671 44,676 48,466 MOUND 281.334 240.086 229.134 242.071 594.890 509.150 479.280 505.731 . . FIRE DEPARTI\lIE~T 4170 1999 2000 2001 2002 CODE ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROVED PROPOSED 1000 FIRE CHEIFIINSPECTOR 26,369 24,199 21,800 58,000 OFFICERS & FIRE 1370 SECRETARY'S PAY 26,369 24,199 32,200 29,100 1380 DRILL PAY 9,161 18.500 8,880 8,880 1390 MONTHLY SALARIES 92,077 87,570 102,600 87,730 1440 FICAlPERA 2,543 2,221 6,100 10,950 1510 HOSP/DENT AL 0 0 0 6,790 1520 LIFE INS.lDISABILlTY 0 0 0 140 2100 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,309 1 ,480 1,200 1,500 2140 COpy MACHINE & FEES 164 228 250 480 . 2200 OPERATING SUPPLIES 19,109 23,370 22,800 22,800 2210 MOTOR FUELS 2,994 4,808 3,600 3,720 2230 CLEANING SUPPLIES 861 720 600 600 2270 SAFETY SUPPLIES 14,379 13,571 9,000 9,000 FIRE PREVENTION 2280 (FIRE INSPECTOR) 2,205 2,618 2,400 2,400 3100 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0 999 120 1,200 3105 ADMIN/FINANCE/COM PUTER 0 0 10,500 10,500 . 3130 AUDIT/FINANCIAL 0 0 2,080 2,080 3140 MEDICAL SERVICES 3,074 3,009 3,300 2,400 3190 GENERAL MAINTENANCE 13,750 2,605 16,000 16,000 3200 PAGERS - FIRE DEPT. 1,263 2,711 3,600 3,600 3210 POSTAGE 523 529 400 600 FIRE DEPARTME~T 4170 1999 2000 2001 2002 CODE ACTUAL ACTUAL APPROVED PROPOSED 3220 TELEPHONE 3,237 2,025 3,000 .2,700 3500 PRINTING 896 514 300 600 3600 WORKER'S COMPo INS. 8,282 9,24~ 19,150 21,060 3610 GEN. LIABILITY INS. 13,979 15,646 18,050 19,860 3710 ELECTRICITY 6,286 5,615 7,000 6,240 3720 GAS SERVICE 2,955 5,955 4,200 4,500 3750 GARBAGE 1,378 818 1,200 1,200 3820 OTHER EQUIP. REPAIR 28,379 18,523 18,000 19,200 . 3830 BUILDING REPAIR 19,433 15,481 18,000 9,600 3950 RENTALS 2,366 2,069 4,320 16,000 4100 MISCELLANEOUS 1,048 5,823 600 1,500 4110 CONFERENCES & SCHOOLS 17,359 20,472 16,800 19,200 4130 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,543 5,187 3,000 3,000 4175 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 0 560 0 600 5000 CAPITAL OUTLAY 49,914 55,873 24,800 42,100 5000 NEW ENGINE PUMPER 0 0 0 260,000 . 5150 FIRE TRUCK REPAIR .Q .Q 30.000 40.000 TOTAL 375.205 377.141 415.850 745.830 MtUU<<i V~ d)bl8 ~~, !JHC. 2415 Wilshire Blvd. Mound, Minnesota 55364 Date: To: From: Subject: August 14, 2001 Craig Dawson - City Administrator Greg Pederson - Mound Fire Chief 2002 Budget Forecast - Full Time Fire Chief i AUG 1 ' ley, 8 2007 ~_.. Enclosed is the Mound Fire Department Budget Forecast for the year 2002 as reviewed and discussed at the Fire Commission group meeting last week. As per my recommendation, this 2002 Budget includes a significant change to the status of the Fire Chief I Fire Marshal position to a "Paid" Full Time Fire Chief. While this change to a Paid Full Time Fire Chief does increase the budget, the overall budget impact is relatively insignificant due to a reduction in other areas of the Operating Budget. Some of the key issues that support the need for a full time Fire Chief I Fire Marshal are as follows: . The job requirements and duties of the Fire Chief have become "Full Time"- 40-45 hours a week of non-firefighting work time. . . It is impossible to work a full time job (non fire department) and also be responsive and effective as a part time Fire Chief due to high activity level and increased job expectations. . . The administrative issues for all fire departments such as: OSHA requirements, Health and Safety, Fire Reporting, and Training Documentation are continuously changing wh.ich requires that a Fire Chief stay informed through seminars, conferences,and schools. . Customer service is important. The Fke Chief needs time to answer questions pertaining to Fire Prevention, Fire Codes, and daily problems or issues. . Mound Fire Department has goals to continue to be a leader in the Fire Service. A full time paid Chief is necessary to support the needs of a 37- member department. These issues are some of the important ones that support my . recommendation of a Full Time Fire Chief I Fire Marshal. This budget forecast must be reviewed and approved by the Mound City CounciL I would very much appreciate a written response to this Full Time Fire Chief proposal. Responses can be addressed to the Mound City Council or City Manager Kandis Hanson. Thank you for your continued support! Respectfully, ~j:&/~7</ Gregory S. Pederson c.c. Gino Businaro - Finance Director Pat Meisel - Mayor CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 . www,cLshorewood,mn,us · cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM Date: August 21, 2001 . Re: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members !h. . ~_ Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Tr~~er ~ Craig Dawson, City Administrator ~ 2002 Budget Update To: From: Staff wishes to advise the City Council that the 2002 Proposed General Fund Budget will be presented for their review and approval at the September 10 City Council meeting, rather than at the August 27 meeting as originally planned. . Weare still pending final notification of levy limit numbers from the Minnesota Department of Revenue due to be issued September 1. The draft budget was prepared using estimates and the City is now pending final notification in order to assure accuracy in the final budget version. RECOMMENDATION The above information is presented for City Council information only. No action is necessary. ft '-.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~3D CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown, Director of Public Works Jj? Craig Dawson, City Administrator FROM: . DATE: August 21,2001 RE: A Resolution Accepting the Bituminous Trail Improvements for Vine Hill Road and Covington Road, City Project 99-04 The bituminous trail improvements for the Vine Hill Road and Covington Road were completed this last spring. The Contractor has recently submitted the appropriate paper work to enable the City to accept the final improvements and authorize final payment to Hardrives, Inc. Recommendation . Staff is recommending that City Project 99-04, known as the Bituminous Trail Improvements for Vine Hill Road and Covington Road be accepted for the City's perpetual maintenance, and that final payment in the amount of$34,775.03 be made to Hardrives Inc. '-:2"- ..j:/:" .J t ft '-.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO 01- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BITUMINOUS TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS FOR VINE HILL ROAD AND COVINGTON ROAD, CITY PROJECT 99-04 AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has entered into a contract with Hardrives, Inc. for City Project No. 99-04, for the Bituminous Trail Improvements for Vine Hill Road and Covington Road; and, WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project and final payment based on work performed to date; and, WHEREAS, the Project Manager has made a final inspection of the project and recommends acceptance and final payment be made by the City. . NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The City hereby does accept the work completed pursuant to said contract and authorizes final payment to the Contractor, and the one year guarantee shall commence as of the date of this resolution, subject to the following items: 1. The Contractor furnish the City a one year maintenance bond pursuant to the contract. 2. The Contractor must make satisfactory showing that he has complied with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding of State Income Tax. 3. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the Contractor by reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured. . ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of August, 2001. ATTEST: WOODY LOVE, MAYOR CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council ^ ~ Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator VJ...> August 23,2001 . Authorize Execution of Stipulation for Dismissal re: Eller case . The parties to this lawsuit agreed to terms in a settlement of this case a few months ago. We (the plaintiffs) have been awaiting the preparation of the settlement agreement by the defendant (Eller). The draft of the agreement has been included in a separate envelope with your agenda packet, as it is not public per ~ts attorney/client privilege status. This matter is being placed on the Consent Agenda for reasons that should be readily apparent in the memorandum from Attorney Hoff. If Council would like to have discussion about this item, it should be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in Executive Session. RECOMMENDATION: . It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Stipulation for Dismissal of the matter of City of Shorewood et al. v. Eller Media Company. ff3F' .~ #. ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .. . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: August 22, 2001 cc: Mayor and City Council Members Jean Panchyshyn, Deputy Clerk ~ Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator cb RE: TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE - FRIENDS OF THE SOUTHSHORE CENTER . TO: FROM: The Friends of the Southshore Center will be holding their fourth annual 52-week sweepstakes. Once again, proceeds from the raffle will be used for operation and maintenance of the Southshore Center building. . Staff recommends Council adopt the Resolution approving the Temporary Gambling License for Friends of the Southshore Center for Thursday, December 20, 2001. =lf3G n ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD '. RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY GAMBLING LICENSE WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code, Chapter 301, provides for the licensing of certain gambling activities in the City; and WHEREAS, the City prescribes certain restrictions concerning eligibility for such licensing and application, whereby the licensee will hold the City harmless for all claims arising out of the granting of such license; and WHEREAS, the following applicant has met the eligibility requirements for such a license and has agreed to all terms and conditions of the agreement contained in the license. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City . of Shorewood as follows: That a single temporary license for the conduct of gambling. as specified in the terms and conditions of the license be issued to Friends of the Southshore Center. Said raffle to be held on Thursday, December 20, 2001 at the Southshore Center 5735 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of August, 2001. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: . CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR LG220 - Application for Exempt Permit Fee - $25 For Ijoara Use Only Fee Paid . Organization Information Check No. Organization name C;~) d t1I $/J {,~ IJ ~ (!~ tJr r: ~ Previous lawful gambling exemption number fA I FAJ:P S Civ ri!! X..ssry) Street City State/Zip Code C~unty '1 ,,(! , 5 J:; (H~I AliA. '/ t!,L ;,.1) tJ:t> SIJ c-.ee u'!p tJj) Hv S -S-:; 3.,' IJ t.: /y 11/ IJ ,0 { IV Name of chief executive officer (CEO) First name Last name Daytime phone number of CEO GL e-IJrI f1! 011 e I< & 9',<).:2- tf'1;/-"5'(.. '5 c! Name of treasurer Daytime phone'number of First name Last name treasurer. Bee 1<1 iE Yi 6/< Ie ",J (I';:~ - 911- 'l.u (., Type of Nonprofit Organization Check the box that best describes your organization: o Fraternal D Religious o Veteran []J--6ther nonprofit organization Check the box that indicates the type of proof your organization attached to this application: [g-IRS letter indicating incom~ tax exempt status ' , o Certificate of Good Standing from the Minnesota Secretary of State's Office o A charter showing you are an affiliate of a parent nonprofit organiZation ~Proofpreviously submitted and on file with the Gambling Control Board . Gambling Premises Information Name of premises where gambling activity will be conducted (for raffles, list the site where the drawing will take place) t:;(,. vTI.j-~N 0 IJ. [ (!.e1Jie~ Address (do not use PO box) City StatelZip Code County . C ~I j{J) .q~oJ2.EW~cj) J i? /v/'v e I" II.,) 573.5 t-t:;;.)"';"A,,/C ut f\,ftJ 5$-~,3f Date(s) of activity (for raffles, indicate the date of the drawing) ZJece;-n j,er ~C' c:::?oO / Check the box or boxes that indicate the type of gambling activity your organization will be conducting: o *Bingo ~ff1es (cash prizes may not exceed $12,000) o *Paddlewheels D *Pull-Tabs o *Tipboards *Equipment for these activities must be obtained from a licensed distributor. Minnesota Lawful Gambling . . This form will be made available in alternative format (i.e. large print, Braille) upon request. The information requested on this form (and any attachments) will be used by the Gambling Control Board , (Board) to determine your qualifications to be involved in lawful gambling activities in Minnesota. You have the right to refuse to supply the information requested; however, if you refuse to supply this information, the Board may nolbe able to determine your qualifications and, as a consequence, may refuse to issue you a permit. If you supply the information requested, the Board will be able to process your application. Your name and and your organization's name and address wiD be public information when received by the Board. All the other information that you provide will be private data about you until the Board Issues your permit. When the Board issues your permit, an of the infoimation that you have provided to the Board in the process of applying for your permit will become public. If the Board does not issue you a permit, all the information you have provided in the process of applying for a permit remains private, with the exception of your name and your organization's name and address which will remain public. Private data about you are available only to Page 1 of2 3/01 the following: Board members, staff of the Board whose work assignment requires that they have access to the information; the Minnesota Department of Public Safety; the Minnesota Attorney General; the Minnesota Commissioners of Administration, Finance, and Revenue; the Minnesota Legislative Auditor, national and intemational gambting regulatory agencies; anyone pursuant to court order; other individuals and agencies that are specifically authorized by state or federal law to have access to the information; indMduals and agencies for which law or legal order authorizes a new use or sharing of information after this Notice was given; and anyone with. your consent. LG220 - ApPlicatio~ f~r Exempt ~er~it " .' .' ~,. lJ _ I~ Organization Name FA Ii::. N J> S Cl .F rt, t:: S () V j N<::;' fi 0 Il E (}., t: IV ,e t2 Local Unit of Government Acknowledgment If the gambling premises is within city limits, the city must sign this application. On behalf of the city, I acknowledge this application. Page 2 of2 3/01 If the gambling premises is located in a township, both the county and township must sign this application. On behalf of the county, I acknowledge this application. Check the action that the city is taking on this application. O The city approves the application with no' waiting period. Check the action that the county is taking on this application. O The county approves the application with no waiting period. O The city approves the application with a 30 day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days (60 days for a first class city). o The county approves the application with a 30 day waiting period, and allows the Board to issue a permit after 30 days. o The city denies the application. Print name of city C j'TY {J.{ S~"'oREik?100J; o The county denies the application. Print name of county . (Signature of city personnel receiving application) (Signature of county personnel receiving application) Title Title Date / Date-' / TOWNSHIP: On behalf of the township, I acknowledge that the organization is applying for exempted gambling activity within the township limits. (A township has no statutory authority to approve or deny an application (Minn. Stat. sec. 349.213, subd. 2}.) Print name of township (Signature of township official acknowledging application) Title Date-'-'_ . Chief Executive Officer's Signature The information provided in this applica . is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Chief executive officer's signature' G/e/J/I Name (please print) Date % Ie:?~ I f!:)/ Mail Application and Attachments At least 45 days prior to your scheduled activity date send: · the completed application, · a copy of your proof of nonprofit status, and · a $25 application fee (make check payable to "State of Minnesota"). Application fees are not prorated, refundable, or transferable. Send to: Gambling Control Board 1711 West County Road B, Suite 300 South Roseville, MN55113 If your application has not been acknowledged by the local unit of government or has been denied, do not send the application to the Gambling Control Board. .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.cLshorewood.mn.us . cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: City council~" Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance Timothy J. Keane, City Attorney August 23,2001 Establishment of the Shorewood Economic Development Authority DATE: . SUBJECT: The City Council has explored the opportunity to create an Economic Development Authority (EDA) as permitted by State law. While technically it is a separate unit of government, an EDA can be an important complement to the city government (particularly when its board of commissioners is defined to be members of the city council, as is the case in the proposed Shorewood EDA). In the immediate future, it is anticipated that the Shorewood EDA would be financing entity for the public safety facility(s) to be built at 24140 Smithtown Road. Bond counsel has advised that when a city is making apayment for th~ debt obligation of an EDA, the expenditure would fall outside of levy limits. The relevant State Statute requires that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider the resolution that would establish the EDA. The notice of this public hearing appeared in the August 15 and 22, 2001, issues of the City's official newspaper, thus complying with statutory requirements. . The resolution that has been prepared for Council consideration would provide the maximum flexibility for the scope of the EDA's operations. Key features in the enabling resolution include: . The EDA shall have all the rights, powers, duties, and obligations allowed by State law (which include powers granted to housing and redevelopment authorities [HRAs]), including but not limited to the powers of a city granted by the Municipal Development District Act . The City shall retain all powers necessary to carry out all development activities not transferred to the EDA . The EDA shall be governed by a board of commissioners consisting of the members of the City Council . The City Administrator shall be the ex-officio executive director of the EDA . The EDA shall retain the services of the City's legal counsel . The EDA shall submit a proposed budget to the Council by August 1 . The EDA shall meet at least once each year, and shall provide annual reports to the City Council. The first meeting would be held by October 8, 2001. n ,",.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #Lj- " Public Hearing - Establishment of Economic Development Authority August 27,2001 Page 2 Statute gives tax levy authority to EDAs; given the current provisions, a Shorewood EDA could levy approximately $150,000. Technically, however, the EDA must ask the City to levy on its behalf; this levy would fall within the City's levy limit. Council has had an opportunity to review proposed by-laws. Consideration of the by-laws is not required as part of the public hearing. Such consideration would be scheduled for the first meeting of the EDA, should the Council decide to establish the EDA. It is anticipated that this meeting would be scheduled for October 8, 2001. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Council: . 1) Close the public hearing, and 2) Adopt the enabling Resolution to establish the Shorewood Economic Development Authority. . RESOLUTION NO. 01-_ CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA ENABLING RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 469.090 TO 469.1081 WHEREAS-, Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (the "EDA Act"), authorizes cities to establish Economic Development Authorities ("EDA") with specified powers . and obligations to promote and to provide incentives for economic development; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota (the "Council") has determined that it is in the best interest of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota (the "City") to establish an EDA in order to preserve and create jobs, enhance its tax base, implement certain housing initiatives, to promote the general welfare of the people of the City and to asswne primary responsibility for development and redevelopment activities within the City; and WHEREAS, the Council has provided public notice and conducted a public hearing on . August 27, 2001, concerning the establishment of an EDA and has fulfilled all other legal requirements for the establishment of an EDA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shore wood as follows: 1. The Shorewood Economic Development Authority (the "SEDA") IS hereby established pursuant to Section 469.091, subdivision 1 of the EDA Act. 2. The SEDA shall have all of the powers, rights, duties, and obligations confirmed upon economic development authorities by Section 469.090 to 469.108, including, but not limited to, the powers of a city granted by the Municipal Development District Act, Minnesota . . 2. - . . officers shall have the duties and powers set forth in Section 469.096 and such other powers and duties as determined by the Commissioners. In addition, the Commissioners shall adopt bylaws and rules of procedure for the SEDA at the first meeting. 8. The City Administrator for the City shall be the ex-officio Executive Director of the SEDA and, in such capacity, shall act at the direction of the Commissioners. The City may provide such City staff to the SEDA as the SEDA may require; provided that the City may require reasonable reimbursement by the SEDA for costs associated with the provision of such staff; and provided further that nothing in this paragraph shall preclude the SEDA from hiring such personnel as the SEDA may from time to time determine. 9. The SEOA may contract for the services of consultants, agents, public accountants, and other persons needed to perform its duties and exercise its powers. The SEDA shall retain the services of the City's legal counsel for its legal needs. 10. The SEDA's fiscal year shall be the same as that of the City. In accordance with Section 469.100, subdivision 2 of the EDA Act, the SEDA shall annually submit its budget to the Council for approval. Within thirty (30) days of the Commissioners' first meeting pursuant to paragraph 6 above, the Commissioners shall submit for Council approval a temporary budget covering the period from tile date of such submittal until the end of the current fiscal year. For each subsequent fiscal year, the SEOA shall submit a proposed budget for approval of the Council on or before August 1 st of the preceding fiscal year.. Upon submittal to the Council of its proposed annual budget, the SEDA shall also provide its report to the Council as required by Section 469.100, subdivision 4 of the EDA Act. 11. The financial statements of the SEOA shall be prepared, audited, filed, and published or posted as required by Section 469.100, subdivision 5 of the EDA Act. 3. 12. Each year, within sixty (60) days of the anniversary date of the first adoption of this enabling resolution, the SEDA shall submit to the Council its report regarding modification of this enabling resolution as provided in Section 469.092, subdivision 3 of the EDA Act. 13. Nothing shall prevent the City from modifying this enabling resolution to impose limits on the powers of the SEDA or provide for other matters as authorized in the EDA Act or other law. Adopted: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: . APPROVED Woody Love, Mayor ATTEST: Craig Dawson, City Administrator ::ODMA\PCDOCS\LIB 1 \678181 \1 . 4. h ..,. \ , . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 . www.cLshorewood.mn.us · cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen . DATE: 15 Augus~ 2001 RE: Resident Survey - Refuse Collection FILE NO.: 405(Org Refuse Study) The response on the organized refuse study has been remarkable. To date we have received 270 surveys back. Although the deadline for turning them in isn't until the end of the month, we felt you might be interested in the results thus far. Attached is a tabulation of the responses. We are keeping a running list of the responses to the two open ended questions, these are attached to the tabulation. . As you are aware, the City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on 27 August, announcing its intent to organize refuse collection. Cc: Craig Dawson ft n 'wJ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 270 Petitions Received . \ I~ Resident Survey: Refuse Collection Services A. How do you view the traffic and noise that is generated by the several refuse collection providers that service your neighborhood? ". No . Problem 1(1,02) ~.:. ..1\" 2 (40) 3(54) 4 (44) Serious Problem 5 (34) . B. ... How satisfied are you with the fees charged by your current refuse collector? ~ry ~ry Dissatisfied . Satisfied .. 1(15) " 2 (38) 3 (93) 4(60) 5 (64) C. Howimportant is it that your refUse collector accept yard waste (e.g., leaves, lawn clippings, etc.)? ~t ~ry . Important Important 1(.81) 2(26) 3(23) 4(48) 5(98) D.. . How important is it that refuse and recycling be collected on the same day? &t . ~ry Important Important 1 (82) 2(21) 3 (42) 4 (46) s. (86) E. To what extent do you find it unsightly to have garbage cans out on the street for collection. in your neighborhood several days a week instead of only one day? &t ~ry Unsightly Unsightly 1 (77) 2 (32) 3 (45) 4 (38) . 5 (841. F. To what extent does road damage from garbage trucks concern you? Not .' Concerned 1 51) 2 (27) 3 (44) 4 (55) Very .. Concerned 5 (98) G. How important are any "speciali'services that your current ~e:fuse'collector provides that others might not (e.g., back up into driveway, take away yard waste for free, etc.)? Not Important 1(69)' 4 (47) Very Important 5 (88) . H. 2 (31) 3 (32). Of the issues noted above, which 2 do you consider most important to resolve or include in any future planning? (Please circle your 2 choices) 1. ABC D E F. G . ,(52) (69) (79) (81) (64) (79) (65) Do you have any Issues or concerns related to refuse hauling that you would like to share? (see attached) J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the haulinj services better? . .'. ( see attached ., K. Would you be wiiling to switch services in order to have one hauler for your neighborhood? y N , . ' (153) (84) Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey! ~"1J (1)m CD ~ !!!..(1) -<" I>> (1) "0(1) -0"0 "00 ~::!J iii' I>> roC/) :f:T I>> (1) r+'< co <' (1) co ., CD ~ C/) (1) < c=r (1) I>> :J a. III CD < (1) -< a. (1) "0 (1) :J a. I>> CT ~ 00 ::!J "0 c=r ~ c: "0 ~ :=t o C/) !:..Ill 0.0' 0'0 (1) S- CO = ., 3 (1) (1) ~~ ::r (1) () ;::;: '< ::r I>> C/) a. (1) o 0: (1) a. - o C/) 3' '"Q. :::;; '< - ::r 00' C/) ;::;: c: ~ c5' ? - ::r (1) C/) I>> 3 (1) a. III '> C/) CD o '< Q.. S' CO III :J a. :c III < S' CO m C/) C/) :J o 00' (1) I>> :J a. - (1) ~ (1) ., - ., c: o ~ o :J o c: ., a I>> a. C/) 3- - o - !!!.. -< S' ~ < o ., o - ::r I>> < S' co o :J -< o :J (1) o Q. m o - o ., S' o c: ., :J (1) ((5' ::r 0' o ., ::r o o Q: -l ::r I>> :J " ~ r I>> tC3 (1) ., ;::;: (1) 3 C/) C/) c: o ::r I>> C/) 3 I>> ::I: CD C/) C/) (1) ~C/) c: C/) (1) a. I>> "0 '"Q. iii' :J o (1) !fl (1) - r> C/) ::r o c: 0: 0' (1) S' o c:- o. (1) a. 0' r. (1) 0 ::ro I>> I>> < - -.co o 0 ., < "::;'(1) (1) ., C/) :J :::;-3 o' (1) ::!". :J :J - co C/) o ::r o 0 :J!:.. s-o. -. :J :J 0 (1) _ "co ~. (1) N - (1) _. ~. :J -. < -0 (1) _ 3 < C/)~ "2. c: o :J " - (1) (1) 0.C/) C/) c: _ "O::r - (1) (1)'< -" r> :J -0 g.~ 2 - ::r CD (1) coO' c: c: ji) ~. _:J o' m ffi C/) a~ ., a. m.o. c: 0 C/) :J (1),.+ "0- 0'-< eo "0 0 . ::r I>> :J co (1) o ;::;: N' (1) :J CJi -l ::r (1) C/) c: < (1) '< o o " C/) ~ (1) I>> C/) - I>> o " (1) a. a. (1) o " I>> co I>> S' C/) - - ::r (1) C/) 3 ~ ::r I>> c: CD !iJ (1)/\ :J (1) 0'(1) a"O -. I>> :J - co - ., (1) (1) I>> co!e. c: _ -0 ac: o' ;:; ffi 0 _. :J C/) :::;- (1) III X 0 "0- (1) Q :J C/) C/) _. -. 0 < (1) (1) :J I>> C/) :J (1) 0.0. -. I>> :J _ m.1>> -- (1)- o ~a =3 < (1) !1> C/) . () o 3 "0 (1) - ;::;: o' :J C/) o <: (1) C/) 3 o CD "0 a 0' m 3 C/) - ::r I>> :J '< o c: o I>> :J 3' I>> co S' .!1> - ~CD co~ a ~ c: (1) :J::r P-Ill < (1) < (1) -< "0 a - (1) C/) C/) o' :J ~ I>> :J a. - ::r- o ., o c: co ::r ::r I>> :J a. m !iJ -l ::r (1) '> :f I>> '< C/) - I>> @ - ::r (1) (1) x ~ C/) I>> :J a. :J (1) < CD ., m I>> C1i ~ C/) ::r o :J ~ (1) - ::r ~ - ::r (1) CD 00' c: :J ., (1) co c ~ (1) a. o o 3 "0 (1) ~ o' :J I>> 3 o :J co ::r I>> c: m @ ;::;: " (1) (1) "0 C/) - ::r (1) 3 - III ". I>> :J a. "0 a < 0: (1) C/) co o o a. C/) (1) < o' (1) ~ o c: 0: C/) ~ ;::;: o ::r ::r I>> c: m @ "0 ., o < 0: (1) a. "0 ., o' (1) C/) a. o :J o - ., 00' !1> ::r I>> < (1) < (1) -< ~ m - o ., co I>> ., 0' I>> co (1) "0 o' " c: "0 0' (1) o I>> c: C/) (1) (1) ;::;: .0 - c: C/) -. :J "0 0 3 - (1) - :J::r _(1) 'co I>> ., 0' I>> co (1) CD o '< o m I>> o :+ ::r o ~ (1) < (1) ., I>> 3 o ::r I>> ~ (1) a. - o ., "0 o' " c: "0 (1) < (1) :J :::;; ::r I>> < (1) :J o :J !1> - ., c: o " C/) - ::r I>> - I>> ., (1) 0' I>> a. o :J - ::r (1) C/) - CD (1) - !fl ;::;: C/)- - ::r (1) 0' cO' co iiJ < ~ I>> :J a. J) (1) a. " 3 x' - ., c: o " C/) III :J a. o o :J C/) - ., c: 9- o' :J -l ::r (1) )> 3 (1) C/) 0' c: -< )> C/) C/) o p ::r I>> C/) I>> 0' ((5' C/) I>> '< S' ~ ::r I>> - ~ CD o - C/) )> 3 (1) C/) 0' c: ~ . ~ (1) I>> ., (1) "0 m I>> C/) (1) ~ ;::;: ::r o c: ., C/) (1) <! o' !1> o o :J ,.+ ~ - o ., (1) co c: ji) - !I! m - o o 3 "0 (1) - ;::;: o' :J I>> 3 o :J co C/) - - ::r (1) > ., o' c: C/) "0 a < 0: (1) @ a. (1) - (1) ~. :J CD c: ;::;: 3' I>> - (1) a. o 3 S' I>> :J o (1) I>> :J a. :J c: 3 0' (1) @ CD~ o (1) '<c/) Q..::r (1) 0 -. c: :J_ 30. '<iif :J < (1) (1) cO' 0 ::rc: 0''' o 0 3-Q. 8m 0.9- . 0 ., "0 o' " c: "0 o :J C/) I>> 3 (1) a. I>> '> C/) CD o '< g, :J cp )> 3 I>> fii o o o :J o (1) ., :J (1) a. I>> CT o c: - "0 (1) o "0 m - ::r I>> - a. o :J ,.+ -l ::r 00' C/) (1) (1) 3 C/) - o 0' (1) I>> :J I>> ;4 :::;; o' ![ 00' C/) c: ~(1) C/) c: < CD '< C/) (1) (1) 3 C/) C/) ji) :J - (1) a. - o o CD ~ S' co I>> :J 00' C/) c: (1) I>> :J a. "0 (1) ., ::r III "0 C/) CD co c: ~ o' ? (j) I>> ., 0' I>> co (1) 0' 5" ~ C/) o c: - o - - ., c: o " C/) I>> :J a. m ~ o :J C/) 0: (1) o - a I>> a. ~ ~ (1) - ::r (1) a: (1) I>> o - o o :J ~ 9- S' co o :J (1) ::r I>> c: m ~ ~ ::r '< ::r I>> < (1) ...... o - ., c: o " C/) ., g S' co 0' '.:< (1) ~ ::r "0 o' ~ :J co c: "0 'E' C/) - III - (1) ~ ....;) en o 3 (1) ::r- I>> c: m @ I>> CD C/) 5" "0 "0 '> :J a. m I>> < (1) ~ c: C/) (1) S' - ::r (1) a I>> p. ::e :- o =-0 0.0 ='< ::-i'0 CD s:: -::r o Q) CIJ < ::rCD ~ Q) CD ::J .~ '< -. CIJ CIJ s:: CD CIJ o ""l (') o ::s (') CD ""l ::J CIJ ""l m. Q) - CD 0. - o ... CD -to s:: CIJ CD ::r Q) s:: - -. ::J (Q - ::r Q) - '< o s:: ;::;: C/)- o iiJ N '< - o ::r I>> < (1) 3 o .... (1) - ::r I>> :J o :J (1) CD - c: C/) (1) ::r I>> c: (j) .... "0 (1) .... :J (1) cO. ::r 0" o .... ::r o o p. o :J (1) ::r I>> c: (j) .... I C/) I>> < (1) - ::r (1) .... o I>> a. C/) 5" ~ (1) .... - (1) (1) C/) 00 o c: 0: (1) .... 00 .... 0: co (1) !!!.. CD I>> a. '< ::r I>> C/) o tC3 I>> :J N" (1) a. o :J (1) ::r I>> c: (j) .... I C/) I>> 3 (1) a. I>> '> C/) .... (1) o '< Q.. S' co ~ (1) <" (1) S" I>> o o C/) (1) a. I>> .... (1) I>> o :J -< o :J (1) C/) (1) .... < o. (1) :J o ?E "1J (j) I>> C/) (1) 3 I>> S" - I>> S. o o 3 "0 m. ;::;: o. :J "0:( 0" I>> ":J c: Q, "'!=' 0 Cl>> C/)"O (1)"0 en (1) 3 a. !!!..~ (j)a. .... C/) o (1) o :J 3 o. "OCri ~ ~ ffi.;::;: C/) ::r ~.~ g.~ C/) a: 3 C/) ~iif :::t(1i c: _ ~o en ~ g.!!!.. I>> " (;0 :::r::J (1) co ...."0 < ::l. I>> < (j)~ -(1) C/) a. (1) .... < <" _. (1) 2 ~ I>> ~ - o "0 c: - - iiJ C/) ::r o c: - a. o :J o - 3. ;::;: - o o :J (1) o .... ~ o ::r I>> c: (j) !iJ . o :J C/) @ (1) - - o .... P3:t .... -. a.C/) ~ C/) I>> (1) C/) (1) -3 (1) C/) S.- o 0 EO" 0.(1) (1) I>> a.:J ~ (1) ;::;::::r: ::ro s::: -0 C/) C/) ~Q. -. < o (1) 2.1>> :J o :J , "0 a 0" (j) ? 3" C/) ~ 00" - ffi. a. ~ ;::;: ::r OJ ::!J "0 .... o. (1) C/) I>> :J a. C/) (1) < o. (1) co~ ~ (1) O"::r I>> I>> co< (1) (1) - 2 I>> o N ,,= ~ o. )>:J _C/) C/) 0 o::r - 0 oQ. 3 0" I>> c: "C/) (1) m m,g c: 0 C/) c: (1) .... ::rC/) 1>>- !:..CD S. m. co I>> 1>>= 3 ~ o::r :J 0 o 0 "0 - 0'< -<fR C/) .... moo 3 ~ C/) I>> c: ~ ag ~.~ 8"~ -- ::r . (1);::;: O"C/) c: (1) C/) (1) S. 3 (1) C/) C/)"O ~ (1) ~ - c: 2- 3. ;::;: (1) a. - iiJ C/) ::r I>> :J a. a. - I>> c: 3 C/) I>> (1) co OJ (1) - I>> 3 0 -." :J 0 -" ~ 3 -. I>> I>> - " I>> ~ :J::r 0.0 I>> c: CD C/) _(1). I>> C/) ,....... -<- "0 ~ ::l.CO o (1) (1) _ a..... . c: o " I>> :J a. C/) (1) < (1) !!l C/) 3 !!!.. (j) .... - o ~ o ~ I>> 0" o c: - I>> - (1) ~ o :J (1) C/) - o o Q. (j) o r+ -I ::r (1) .... (1) - o .... CD - ::r (1) '> CD .0 c: ffi" - I>> :J a. a I>> a. s:: '< :J (1) cO. ::r 0" o .... ::r o o a. -I ::r (1) en (1) I>> C/) o :J C/) ::r I>> C/) o :J (1) ::r I>> c: (j) .... I>> :J a. 00' "tJ I>> a: 0" '< )> C/) C/) o o [ o. ? s:: a: a. (j) o - ~ (1) (1) " "0 o' " c: "0 < (1) .... C/) c C/) TI .... 0: I>> '< "0 o. " c "'!=' o - ::r (1) .... CD C/) a: (1) :J - en CO I>> a- I>> CO (1) :J o - "0 ... o "0 (1) ;4 '< o o :J - I>> S' (1) a. I>> :J a. 0" o ~ :;" CO S" o c: ... '> a (1) < (1) ~" 3 (1) g. (1) ~ S" a. 0" 5" ~ ~ . TI (1) ~ (1) .... ::r I>> c: (j) Cri II ::r ((5. ::r (1) ... "0 ... 0" (1) ~ o~ ~ I>> a.!e o (1) Q s:: . I>> OJ:J ::!J~ 3 (1) (1) 3 _(1) ~2- s::~ o 3l - -.... CD c: ....0. I>> (1) :J I>> a.:J C/)a. (1) _ :2 ai- (1) a. ~ 0 C/)"O -c: o C/) - ::r o c: ~ C/) :J S" ~"8" COC/) fr~ o ;::;: .... 0 ~ :!. :J cp -I ::r (1) '< ~ (1) CD < CD -> co co ... (1) C/) C/) <" (1) ~ ::r (1) :J - ::r (1) '< o I>> 3 CD 8" 3 -I I>> ::r :J (1) '<0" 0" cO" cO" 00" Di~ !e(1) 25 o - "3 ~ (1) :J - o' :J (1) a. 00" C/) I>> - (1) -< - o .... o :!. 0: CD :J S" - ::r (1) C/) - ... (1) m. ~ o :J (1) co I>> ... 0" I>> co (1) - ... c: o " o o 3 S" co - ::r ... o c: co ::r S" C/) - (1) I>> a. a m :J o o c: .... I>> co (1) -1- ::rg. (1) -. .... :J !." 0:::;; CD ~ ;::;:(1) C/)CO ::rO g ~. o:g. 0"0 (1) :J -(1) !..... - CD. 1>>- C/) ~ 00.(1) o _0 0.= o ~ :J - - 0 -.... ~il 0" - (1) (1) -. (1) <5~ r-+ == o - -co 0.0 ~ ~ ::rl>> ~'< -c: 0"0 a.~. o c: . C/) - ..... (1) o '< Q.. S" co I>> :J a. o o 3 "0 o en - S. CO ~ (1) (1) < (1) 'S. ::r S. CO (1) fii (1) CO o (1) C/) c: "0 S. I>> - :J ~ 0.1>> ::rC/) I>> ~ !:..o _:J ::rOo (1) (1) 3 ::l. I>> :J <co Pi :::;; ':c: I>> CD - c: C/) (1) ::r I>> c: (j) .... o o c: 0: C/) 8" "0 CT '> () o c: :J Q" 3 (1) (1) - S. CO I>> :J a. o I>> a. c: "0 - ::r (1) s:: ~ o .... I>> :J a. () o c: :J g, 3 (1) 3 0" (1) Cri - ::r 00. () ;::;: -:c: z (1) (1) a. o ::r o o. (1) o - o o :J - I>> S. (1) .... C/) N" (1) - o :J (1) C/) N. (1) ~ o :J ..+ - ;::;: ~ ::r ;::;: I>> C/) !:..(1) (1) (1) @ 3 _C/) C1l- _. 0 ~3 S. (1) (1) - _ ::r _(1) I>>() 3;::;: '< 5 ~ ~ I>> =2- S.- coO _a. o CD w~ ::r3 o -" .... :J (1) (1) ~ ~ O::r 8.0 _ ::r o I>> a.!:.. CD C/) m' ..... ~ 3::r S. = (1) (1) ~ I>> 53 ~ ~. (1)= .-.. 5- ..::::co c: - C/) 0 (1) C/) . (1) (1) '<-I O::r c: 00" ""Q.C/) I>> c: :J < o (1) :J'< c: I>> C/) :J S. a. coo _0 ::r< 00. ~ ~i <- (1) ~ '> -C/) o " C/) C/) c: 0 0"3 !e(1) ~ < =(1) ~-< (1)- ,<(1) o~ ~ S. a. co CD.o Q.c: C/) (1) o. !e :J -. . 0 :J ~ - ::r (1) () ;::;: '< C/) (1) - o 0" < o. c: C/) ~ '< o c: - (1) ~ o :J (1) ::r I>> c: (j) ... 3 ;::;: C/) o :J - ::r (1) :J c: 3 0" (1) ..... o - ~ o c: 0: 0" (1) 0" m. m ..... I>> :J a. '"U m - m .... "C o' 7' c: "C a. Il> '< m Il> .... -< S' - ::T m ::E m m l' m < m :::J c: en - .... m a. c: Q. :::J co - o I\) o Il> .... .... ffi' (jJ ::E o c: 0: :::r- m 15" o o en - 00. < m -< 3' "C o ~ Il> :::J :-+ s:: Il> :::J '< o - - ::T m 3 a. .... <' m - o o - Il> en - :::J ^ ~. m com ::T"C g;::;: .... 0 ::TO 00 3 "C a.m. ;::;: <' ~ (i) o S. co - o Il> :::J a. - ::T m .... m o '< o ij) (jJ c: en - - ::T a ::E en - c: :::I:: Il> :::J a. a. o :::J .-+ o Il> m ::E ::T a 5l :::J a. en :::J - :::r- m en - m m - ~ ..... ::T Il> c: ij) .... ~ m en c: ::+ S. "C o o .... en m ~ o' ~ ^ m m "C VJ en :::r- Il> c: ij) (jJ - o .... en ll> 3 m 0. ll> '< S. Il> co <. m :::J )> 3 o o :::J o m .... :::J m 0. ll> 0- o c: - S' o m Il> en m a. - m m en ::E ;::;: ::T m en en o o 3 "C m ;$ o' ? . (j) o 3 m m - c: en m en m .... < o' m en "C o' 7' c: "C - o o m Il> .... -< ~ o o !>> ? - ::E o c: 0: en ::E ;::;: o ::T ::T Il> c: CD .... :::;; '< ll> a ::E ll> en - m 00. S. Q. c: 0. m 0. Il> :::J 0. o o en - Cii" - ll> ;:;- m :::J $. a :::J 3 m :::J - ~ 3 "C Il> o - o - m 3 00' en o' :::J en Il> :::J a. ::E :E ::Tm ~ ::E m 0 "C c: 0.0: 7'- c: -. "C~ 0_ c: 0 .... Cil iif :::J < ~m o Il> 0= oco c: ::T !iJ ;; m cO. ::T - - .... c: o 7' - ::T a "C o. 7' en c: "C a - :::r- m ::T o c: en m ::E ::T o' ::T 00. en m < m !!l ..... o o '< Il> .... a. en - c: ~ o o :::J en c: 3 "C - o. :::J en ::T o c: 0: 0- m o o :::J en 0.: m Cil a. S. - ::T 00' en - c: a. -:c: - a 3 m :J a. o - en - m m - ~ .... m en 0.: m :::J o m en en ::T o c: 0: 0- m en ll> 3 m a. Il> -:c: :E m c: en m en 3 ~ ij) .... o Il> :::J ll> :::J a. .... m o ~ ij) 3 o .... ~ <" m S' )> 3 m en 0- c: -< ll> :::J a. ::E m o :J -< ::T Il> < m I\) :::r- ll> c: ij) (jJ I .... m o '< o 5l 0- CD en Il> :J a. co ll> .... 0- Il> co SO en o - :::r- oo' a. o m en :J .-+ ~ m Sl c ~ -I ::T m m o '< Q. S. co o o :J - .... Il> o - o .... 00' Il> (j) r o !D . (i) m a :J co .... 0.: o - 0- .... Il> :J C) ::T m en - .... o 3 en - o 3 en ll> :J a. c' en - o .... a. :::J Il> -< o :::r- o "C "C S. co o .... en :::r- m a. 0. S' co S. 0- .... ll> :J o :::r- m ~ () o 3 "C m - ;::;: o. :::J 00. ::T m Il> ::+ :::r- -:c: :::;:; m < m -< o :J m c: en m en en ll> 3 m ::T ll> c: CD .... o Q. CD o - o' :::J 3 ~ 0- m [ m .... S' a. ~ ~ ;::;: o Q. ij) o CD a. m ll> .... ~ m en "C m o e: -< S' en c: 3 3 m ;'" s:: Il> :J '< o :!. 0: .... m :J o c: - "C 5l '< S' co ll> :::J a. 3 Il> :J '< 0. ~ m m :::J - - .... c: o 7' en ll> m 3 o m a. Il> :J co m .... o c: en - ::T ll> :::J. ~. c: en - ..... "C m .... ::E m m ?' -I ::T m .... m en ::T o c: 0: 0- m Il> o ::T o o. m o - o :J -< I\) o o 3 "C Il> :J ffi' en ll> :::J 0. en Il> 3 m a. ll> '< "C o' 7' c: "C - o .... ~ :E o c: 0: ::E Il> :::J - ::E s:: =0 :J :::J ~.g enQ. ~ ffi' m en "!fig- 05 so- en Il> 50 ::E ::E ll> 0 :::J 0 a.3 en"C Il> m. ;::::;:'i=+' ll> <" fii'm 0"C .... ~ o' c: m en ~ m-l a. ::T Il> m 3 0 Il> 0 CO:::J ~ ~ -13 :!.m en .... en 5" c: en ~ m m en '<g. ::Tm ll> ",. en 0 Il> ::T en Q. c: 0 o-m m" Sl(j) <'S' m :::J g:g- 3l9: . N S. co co ll> .... 0- Il> co m en m ~ o' m en ::T Il> c: ij) .... - o o o 3 m - o ::T o c: en ~ =: o 'c: 0: 7' m - o en m m () ~ I o o :::J ~ Sl m a. ::T Il> c: CD .... ll> :::J a. g: -I ::T m Cil o ~ S. co en m ~ o' m :::J (j) ::T o Cil ::E o o a. ::T Il> en 3' "C Q. ;::;: m m 3 "C o '< m m en ::E ::T o 0- 5" o 7' - ::T m .... o ll> a. ll> :::J 0. a. o :::J .-+ ::E ;::;: ::T c: ~ ;::;: ffi' ~ '< (D' 0: - o ~ ?>. a. o :J ...+ ~ II> ::J - - o CIl CD CD :2.: II> CIl - CD s:: (Q 3 - o ... OJ :!! - I>> '" CD o < CD ;'" -; :::r CD CIl ~ CD - CIl 5" en :::r o m ~ o o a. I>> m .... CD ~ -< 0" II> a. CIl o - :::r CD to I>> ... 0" II> (Q CD - .... c: o '" CIl 0. o :J ...+ :::r c: ::1- - :::r CD a II> 0. CIl I>> :J ~ II> ':< z CD CD a. 0" CD :::s: CD .... o o :J - Q. - o "0 .... CD < CD :J - - Q3 CIl :::r - a 3 - -< S' (Q o c: - 9- - 2 o '" CIl -l :::r CD o ;:::;: '< CIl :::r o c: 0: o o :J ~ - ..... :::r II> c: CD ... - o 0. CD o .... CD I>> C/) CD "C ... o' so 5" o m II> CIl CD C/) II> - CD - ':=: II> :J 0. CIl I>> < CD - :::r CD CIl - m CD - ~ -l :::r I>> :J '" CIl - o ... I>> CIl ^ 5" (Q CJ o - II> >< "C I>> '< CD .... CIl m ~ N" CD S"- a - :::r ~. .... S' x CD C/) a .... .... o I>> 0. .... CD "0 II> "'" 5" o ... CD I>> C/) CD 0" CD o II> c: CIl CD o - C/) o 3 II> :J '< (Q II> .... 0" II> to CD - .... c: o '" CIl "'V z o o :::r o 0" CD o - :::r II> c: CD ... ~. 0" CD ~ CD I>> s:: CD a. ii)" o o ? r- II> ... (Q CD :::r II> c: CD ... ~ :::r II> < CD - :::r CD "'. ~ I>> '< ~ ;:::;: :::r c: !!!. . .j:>. !>> ? s:: o ::J a. II> '< CIl :J o 00" CD o - a. (jj' CIl ~ 3 o - o ... II> :J a. o o 3 "C II> n. o ... I - :::r CD '< o o c: e:: "C 0" '" c: "C ~ CD .... '" 0.: CIl (Q o - o CIl o :::r o Q.. o c: .... :c o 3 CD o ~ ::J CD ... )> CIl CIl o o ii)' - 0" :J - CD CD CIl :J o c- o. CD - :::r CD o o CIl - a o c: ... :J CD <<5" :::r 0" o .... :::r o o a. :::r I>> c: CD ;'" -l ... c: o ^ CIl "C CD CD a. o :J ... CD CIl a: CD :J - e: CIl - ... CD CD - CIl 00' - o o :::r <<5" :::r II> :J a. a. II> :J (Q CD .... o c: ~ ::+ II> - ,1>> CD, I>> CD a. I>> '< 0. :::r'>"C a. II> CD'< ~ S' ~~ S'~ (Q... "Q.g O(Q "'CD ~sr. c:= "!='o' ... CD II> < CD II> :J 0. m - c: CIl ~ 00' CD CIl CIl CD ::J - e: - :::r I>> - ~ CD o o :J - 5" c: CD - o :::r II> < CD o :::r .... 00" 3 I>> CIl - m CD "C o' '" c: "!=' a. o :J ...+ '" CD "0 ~ 5" (Q - o .... - :::r CD o ~ o CD I>> :J c: "C II> (Q I>> S' ~ :::r CD :J <- CD :2.: II> CIl - CD -l CD o :::r ::J r> 00" < CD -<! o o c: ;::1. CD o c: CIl I>> :J a. II> "C CD II> CIl c: .... CD o a. o 0" N' ~ ;:::;: :::r o o 3 "C I>> m a. o o - :::r CD .... o o 3 "C I>> :J (jj' CIl " CD CD CIl I>> m CIl o 3 CD ::E :::r I>> - CD >< o CD CIl CIl <" CD o ~ CIl :::r o c: e:: :J CD (Q o - s: CD o ::E CD .... - CD CD ~ . en ~ ;:::;: o :::r S' (Q a. CD "C CD :J a. CIl o :J "C ... o' ~ :E CD :J CD CD a. I>> o :::r o 0" CD o - a. c: 3 "C CIl - CD ... CIl N" ~ :E CD - 5" 0. ;:::;: 3 "C o ;::1. I>> ::J - - o 0" CD II> Q: CD - o - ~ '" - o I>> "C- CD ... CIl o :J= II> 0" o c: - CIl- "C CD o e: CIl ;::;: c: a 0" :J CIl= o ... s: :J (Q o c: - o o 3 "C CD - ;::;: 0" :J ~. m CIl c: ::+ S' :::r cO" :::r CD .... "0 .... o' CD CIl I>> :J a. ::E o @ CD CIl CD < o' ~ 3 "C Q.. ;:::;: CD ::E o .... '" CD @ m o '< o CD ... 0" m I>> '" 5" (Q (Q 5l CIl CIl II> :J a. ::J o - o CD II> 2. :J (Q c: "!=' z CD CD a. CIl 3 ~ CD .... - ... c: o '" CIl - o o o 3 CD a. o ::E ::J o c: .... a. .... <" CD ::E ~ ~ CD ~j" <: "CCD o 3 ;::1. CD II> ::J 3.d: . 0 :J CD a. - :::r CD - I>> n. - :::r a ::E CD ::E CD m I>> 0" CD - o o :::r o o CIl CD ::E :::r 0" :::r CIl CD < o' CD - o c: CIl ~ () o 3 "C CD - ;:::;: o' :J 00" (Q o o a. - o .... "C .... o' CD C/) - :::r 00" 00' CIl c: CD - o CIl CD < CD .... ~ "0 CD o "C CD l2<> ::E o :J a. CD .... :2.: CD 0" ~ (jj" < CD :J - m CD CD :J - CD ... "0 .... 00' ~ I o ::E 3 c: o :::r ffl II> ... CD ::E CD CIl "C CD ::J a. S' (Q o :J S"- 00" CIl c: < CD '< "'V ::E :::r '< ;:::;: :::r II> CIl - II> '" CD :J '< o c: CIl o o :J to - o I>> 0. a. m CIl CIl - :::r ?i" -l :::r 00' 00' < CD -<! . I think it's important that smaller cOr:(lpanies not be driven out of business by BFI, for example. Having the City help would be like a dry hydrant - pay for it but don't need it. Absolutely no value. We have a problem with recycling pickup - breaking glass and leaving it on the streets where children play. Would like system like Hopkins and Bloomington. Use the purchasing power of the City to ngeotiate one carrier at more attractive rates. I want to maintain my choice of haulers. Get the haulers down to one day a week. Your agenda is very transparent. I would like all trash picked up on the same day. Don't like monopolys - would rather have free enterprise. Keep rates lower with competition. It would be nice to be charged on the basis of how much garbage you put out. I hope this is not another phony survey (like the snowmobile survey) with an already calculated outcome. Want hauler to come up to house as they do now. Our agreement with our current hauler does not allow us to switch - a controlled fee agreement. . J. Do you have any ideas about how to make the hauling services better? Hire one company to do it all. Bid one hauler for the City or areas of the City. Should have a choice of haulers. Switching depends on service and fees Use smaller trucks-they are safer for children also. Use smaller "satellite" trucks so heavy trucks aren't always on the road. . Get annual or semi-annual quotes from several haulers and only use one service for the entire City. Our road has 3 different haulers - 1 would be nice, unless it's a lot more $. BFI is the only hauler we've had that is dependable, doesn't leave garbage in the area, is fairly quiet. We don't want to lose that. If Shorewood were to go with just one hauler, that would be our choice. Most of us on our block have BFI. One uniform day would be helpful. Keep it as competitive as possible. Let the competition stand. . Would switch haulers if not more expensive. Would switch if cost and service where the same. Perhaps keep two companies to there are choices and competitive prices or if only one company, don't let the prices skyrocketl Keep free enterprise! Don't create a monopoly and stay away from my decision to choose who I want! Provide by City and include in our taxes which we pay. Keep it as is. Reduced number of haulers would be an act of sanity (no pun intended) Leave government out of it - let market forces operate as is. This survey is a stupid waste of taxpayer's money. {i) I>> ..., 0- I>> to CD - CD CD CJl CJl ::r o c: 0: 0- CD (") Q. CD (") ..... CD 0. o :J I>> "'C CD' ..., !T 0- I>> CJl Cir :, ::r CD :J - I>> ~ CD' CJl ~ ::r o m (") '< (") CD :E o c: 0: 0- CD ..., CD ~ I>> a. CD 0. - o ..., ..... ::r CD ::;" CD == o ~ s: I>> 7\ CD ..... ::r CD ..... ..., c: (") 7\ CJl CJl 3 ~ CD ..., I>> :J 0. o :J CD (") Q. CD (") ..... o =-' I o ~ I>> 0- o c: ..... ..... ::r CD () ;::;: '< 0. o S' ee ;::;: 'V o :J CD ::r I>> c: CD ::!. "'1J C CJl CJl s. m. '< iii' CJl c: CD CJl ~ ;::;: ::r ~ ..... ::r CD CJl CD i>> cO CD ..... ..., c: (") 7\ CJl CD < CD -< 0. I>> ":' ~ o ..., @ 0. 00 '< CD I>> (jJ S' m - c: CJl CD S' a. c: CJl ~ l20 I>> 3 ~ S' to ..... o CJl ::r I>> m 3 '< CD X "'C CD ~ iii' CD '6 CD 0- o CJl to o o 0. .j:>. '"'-I o , 00 o I\) -...J - I I>> < CD ...... ::r I>> c: m ..., c: CJl S' ee ~ CD cO' ::r ..... , m CJl ..... ..., n: CD 0. < CD ::r ci" CD ..... o CJl "'C I>> m ..... ::r CD ..., o I>> 0. OJ CD (") I>> c: CJl CD o - ..... ..., c: (") 7\ ~ CD cO' ::r ..... ~ CD "0 i>> (") CD o c: ..., (") I>> :J e ..... o "'C o - 0. ..., <' CD ~ I>> '< . I I>> < CD ..... ::r CD o ;::;: '< ..... I>> 7\ CD ;::;: o < CD =-' s: o m (") o 3 "'C CD ..... ;::;: o' :J ~ o c: 0: ~ CD to I>> ..., 0- I>> ee CD I>> :J 0. m (") '< Q.. S' ee o :J CJl I>> 3 CD 0. I>> ":' I I>> < CD :J CD cO' ::r 0- o ..., ::r o o a. !P :J o ..... ..... ::r CD () ~ ~ o ..., 7\ ..... o (Q CD ..... ::r CD ..., ..... o (") o :J CJl Q. 0.: e CD CJl CD < ci" CD CJl :::;; ..... ::r CD '< CJl o 0. CD 21. !il o Q. CD ~ m - c: CJl CD I>> :J 0. m ~ Q.. :J (Q o :J 'CJl I>> 3 (l) 0. ~ o :J CD CJl CD < o' CD o ..., CD < CD ..., '< o :J ~ ;::; iii' - S' CD ..... ::r CD :E I>> '< ;::;: iii' ;::; iii' I>> - m CD (") o c: :J ~ . -t ::r CD :J o iii' CD I>> :J 0. ..., o I>> 0. 0. I>> 3 I>> (Q CD 0- '< 3 I>> :J '< ::r I>> c: CD ..., CJl iii' ::r o ..., ..., 0' ~ ~ I>> CJl ..... CD - c: I>> :J 0. CD X "'C CD :J CJl <" ~ "'1J ..., o' CD CJl CJl ::r o c: 0: 0- CD 5" ~ CD ..., :::;; JJ CD CJl ..... ..., n: (Q I>> ..., 0- I>> (Q CD (") Q. m (") ..... o' :J ::r I>> c: S" (Q iii' ~ 0. o :J CD S' CJl I>> 3 CD I>> m I>> I>> ..... o :J CD ..... 3' ~ ..... o (") CD ~, ~. :J 0. I>> '< , CJl I>> 3 CD I>> CJl m (") '< Q.. S' (Q 3I ~. ~ aCD CD ..... :J ::r I>> CD :J (") (") 0 ~ 3 "'C I>> :J CD' CJl 0- 0.: - o ..., CD :J ..... or :J CD cO' ::r 0- o ..., ::r o o a. CJl ?l ::r CD ..., ..... ::r I>> :J I>> - CD ~ ::r o c: CJl CD en I>> :J 0. "'C ~ "'C CD a CD :J ..... I>> to CD, ..... o ~ I>> a. a I>> a. () o :J ..... S' c: CD ~ ;::;: ::r (") ::r o o' CD 8- ::r I>> c: m ~ CJl CD < o' .sn CD ..... P ::;-~ ~ CD 7\0 !P ~ (") :J I>> CJl ~~ CD CD ~~ ~ m o.a ::r~ 1>>"0 ai a 1>>"0 ::;CD ;::;:!:!: c: CD a.CJl CD -. o-:J CD s: ~-g" c: CJl CJl I>> CD :J ~ 0. CD m ::r .c I>> c: ai @. :J 0. o ..... (") 0 ::rC: Q. ~ go .- ;::;: '< (") ,0 :J ..... ~ ..... o ..., ~ -t ::r CD '> ..., CD CJl c: ..., '< CD 3 "'C 5" '< CD CD !P 5" c: 0. JJ CD 0. c: (") CD :J c: 3 0- CD ..., o - ::r I>> c: m (jJ "'C m I>> CJl ~ @ ..... ::r CD 0.: CD I>> o - ..... iil CJl ::r l20 m (") '< Q.. S' to o :J CJl I>> 3 CD 0. I>> ":' I I>> < CD (J) ::r o m ~ o o 0. (") o :J ..... ..., I>> ~ o :J CD (") o 3 "'C I>> :J '< ..., CD :J CD :E ~ 0- m CD I>> (") ::r '< CD I>> ..., o ..., ~ o ..... o 7\ CD CD "'C ..... ::r CD (") o 3 "0 CD ..... ;::;: o' :J c: "0 I>> :J 0. (") o CJl ..... 0. o ~ :J Same hauler for each neighborhood on same day as recycling. Would switch if price is same as current. Am very satisfied with SF!. One service for the street/road. If a neighborhood all used one service which came twice a week we would not have overflowing trash flying all over the streets. Have one service pickup same day in entire neighborhood, all have same can, like we used to have in Hopkins. One hauler will create lack of competition and ultimately the consumer will lose. SFI has done our trash for 13 yrs with no problems. Condition permits on the haulers collecting on a specific day for Shorewood, not any day they choose. . Allow us people to choose who we want to use and leave the system as is. Prefer pickup at beginning of week. We like who we have - we find them reasonable and customer friendly. We use Waste Tech. How about allowing a 50% discount for pickup every other week? Waste Tech is most reasonable of all collectors. Expand choice but regulate service standards and performance. . Do not want rates to increase if we switched. Stay out of the competitive market city hall. Switching depends on no price increase. Require haulers to use trucks suited to automatic dumpster pickup. Do not want rates to increase if we switched. Select the hauler on a bid system with specs and penalties for non-performance. Have option for smaller container size. Have Waste Tech fix their brake, the truck squeaks loudly when stopping. One day for all garbage/recycling with one or more carriers. On Eureka Rd garbage trucks are incidental to the traffic valume as is the case on many main arteries. Have one winner of bidding process. Would switch if cost and service where the same. .. Switching depends on the cost. Discussion needed. How come Excelsior has water, sewer and garbage billed quarterly at such a low rate? You might look at construction traffice, inccreased housing density and over-development. This is suppose to be a free economy & market place with choices. . . Attachment to Resident Survey: Refuse Collection Services Response to Paragraph I: It seems like every decade or so a few officious busybodies get the idea that there are too many refuse haulers operating in our city, that their trucks are breaking up our roads, yahda, yahda, yahda. Garbage trucks may be a contributing factor to potholes, but that has not been proven. It can. just as easily be asserted that large, heavy SUV s contribute more to street deterioration than garbage trucks, simply because there are so many more of them. If you do your homework YOll would know that the two major factors affecting road maintenance in our area (particularly blacktopped roads) are climate and inadequate subsurface compaction. We don't have the power to control the first factor, and we don't seem to have the will to deal with the second. . Whatever you do to "solve" the problem you perceive is likely to be worse than the problem itself. As you point out on the first page of the Survey, once there were 12 licensed trash haulers and now there are only four. That result is no doubt due primarily to consolidation in the industry. It is also true that the cost of hauling services has risen substantially over the years, and at least some of that increase is likely due to the fact that there is now less competition. If, through some misguided city regulation, any hauler gets a monopoly in a particular area, you can rest assured that the cost of that hauler's services will go through the roof. That would be an unacceptable result, and one for which those proposing and/or approving such regulation should be held personally accountable. . '4" CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhal\@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council cl) Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator August 23, 2001 2002 Budget for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) . Tom Skramstad, the City's representative to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, will present to review the 2002 Budget that has been adopted by the LMCD Board. The overall budget would increase from $409,400 in 2001 to $433,900 in 2002. Performance of the biennial Boat Use Survey (at $8,500) is a primary reason for the increase. In future years, it is planned to budget one-half of this recurring expense annually in order to avoid the "spike" in expenditures and the resultant tax levy. The budget relies on the maximum tax levy permissible for 2002 -- $244,621 - as a revenue source. This levy is $27,100 greater than in 2001, in part because the LMCD has reduced its fund balance to the level it had targeted. (The use of fund balance had reduced the levy needed to balance the budget for the past few years.) . Shorewood's share of the tax levy would increase from $23,824 in 2001 to $26,317 in 2002. This figure does not include the City's contribution for the increased law enforcement program in 2002 (for which the contribution was $3,285 in 2001). jrGc ft ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER BOARD MEMBERS Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili McMillan Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Douglas E. Babcock Tanka Bay Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Paul Knudsen Minnetrista Tom Seuntjens Minnetonka Beach Herb J. Suerth Woodland Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wert Greenwood ~. ~J 50% Recycled Content 20% Post Consumer Waste ! J U N 2 9 2001 r.f' I , i,,,.,,,,,, LAKE MINNETOt'J~KACONSE.BVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. . DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 . TELEPHONE 952/745.0789 . FAX 952/745-9085 June 29, 2001 Gregory S. Nybeck. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO: LMCD Member Ctties tit It. Lit Greg Nybeck, Executive Director .7Iltj r t Adopted 2002 LMCD Budget FROM: SUBJECT: Enclosed is a copy of the 2002 LMCD Budget, which was recently adopted and certified by theLMCD Board. Minnesota State Statute 103B.635, Subd. 1 requires the LMCD Board, on or before July 1 of each year, to prepare and submit a detailed budget of the District's needs for the next calendar year to the governing body of each municipality in the District with a statement of the . proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The 2002 LMCD Budget consists of these parts: 1. One page that outlines the city-by-city levy allocation 2. Three pages of budget detail 3. Two pages of budget assumptions 4. One page of notes (Appendix A) Let me provide some background on how LMCD activities are funded. The LMCD maintains five reserve fund accounts (Administration, EWM/Exotics, Save the Lake, New Equipment Acquisition, and Equipment Replacement). Administration, EWM Exotics, and New Equipment Acquisition funds are derived from tax dollars, which are levied to the 14 member cities. Administration and EWM/Exotics funds are used for operating purposes. New Equipment Acquisition funds have been established to either replace or refurbish . depreciated capital equipment used in conjunction with the Eurasian Watermilfo~ harvesting program. The levy for the adopted 2002 LMCD Budget will, therefore, be allocated for these three reserve fund accounts. The remaining two reserve funds, Save the Lake and Equipment Replacement, are funded by private donations, not from member cities' contributions. Back in the early 1990's, the member cities agreed with the LMCD to place money in reserve funds for both the Administration and EWM/Exotics programs. This was done to provide financial resources in the event that something out-of- the-ordinary occurred in a given year. The agreement stated that the Administration fund should have a six-month reserve (50% of the annual budget) and the EWM/Exotics program should have a 12-month reserve. (1 00% of the annual budget). At year-end in 2000, the reserve fund balances for Administration and EWM/Exotics fell below these levels (a 33% reserve for the Administrative Fund, which should be 50%, and a 38% reserve for the EWM/Exotics Fund, which shoUld be 100%). Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd@lmcd.org .r, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT With this background, let me explain the changes in this year's funding. The major factors in the 2002 levy increase are: · $8,500 has been budgeted for a Boat Use Study. The Boat Use Study and User Attitude Survey are done periodically (every two and four years, respectively), and have caused the LMCD budget to fluctuate. Beginning in budget year 2003, these cyclical costs will be budgeted each year, leveling out these ups and downs. The adopted 2002 LMCD Budget will be the last year where this variance should occur. . $9,378 has been budgeted to be transferred to the EWM/Exotics Reserve Fund to build it back up towards the agreed upon level as agreed to by the member cities. This contribution will get the fund up to nearly 50%, against a plan of 100%. . The levy increase between 2001 and 2002 is just over 12% and the overall increase in expenses is just under 6% - the major reasons are described above. If your city has question about the adopted 2002 budget, please let me know. We are glad to discuss this further, and are required by statute to schedule a public hearing on this matter, if requested. Enclosed is a copy of the 2000 LMCD Audit that was accepted by the LMCD Board of Directors at its 4/25/01 Regular meeting. Our policy has been to provide a copy of the most recent audit after it has been accepted by the Board. On behalf of the LMCD Board, I would like to thank all 14-member communities for their continued participation and support for District related activities. Feel free to contact me at the District office if you have questions or concerns. . . . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2002 BUDGET AND LEVY (ADOPTED) 2000 2000 Taxable 2000 Net Tax % of Total Net Sh fAd' Share of Share of Total Share of Total City Population T C ity are 0 mm E f B d Budget in Market Value Capacity ax apac B d t' 2002 xo ICS u ge Budget in 2002 Estimates (Note 1) u ge In in 2002 2001 DEEPHAVEN 3,853 494,941,000 7,665,028 4.3% 10,772.05 7,209.5 17,981.5 16,075.76 EXCELSIOR 2,393 154,541,400 2,767,456 1:5% 3,889.25 2,602.9 6,492.2 5,740.07 GREENWOOD 729 107,533,700 1,702,472 1.0% 2,392.57 1 ,601.2 3,993.8 3,544.56 MINNETONKA 51,301 4,856,351,900 95,654,021 53.4% 29,308.60 19,615.6 48,924.2 43,504.20 MTKA BEACH 614 113,914,300 1,810,932 1.0% 2,544.99 1,703.31 4,248.3 3,801.18 MINNETRISTA 4,358 515,302,400 7,621,456 4.3% 10,710.82 7,168.5 17,879.3 15,631.71 MOUND 9,435 566,781,900 8,010,389 4.5% 11,257.41 7,534.3 18,791.7 16,659.80 ORONO 7,538 1,127,570,100 17,615,497 9.8% 24,755.95 16,568.61 41,324.5 36,785.21 SHOREWOOD 7,400 734,605,900 11,218,269 6.3% 15,765.60 10,551.5 26,317.1 23,823.77 SPRING PARK 1,717 94,375,600 1,748,805 1.0% 2,457.68 1,644.8 4,102.5 3,689.40 TONKA BAY 1,547 216,232,300 3,344,588 1.9% 4,700.32 3,145.8 7,846.1 6,996.99 VICTORIA 4,025 328,316,500 4,861,493 2.7% 6,832.10 4,572.5 11,404.6 10,030.84 WAYZATA 4,113 670,711,900 13,045,602 7.3% 18,333.65 12,270.31 30,603.9 26,960.68 WOODLAND 480 127,130,600 2,008,035 1.1% 2,821.99 1,888.7 4,710.6 4,276.82 99,503 10,108,309,500 179,074,043 100.0% $146,543.00 $98,078.00 $244,621.0 $217,520.99 Maximum Levy Per MN statute 1038.635 (Total Taxable Market Value * .00242%): $244,621.09 (Note 1) Per MN statute 1038.631, no city may pay more than 20% of the total levy. The City of Minnetonka would pay a constant 20% of any amounts to be levied. Remaining cities factor for determining levy amounts is computed as: (City Net Tax Capacity I ( Total Net Tax Capacity - Mlnnetonka Net Tax Capacity) ) * 80% Total Net Tax Capacity less Minnetonka Net Tax Capacity Net Tax Capacity for remaining 13 cities 179,074,043 (95,654,021) 83,420,022 Page 1 . . LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2002 BUDGET DETAIL (ADOPTED) ~d~~"~~Wls11i~~~~~~~lf!~ t~~er~N~-!>r.~~~h~- :~.~~~'"'~~~:t1r~~~X?:~A-~ 1. Administration a) LMCD Communities Admin Levy b) Reserve Fund Contribution c) Court Fines d) Licenses e) Other Public Agencies f) Interest, Public Funds g) Other Income (Including BWSE) SUB-TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 2. Exotics Management a) LMCD Communities Exotics Mgmt Levy b) Other Public Agencies c) Private Solicitation d) Reserve Fund Allocation e) Interest SUB-TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT TOTAL REVENUES Total Levy Reserve Fund Allocations . '<'"e ...._,.. ~. .". ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel Services: a) Salaries (includes Milfoil related Staff time) b) Planning/Special Projects Intern c) Employer Benefit Contributions SUB-TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 2. Contractual Services: a) Office Lease & Storage b) Professional Services SUB-TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1999 Budget 109,208 15,000 40.000 100.000 o 10,000 4,100 278,308 42,000 24,000 o 30.000 8,000 104.000 382,308 151,208 45,000 102,500 o 18,668 121,168 18,000 10.000 28,000 1999 Actual 109,209 15.000 22,616 109,277 o 10,486 9.495 276,083 42,001 23,854 o 30,000 8,829 104,684 380,767 151,210 45.000 103,831 o 20,892 124,723 15,952 13,188 29.140 2000 Budget 128.679 o 40,000 105,000 o 8.000 4.000 285,679 62,000 24,000 o 10,000 8,000 104.000 389,679 190,679 10,000 105,500 o 19,979 125,479 18,960 11.000 29,960 2000 Actual 128,679 o 22,519 125,080 o 10.481 3,078 289,837 62.000 23,804 o 10.000 8,048 103,852 393,689 190,679 10,000 107,123 o 22,225 129.348 16,696 13,966 30.662 .2001 Budget 120,521 8,412 35.000 105.000 o 8,000 3,500 280,433 97.000 24,000 o o 8.000 129,000 409,433 217,521 8,412 111.000 o 21,466 132,466 17.547 12,000 29,547 2002 Budget 146.543 o 30,000 110,000 8,500 7,500 3,000 305,543 98,078 23.800 o o 6,500 128,378 433,921 244,621 o 119,000 o 24,258 143,258 18,105 14,000 32,105 1 of 3 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Budget 3. Office & Administration: a) Office. General Supplies 4,500 3.749 4,000 4.731 4.000 4,500 b) Telephone 4,440 4,971 4,440 4,915 4,440 4,680 c) Postage 4,350 5.865 4,000 4,057 4,000 4,500 d) Printing, Publications, Advertising 2.500 2,844 4,000 4,516 4,000 4,500 e) Maintenance, Office Equipment 2.500 801 2,000 707 1,500 1,000 f) Subscriptions. Memberships 450 1,188 1,000 1,258 1,000 1,500 g) Insurance, Bonds 7,000 8.132 7.000 7,980 7.500 8,000 h) Public Information, Legal Notices 2,000 1,158 2,000 1.261 2,000 1.500 i) Mileage, Meeting Expenses, Emp. Training 1,500 2,324 2,000 1 ,495 2.000 2,000 j) Boat and Water Safety Education 2,100 1,284 2,000 150 1,500 1,000 k) Winternet 300 509 300 479 480 500 I) WebPage/lnternet Maintenance/Service 1,000 0 1,000 0 1,000 1,500 SUB-TOTAL OFFICE & ADMINISTRATION 32,640 32.825 33,740 31,549 33,420 35,180 4. Capital Outlay: a) Furniture, Equipment 1,000 479 4,000 3,403 2.000 2,000 b) Computer software & hardware; 2,000 0 3,500 0 5,000 4,000 SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 3.000 479 7,500 3,403 7,000 6,000 5. Legal: a) Legal Services 20,000 21,158 20,000 37.803 25,000 25.000 b) Prosecution.Services 32,000 36,952 40,000 36.679 40,000 35,000 c) Henn. County Room & Board 4,000 1.924 4,000 469 3.000 2,000 d) Recodification/Zoning 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 SUB-TOTAL LEGAL 63,500 .60,034 64,000 74,951 68,000 62,000 6. Contract Services/Studies: a) Mgmt Plan Implementation 0 1,062 15,000 18,405 0 17,000 b) Boater Ed. Pilot Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 c) Record Archival 0 0 0 0 0 0 d) Access/Channel Signage 20,000 0 0 0 0 0 SUB-TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES/STUDIES 20.000 1,062 15,000 18,405 0 17,000 7. Contingency 10,000 421 10,000 11 ,406 10,000 10,000 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 278,308 248,684 285,679 299,724 280,433 305,543 . . 2of3 . . 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2002 Budget Actual Budget Actual Budget Budget EXOTICS MANAGEMENT 1. Weed Harvesting Operational a) Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance 30,000 26,798 28,000 53,545 41,200 42,000 b) Trucking Contract 15,000 14,175 16,000 38,316 20,000 20,000 c) Administrative- 1,000 1,871 2,000 869 1,000 2,000 d) Operational Supplies 15,000 21,610 15,000 22,474 23,500 25,000 e) Contract Services 20,000 23,450 20,000 25,315 25,000 25,000 f) Heavy Growth Season Extension 8,000 611 8,000 0 1,300 0 SUB-TOTAL WEED HARVESTING OP. EXP. 89,000 88,515 89,000 140,519 112,000 114,000 2. Weed Harvesting Equip. Depreciation 35,000 35,000 10,000 10,000 12,000 0 3. Weed Harvesting Reserve Fund 9,378 SUB-TOTAL WEED HARVESTING 124,000 123,515 99,000 150,519 124,000 123,378 4. Zebra Mussel Operational 15,000 10,146 5,000 1,058 5,000 5,000 TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT 139,000 133,661 104,000 151,577 129,000 128,378 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 417,308 382,345 389,679 451,301 409,433 433,921 ..,._lmI:__ L...-..;.;;:~.....,,, ..'t"".....-.. .~ 1'.-' "., ....... ._...-" "r, .~",,__, ".....1... .. .... ..'. '!. ..tt'"_'\~ Save the Lake Program Income: a) Private Donations 25,000 24,972 27,000 29,620 32,000 b) other Income 1,000 864 1,000 1,805 1,000 c) Interest 5,000 8,384 7,000 9,205 7,000 SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE INCOME 31,000 34,220 35,000 40,630 40,000 0 Save the Lake Program Expenses: a) Administrative 2,800 2,276 4,250 2,377 3,750 b) Program 28,200 23,119 30,750 21,646 36,250 SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE EXPENSES 31,000 25,395 35,000 24,023 40,000 0 3of3 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2002 BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS (ADOPTED) The following assumptions were made in the preparation of the adopted 2002 LMCD Budget: Current Hours 51000.00 31000.00 26000.00 12.60 873.0 Salaries (1a) Executive Director Admin. Tech. Admin. Assistant Admin. Clerk (hourly rate) Employer Benefit Contributions (1 b) P.E.R.A. (4.75%) NCPERS Life Ins. Prudential Life Ins; F.I.CA & Medicare Medical Ins. Monthly Rate Months Office Lease & Storage (2a) Office & storage January-September October-December subtotal Adjustment from Freshwater Foundation Off-site storage 2193.13 9 2259.58 3 (701.00) 12 Telephone (3b) U.S. West AT&T Insurance, Bonds (3g) Property Inland Marine Municipal Liability Excess Liability wi Waiver Bond Contingency (7) (includes salary increases) . 2002 base 51000.00 31000.00 26000.00 11000.00 $119,000.00 5,652.50 432.00 70.00 9,103.50 9,000.00 $24,258.00 19738.17 6778.74 26516.91 (8412.00) 0.00 18104.91 4,200.00 480.00 $4,680.00 200.00 1,200.00 4,500.00 1,800.00 300.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 1of2 . ~~ f:;; d:J! ':v.~~t.(r4 ~~",-l-r{ r.J:'rfli~ (::;~~~~~~~t::(:1~;~;~J~:~t; EWM Salaries & Employer Taxesllnsurance (1a) Salaries F .I.C.A. & Medicare (7.65%) Insurance (Auto & Workers Comp.) 5:~ ," t'~ +(:.r:+:;::l;r.~:",';; .~: .:t-'~YJ::~.;:('<':-~-.~>":"(>'''< ,f . . .... -' . 2001 12/31/00 Balance Reserve Fund Allocation Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund 2002 Projected 12/31/01 Balance Reserve fund Contribution Reserve Fund Allocation Transfer to Equip. Repl. Fund Projected 12/31101 Balance Projected % of 2002 Annual Budget Target % of 2002 Annual Budget . . 35,555.00 2.945.00 3,500.00 $42,000.00 Administration EWM/Exotics 103.730 (8.412) o $95,318 47,285 o o $47,285 95,318 o o o $95,318 47,285 9,378 o o $56,663 31.2% 50.0% 44.1% 100.0% 20f2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT APPENDIX A - 2002 BUDGET NOTES (ADOPTED) ADMINISTRATION $119,000 has been budgeted for Salaries for three full-time employees and one part-time employee at current salaries and hourly rate (line item.1 a). Salary adjustments for these employees have been budgeted for as part of Contingency (line item 7). $18,105 has been budgeted for Office Lease & Storage (line item 2a). It is projected that Office Lease & Storage expenses for 2002 will cost the District $26,517. These expenses will be off-set by $8,412 in funds received from the Freshwater Foundation in the Fall of 1998 move. $14,000 has been budgeted for Professional Services (line item 2b). This includes funds for the 2001 LMCD Audit, the District Bookkeeper, and the cleaning service for the District office. $4,500 has been budgeted for Printing, Publications, & Advertising (line item 3d). This includes for the re-printing of Summer Rules and other District literature. Boat and Water Safety Education (BWSE) expenses (line item 3j) generally offset revenues received (line item 1 g) for this twice a year course for boaters who get BWl's on Lake Minnetonka. $4,000 has been budgeted for Computer Software & Hardware expenses (line item 4b). This includes operating systems and word processing software upgrades, and the replacement of one desktop computer. $35,000 has been budgeted for Prosecution Services (line item 5b), compared to $40,000 in 2001. This can be attributed to the Minnesota State Supreme Court decision that interpretted a District ruling on the authority of Special Deputies of the Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol. $17,000 has been budgeted for Management Plan Implementation (line item 6a). Consistant with the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka, a Boat Density Survey is planned. A $8,500 MN DNR grant is budgeted for this project (line item 1 e). No reserve fund contribution above and beyond the Freshwater Foundation lease offset has been budgeted for 2002. With a projected Administrative reserve fund balance of $95,318 by 12/31/02, the District should be below the agreed upon six-month reserve for the Administrative Budget. EWM/EXOTICS MANAGEMENT It is anticipated that the MN DNR will fund the District with a grant of approximately $23,800 to assist in the management of Eurasian Watermilfoil. $5,000 has been budgeted for Zebra Mussel expenses (line item 2). These funds will be spent on related operating expenses for the spray down program. No reserve fund contribution has been budgeted. With a projected EWM reserve fund balance of $56,663 by 12/31/02, the District should be below the agreed upon 12-month reserve for the EWM/Exotics Management program. . . J CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2001 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING Chair Arnst called the meeting to order at 7:31 P.M. DRAFT A. Roll Call Present: Chair Arnst; Commissioners Callies, Young and Dallman; City Engineer Brown; and Council Liaison Turgeon Late Arrivals: Commissioners Meyer and Bix Excused Absent: Commissioner Puzak . B. Review Agenda Dallman moved, Young seconded to approve the agenda. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Park Commission Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2001 Slated for next month's agenda due to lack of quorum, as Commissioner Callies abstained from vote. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were none. 4. REPORTS . A. Report on City Council Meeting of July 23 and August 13,2001 Council member Turgeon had nothing to report from the July 23rd meeting. Turgeon did report that the August 13,2001, meeting consisted of an analysis of the new budget, which indicated a deficit for the Park Commission. Due to the expenses incurred from Eddy Station and the lack of financial support received from the Park Foundation, the Park Commission may need to raise user fees and will no longer be able to take its resources from the general fund. Brown reported that the wireless Internet provider, MetroCom, has filed bankruptcy and the funds the city. was counting on for Eddy Station will not be there. Commissioner Meyer arrived at 7:36 P.M. Turgeon went on to report that the City would be entering into an agreement for a new police and fire station off Smithtown Rd. Meyer, Park liaison for the Council meeting of the 13th, added that the Park Commission and staff was complimented on the two park grand openings. ~~A PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 14,2001 Page 2 of 5 4 B. Report on Park Foundation Meeting of July 19,2001 and July 26, 2001 Dallman reported that the fundraising focus of the Foundation was kicked off at Eddy Station's grand opening with the Buy-a-Brick program. Much interest in the fundraiser was generated, however, exact figures will not be available for awhile since the sales effort continues and future sales will be offered based on a newly designed brochure. Turgeon inquired whether the buy-a-brick program is offered on the website. Dallman noted that an application will be available on the website, as well as, offered in an upcoming newsletter. C. Report on Land Conservation Environment Committee As there is no representative to the LCEC, no report was available. Chair Arnst reported that she had recently attended the first Gideon Glen Task Force meeting. D. Report on Minnetonka Community Education Serv:ices meeting of July 17,2001 Brown reported that MCES is finally acknowledging that more needs to be done. Brown noted that although MCES has not come up with any viable alternatives, they more clearly understand what the city wants from them. . E. Report on Meeting with South Tonka Little League Representative Chair Arnst reported that the meeting between the City and Brian Tichy, Liaison for South Tonka Little League, went well. Administrator Dawson and Tichy have a good rapport and it is critical that Tichy remains the liaison for the time being. Chair Arnst shared comments she recently received from a resident who blames the City for the poor coordination of the fields and tournaments, which she felt further brings home the point that the City should have more control and rely less on MCES. Meyer questioned why the City has remained so patient with MCES, after hearing the same story from them over and over. Brown concurred, saying that the lack of response from MCES has caused the City to consider looking into joining forces with other communities to hire a person to perform these services. Young asked what the specific responsibilities of MCES are. Brown maintained that among others, the major responsibility of MCES is to manage the fields and their usage. . Young asked if they have difficulty with their other tasks as well, to which Brown replied they have problems across the board. Chair Arnst shared that recently two additional soccer organizations had inquired over access to the fields. One had no problem with the user fee and asked to be given access and the other chose not to pay the fee and go elsewhere. With this in mind, Arnst noted that the soccer fields are already too heavily scheduled with little separation between games. Brown reiterated that action needs to be taken to manage our parks, including the parking levels. During the recent roSA tournament weekend, TUSA reported that over 4400 people visited Freeman Park with little available parking. This issue urgently needs to be addressed. The park is not able to handle that many users at one time and TUSA will need to work with the city in the future. Meyer asked whether other City's have user fees. Brown indicated that Shorewood is the only one currently, however, many others are considering them. .' . . PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 14,2001 Page 3 of 5 5. REVIEW MASTER PLAN A. Park Tours Engineer Brown passed around the 2001 Park-To-Do list, indicating with check marks the many items already accomplished. B. 2001 Goals Chair Arnst refelTed to the 2001 Shorewood Park System Master Plan Review Draft of 8/10/01 and asked for input and suggestions. Brown reminded the Commission that the Capital Improvement Plan should not be the basis for a Master Plan. The Park Master Plan should act as a comprehensive tool to individually plan and look at the visions and goals we want to achieve. Brown continued that he had WSB draw up an overall plan/map of each park to refer to as we develop and evaluate them. Chair Arnst asked for comment on Step 1, asking if the questions were appropriate for the discussion. She indicated that by taking a macro view of what we want to achieve in our parks, we will work through the steps, creating a comprehensive plan to present to the City and its citizens for their input. Callies referred to the question "why the parks exist" and felt this had been addressed by the Park Commission goal statement. Callies added that the Commission may want to address the future evolving needs of our citizens and the diversity we provide for in Step 1. Young agreed that the diversity provided by our parks is a must. Callies went on to point out that the future parks may encompass green space and open space. Brown concurred that soon it is likely that the Gideon Glen property will fall under the Park umbrella, as well as, future wetland and interpretive spaces. Brown cautioned the Commission not only to address what and whom we need to serve in light of what we've got now, but also what the future may hold, Le. a water park was used as an example. Bix added that these evolving needs in the future might change the existing parks. With this in mind, Brown maintained that the Park Commission has been so busy implementing capital improvements and trails, that they have not been in a position until now to sit back and look at the goals of the parks and their individual visions. Chair Arnst asked if the Commissioners felt comfortable with Step 2. Young noted that in Step 2, item 2, by reviewing the deficiencies in service, we need to ask if we have a balance, are we servicing as many people as we can. The addition of usage data was suggested. Chair Arnst added the review of parks, green spaces, and open spaces to Step 3 based on earlier discussion. Step 4, gathering public input, Brown suggested using the services of Hoisington Koegler for the Open House to obtain the data. Young inquired whether this was an aggressive enough approach, indicating that not all users will attend an Open House and therefore not be heard. Chair Arnst felt that the public input required to make a change would warrant a more aggressive approach in order to hear from all walks of life, but not necessarily in this review process. She did, however, suggest adding item 2 to Step 4, considering other options. Chair Arnst then relayed comments given.to her from Commissioner Puzak, absent this evening. Puzak maintained, much like Young, that further data collection might be necessary using private surveys, especially when it comes to the services provided for by the smaller parks. Chair Arnst reported that she would take the suggestions she received this evening and rework the review draft in order to begin addressing Step 1 in September. Turgeon suggested that each Commissioner look at the current Comprehensive plan, its definitions, and either address what's contained therein or amend the PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 14,2001 Page 4 of 5 existing plan. 6. APPOINT LIAISON TO LAND CONSERVATION ENVIRNOMENT COMMITTEE Commissioner Callies volunteered for the position; however, Brown will investigate the requirements for her appointment. 7. SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY PARK A. Discuss Naming Proposal from American Legion on Sign/Installation Chair Arnst referred to the letter and draft of the proposed sign. She pointed out that while she felt it was consistent with the signage used at other parks, she was uncomfortable with the wording "sponsored by", in that it may offend other early on .sponsors of the Skate Park. Everyone agreed that the wording "supported by" would be more appropriate. Bix moved, 'Callies seconded accepting the Tonka Sign Crafters signage proposal for the South Shore . Community Park with the language modified to supported by instead of sponsored by. Motion passed 6/0. B. Discuss Rules and Sign for Skate Park Chair Arnst reported that an effort was made to solicit input from youths for the signage and rules, without success. After being contacted, Tim Hughes had nothing to offer either. With that in mind, Twila and staff obtained a copy of the City of Chanhassen' s rules to use as an example. After reviewing the Chanhassen Skate Park rules, the Park Commission felt the hours of operation were necessary, followed by rules and regulations. Regulati,ons will include what is and not allowed on the skating surface, suggested use of helmets and kneepads, users assume all risks etc. Chair Arnst will modify and submit the changes made to the rules and regulations. C. Request for Additional Seating for Spectators Chair Arnst passed along requests received from parents looking for additional seating at the Skate Park. She . asked Brown if he could find any extra picnic tables to place there from other park areas. Brown said he would try to locate additional tables. D. Meeting with Seasons Residents at City Hall Chair Arnst reported that a meeting would be scheduled with the Seasons residents for September, as promised at the advent of the Skate Park, to discuss any issues that may exist. 8. NEW BUSINESS Chair Arnst reminded the Park Commission of the Big Island Picnic scheduled for Tuesday, August 21 st, at 5:30/6:00 P.M. at the Excelsior Public Dock. Brown reported that the first act of vandalism had occurred at Eddy Station. He added that the City is in final negotiations with the South Lakes Police to perform the lockup at night and offer a police presence. PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, AUGUST 14,2001 Page 5of5 Dallman said he would be unable to act as September liaison to the City Council and asked for volunteers. Chair Arnst volunteered to cover the September meetings. 9. ADJOURNMENT Callies moved, Meyer seconded, adjourning the regular Park Commission Meeting of August 14, 2001 at9:35 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Kristi B. Anderson RECORDING SECRETARY . . '9i CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 7, 2001 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. Present: Chair Bailey; Commissioners Borkon, Gagne, Packard, Pisula, and Woodruff; Council Liaison Zerby and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner White APPROVAL OF MINUTES . · July 17,2001 Packard moved, Woodruff seconded, approving the July 17,2001, Planning Commission Minutes as presented. Motion passed 5/0/1, with Gagne abstaining due to his absence at that meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - APPLE RIDGE P.U.D Applicant: Roy Lecy Location: 6185 Apple Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:03 P.M. noting the procedures utilized the Public Hearings this evening. He also explained items approved this evening on the Agenda would appear before the City Council on the August 27,2001, Regular City Council Agenda. . Director Nielsen reviewed the background pertaining to this matter. He noted the applicants were applying for a conditional use permit approving a planned unit development for the site. The applicants had previously requested preliminary plat approval for this same site and were directed to respond to issues raised by City staff and residents as a result of the Public Hearing portion of that approval process. The revised plan before the Commission this evening still proposed four lots, but eliminated the public street, clustered those proposed homes on the site and created an outlot over which a conservation easement in favor of the City would be recorded. Director Nielsen then explained the applicant had now suggested an alternative driveway location to serve Lot 3. It was determined by the City Engineer that the previously proposed driveway acting as a shared drive to Lot 3 and 4 was a better solution. That proposal allowed for maximum sight lines when utilizing the driveway. If necessary, the City Engineer would allow a widening of that shared drive with a separate drive branching off to serve Lot 3. In this way, a protective covenant over the driveway serving Lot 4 would still be maintained. Also, Director Nielsen noted there would be significantly less site alteration with the revised plan. By clustering the homes on smaller lots on the west half of the property, less grading and tree removal was necessary, resulting in nearly one full acre less of site alteration. Director Nielsen explained a Planned Unit Development allowed for some flexibility from traditional zoning standards in exchange for greater control of natural features. In this case, the developer proposed granting a conservation easement over Outlot A. This ensured nothing would be built upon nearly two acres of the site and no alteration or tree removal would occur on the most sensitive portion of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7, 2001 Page 2of9 . property. In exchange, the developer proposed lots smaller and narrower than normally allowed in the R- IA district. However, the overall density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of property would still be maintained. Director Nielsen also suggested development agreements and protective covenants submitted for final plan address the following: 1. Easements and maintenance agreements for the shared driveways. 2. Kind, height, and location of fencing. 3. Restriction of parking in the driveway turn-around. 4. Restrictions on outdoor storage in front yard areas. 5. A revised tree preservation and reforestation plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, focused on landscaping between the proposed homes. 6. Tree protection fencing placed prior to any work on the site. 7. Ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. 8. The driveway for Lot 3 needed to be approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Roy Lecy, owner and developer of the property, stated he would be willing to work with all requests by the City and neighbors in the area including the planting of additional trees on the site if needed. Mr. Peter Knaeble, a civil engineer representing Mr. Lecy, stated the elimination of the street on the site reduced the impervious surface on site as well. Also, with the use of a private driveway, maximum infiltration would be achieved rather than having stormwater directed down Apple Road. In addition, he noted screening to the west could take place as a result of there being no central road on site. . Ms. Deb Osgood, 22035 Stratford Place, stated she believed the reduction in grading and the idea of a shared driveway to be significant improvements to the originally proposed plan. She asked whether consideration had been given to other options regarding the use of the existing driveway on site. Also, she stated planting forty trees when so many would be removed seemed inadequate. In addition, it was her opinion Outlot A would be developed in the future as it was potentially being sold to a developer. Ms. Suzanne Nesland, 22015 Stratford Place, stated she was concerned that the headlights on cars coming out of the driveway serving Lot 1 and 2 would be directed toward her home. Commissioner Packard questioned the possibility of headlights onto the Nesland property. Commissioner Gagne commented the driveway would be serving two homes and probably would not be many cars utilizing that drive. Director Nielsen stated he did not believe a problem would exist, as the Nesland house would be positioned higher than the driveway. Mr. Knaeble also commented the headlights would be sloping downward as they came out of the drive, rather than upward at the home. . Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the hearing at 7:25 P.M. Commissioner Borkon stated she was concerned for the future potential development use of Outlot A. Director Nielsen explained the amount of land being potentially sold equaled approximately one-third of an acre, and it would be very difficult to negotiate a driveway onto that site. Chair Bailey stated he realized the difficulty the. concerns regarding the wooded area and neighborhood presented for the developer, and he complimented Mr. Lecy on going the extra mile to work with those concerns and minimize loss of vegetation on the site. Commissioner Pisula thanked the residents for bringing issues of concern to the developer as he utilized his right to develop the property. Woodruff moved, Gagne seconded, approving the Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and Development Stage Plan for Mr. Roy Lecy, 6185 Apple Road. - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes , August 7, 2001 Page 3 of9 Commissioner Borkon stated she would be more comfortable having final approval of this matter return to the Planning Commission prior to being placed on the Council agenda for approval. With the consent of the maker and the seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to include that final plan approval is subject to review by the Planning Commission. Motion passed 6/0. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: James Russell Location: 26080 Birch Bluff Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 7:38 P.M. . Director Nielsen explained that Mr. Russell had reapplied for a variance considered by the Commission in December of last year. That request was withdrawn pending an appeal of the need for a variance. Modifications, based on recommendations of City staff and the Planning Commission were included in the current application. . Director Nielsen explained the applicant proposed leaving the house in its current location and repairing the roof. He also proposed extending the gable dormer on the lakeside of the house by six feet. In addition, he proposed replacing the shed dormer on the street side of the house with a gable dormer consistent in style to the lakeside dormer. These improvements were all within the buildable area, consistent with a 20-foot side yard setback, as previously recommended. Further, Director Nielsen noted, the applicant had agreed to remove the carport. In its place a future detached garage would be located in the buildable area of the lot and would be connected to the house by a wooden deck. The applicant proposed removing approximately fifty feet (or forty percent) of the existing driveway at the time the new garage would be constructed. The applicant also proposed removal of the accessory building near the house, but requested approval for perpetuation of a storm shelter structure on the property. Director Nielsen also noted the revised plan resulted in approximately a 23.7 percent hardcover ratio, which complied with the 25 percent maximum required by Shoreland management regulations. Removal of the shed near the house, the carport, and nearly forty percent of the existing driveway all helped to bring the property into better compliance with City zoning standards. Mr. Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, stated he would be available for questions and introduced Mr. Bob Schaffer, an architect representing him. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Chair Bailey questioned Director Nielsen about the use of the fire lane as the driveway for the home. Director Nielsen explained there were two situations in the City where driveways had existed previous to the ordinance designations and were allowed by the City. Commissioner Packard questioned whether there were any alternatives for the driveway on the property other than making use of the fire lane. Director Nielsen explained there were other alternatives, but all included raised concerns regarding drainage on the site. Commissioner Gagne questioned Mr. Russell whether the home would continue in its use as a summer unit only. Mr. Russell responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gagne commented because he liked the changes being proposed, and the property had been in use so long without hurting anyone, he supported this proposal. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7, 2001 Page 4 of9 , \. Commissioner Woodruff stated she was typically opposed to granting a variance such as this one, however, she thought it seemed as though the applicant had really worked to incorporate recommendations made by the City. She stated the driveway issue was still of concern to her and she suggested Mr. Russell examine possibilities for sharing a neighbor's driveway. Mr. John Russell, 7900 Halstead Drive, Minnetrista, stated all water from the street would flow onto the property without the current driveway, as the grade would be lower from the garage. Mr. James Russell stated the neighbor's driveway was not located on the lot line between the two homes and he did not believe that neighbor interested in a deal such as that one. Furthermore, he was hesitant to ask the neighbor, as that neighbor would have to relinquish right to his property. He noted Third Avenue had been platted as a City street and the neighbors had used it occasionally through the years to access the lake in that area. Mrs. Joan Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road, stated there was a bank of trees between her home and the neighbors that would need to be removed for a shared drive, and she did not want those trees removed to accommodate a driveway. Council Liaison Zerby stated it seemed more of an impact to remove the driveway than leaving it in its current location. In addition, the proposed plan had more benefits that outweighed the need for removal of the current driveway. . Director Nielsen then briefly reviewed the long history of the fire lane study and resulting ordinances, in response to Commissioner Borkon' s question, noting he viewed this proposal as a compromise. Chair Bailey stated he agreed with Commissioner Woodruff s comments regarding the improvement in the proposed plans. He then questioned the degree the City would be institutionalizing the sanctioned use of fire lanes for private use. He stated he was concerned that when the property would eventually be sold in the future that someone could continue to make use of this inconsistency. Chair Bailey then questioned Mr. Russell as to whether he would be willing to apply for a right-of-way permit for the use of the fire lane as a driveway. Mr. Russell stated safety was a concern for him in having difficulty entering Birch Bluff Road. Chair . Bailey stated it was unfortunate for the City that people had been using this fire lane for a driveway for a long time. He noted the intent of current ordinances would be enhanced as a result of the revised proposal and in this way, the applicant would be allowed to continue the use of the driveway as had been for the past fifty years. Pisula moved, Borkon seconded, approving a Setback Variance, subject to staff recommendations, and a request for a Right-of-Way permit for Mr. James Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road. Motion passed 6/0. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicants: Gaylord and Monica PahI Location: 5100 Anthony Terrace Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M. Director Nielsen reviewed information pertaining to the background of this request as well as how the property complied with the City's variance criteria. He also noted there was no need to require additional greenspace for this lot as it was heavily wooded. . . , Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7,2001 Page 5 of9 Mr. Gaylord Pahl, 5100 Anthony Terrace, stated the lot was heavily wooded and he saw the changes as a benefit for his property and the surrounding area. Chair Bailey closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:23 P.M. The Commission briefly discussed consideration of lack of a deck as a hardship and as a reasonable use. Borkon moved, Packard seconded, approving a Setback Variance, subject to staff recommendations, for Gaylord and Monica Pahl, 5100 Anthony Terrace. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 8:25 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:28 P.M. 4. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCES Applicants: Scott M. Olson Location: 6125 Ridge Road Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 8:28 P.M. Director Nielsen reviewed background regarding this request noting the applicant had received setback variances in 1999 to replace his home. The property was quite substandard with respect to shoreland management regulations, and anything done to the lot would require a variance of some sort. The applicant wished to simply enclose the lower level of the existing home, replace existing decks and build a new porch. The house was currently being supported by a masonry wall on its west side and a series of posts, beams and footings that formed a sort of stilt construction. This structure was considered stable, however, it was difficult to heat and the lower level was wasted space. Except for the porch all work would be done within the existing footprint of the building. In addition, this revised request required minimal site work. Approval was recommended with the following conditions: 1. Prior to any construction activity, construction limit fencing and erosion control barriers must be erected. 2. The site plan needed to be revised to include a combination parking space/pullout on the north end of the site. 3. Site grading and drainage would be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Mr. Olson was in attendance and remarked he had been having difficulty insuring his dwelling due to the lack of continuous foundation. If approved, this request would allow continuous foundation to Occur and insurance to be gained. Chair Bailey opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M. Gagne moved, Borkon seconded, approving the Setback Variance, subject to staff recommendations, for Scott Olson, 6125 Ridge Road. Motion passed 6/0. 5. PREAPPLICATION FOR COMP PLAN AMENDMENT Applicant: Z.B. Companies (Arnie Zachman) Location: 6090 Chaska Road Director Nielsen explained that the applicant proposed building four, two-family residential dwellings on the subject property. That property was currently zoned R-2A and in order to plat the desired number of dwellings on the property the applicant needed to secure a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a rezoning from R-2A to R-2B. This would also change the land use classification for the site from 2-3 units per acre to 3-6 units per acre. The subject property currently contained approximately 2.5 acres of land. Through an old agreement with the City, the property owner was allowed to use the area of a wedge Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7, 2001 Page 6 of 9 , of land to the south, for zoning and density purposes. That area would bring the total acreage for the site to approximately 2.87 acres. The property was surrounded on all sides by single-family residential homes. Director Nielsen then reviewed the amendment process and the five goals of the preapplication stage of this process. He also noted the applicant's proposal would result in a density of four units per 40,000 square feet. Further, he stated a requirement of the preapplication process included a written description of the amendment showing its relationship to the Comprehensive Plan and including factual information supporting the request to change the plan. This description had not yet been completed. Furthermore, he explained there were a number of development issues regarding this site aside from the density and zoning issues previously discussed. He explained the applicant had tried to purchase a number of properties in the same vicinity for development purposes. Having not been successful, this parcel was the only consideration for this evening, and rezoning of the site would result in "spot zoning" in that area. Secondly, there was concern regarding the use of "density transfer" issues such as this one. Further, any development of the property would need to include the relationship of a new street intersection and its proximity to the existing intersection. Tree preservation and reforestation also needed to be addressed, especially working to create . an effective buffer from Highway 7. While a N.U.R.P. pond was not required, measures of rate control needed to be provided so post development rates would not exceed predevelopment rates. Sanitary sewer was available and adequate to the site, however, a need for a private well remained. Mr. Zachman stated his company was proposing a Planned Unit Development for the site. He strongly believed the site would be developed, noting his company was primarily a condominium and townhome builder for sites on the west and southwest side of the metro area. He also stated he was trying to get eight units overall on the site in an effort to reduce costs for building and association fees. Chair Bailey stated he thought the Commission was being asked to change the rules without significant benefit to the City and at detriment to the people immediately surrounding the proposed development. At this time, he commented he did not see anything imperative in the request to create "spot zoning" for the site. The Commission agreed. Mr. Zachman questioned the ramifications of building six units on the site. Commissioner Pisula stated it . would come a bit closer to the zoning regulations and may be received more favorably because of that. Mr. Zachman stated he would try to work within the zoning regulations and thanked the Commission for its time. 6. DISCUSS INTERIM ORDINANCE REGARDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDINGS OVER 30.000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA Director Nielsen explained this matter appeared on the Agenda due to a question presented by the City Council as to whether a commercial development moratorium was needed for the City at this time. He explained CUB Foods had withdrawn its application and intended to reapply with the efforts of a new consultant. The issue was not exclusively related to CUB Foods, rather at large-scale community development and whether this large-scale land use fit with the "community-scale" defined in the Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan). Another issue requiring consideration included the effects of transportation between two commercial districts and use of over-burdened collector streets. He noted the County Road 19 Intersection project would not be started until 2002, and consideration. would be given to these various issues during the Community Visioning Process the City would be undertaking over the course of the next year. He was hopeful that outcomes would be determined regarding future use of commercial areas as a result of the Visioning Process. Further, he stated it was important not to be reactionary and to consider the impact of new construction or additions over 30,000 square feet and/or " Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7,2001 Page 7 of 9 over two acres in size prior to an application being submitted. In addition, he believed it important to examine the standards for commercial development, such as landscaping, which were not current with other municipalities. A moratorium could be ended at anytime he noted. Commissioner Gagne stated he was totally against moratoriums, as he believed either an application met the requirements set forth in the Compo Plan or they did not as happened with the CUB Foods proposal. He stated he thought the use of moratoriums restricted the opportunity a property owner had to develop his or her land. Further, he commented he believed this issue could continuously be studied without resolution M_Qtherissl.les had beeoin the past., Commissioner Woodruff stated she believed a moratorium had been briefly discussed when considering the potential for growth in the County Road 19 Intersection project, however, she believed it important to plan and effectively deal with the area now rather than waiting and studying it for a year. . Chair Bailey questioned what was the expected result in declaring a moratorium on large-scale commercial development for the City. Director Nielsen responded at minimum, he believed certain standards, now somewhat lacking, could be examined with possible positive revision. He noted these standards were well designated for residential conditional use permits, variances, etc., however, were at a minimum for commercial development. Also, he thought it important to define the term "community- scale" and work to define what kinds of development should be taking place in the City as a result of that definition. He noted a moratorium would afford the City the opportunity to review and examine portions of its Comprehensive Plan used for guiding development throughout the City. Commissioner Borkon stated she understood Director Nielsen's opinion, but wondered if other mechanisms in the planning process could be utilized to garner similar results. Director Nielsen stated without a moratorium the City was bound to the current planning process as written. He thought it important to preserve the integrity of the planning process and the Community Visioning Process was quite timely in providing information pertaining to that process. Furthermore, he stated he heard residents speaking frequently about what they do not want as part of the City's growth, and little about what was wanted. He hoped a moratorium over the course of the next year would afford residents an opportunity to consider what was wanted in terms of development within Shorewood. . Commissioner Gagne stated he believed it a bit conceited for the Commission to define "community- scale" as he thought it would be defined over time through the course of normal commerce. He stated personally he thought it more important to deal with each application individually as it met criteria already set forth in the Compo Plan. Commissioner Packard agreed, however, she noted the community had been through a painful process in considering the CUB Foods application and it was important to guide development in the future. Commissioner Borkon also commented she was not sure a moratorium was a good idea as it would not appear to be very effective and it looked as though the City was scrambling to block current applications, even though that would not be the case. She thought it very important to deal with this matter in the near future and give it due consideration. Commissioner Pisula questioned what issues of concern could not be addressed through specific conditions placed on individual applications to remedy areas found lacking. Director Nielsen explained the definition of community-scale could be dealt with effectively in that manner. Commissioner Pisula then stated it was his belief that property would develop as needed by the community. He explained that economic factors of the area would designate apt locations for various kinds of goods and services based on the needs of the community. He further explained that as the population would move west from Shorewood, commerce would follow. In addition, property in Shorewood would develop based on the activity, services, and demands of the population a specific business would draw upon. In this way, property owners would try to install services to meet the needs of the community. The market would then Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7,2001 Page 8 of9 determine what kind of businesses would develop. He stated he believed the property next to the Shorewood Village Shopping Center had not been developed because it had not been needed yet. He further stated he thought it wise to consider possibilities for different uses of that specific undeveloped property, and he thought a moratorium would simply postpone the inevitable. Commissioner Packard considered aloud the possibility that a developer could potentially purchase both the Village Shopping Center property and the undeveloped property next to it and combine them to build something even larger than the previous CUB Foods proposal. She noted she was having difficulty understanding the idea of "community-scale" and she was uncertain how to manage it in the future without stopping to consider the definition and its implications for future use. Chair Bailey stated the Commission seemed to have clearly identified faultlines within the understanding of the Compo Plan and he would have no problems with a moratorium as issues that raised concern had shown themselves in this evening's discussion. He further noted it seemed the timing was appropriate in coinciding with the Community Visioning Process. Commissioner Borkon stated she had heard many issues that caused her to reconsider her previous line of thinking regarding moratoriums, and she believed it important for that reason to support the idea. . Borkon moved, Packard seconded, recommending a moratorium for development of buildings over 30,000 square feet of floor area to the City Council. Chair Bailey questioned whether a time period should be designated. With the consent of the maker and the seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to include a moratorium of twelve-months. Commissioner Packard stated she wished there was another way to accomplish the goals of a moratorium, but noted it was hard to get ahead of the issue as applications were always being submitted. Motion passed 4/2, with Gagne and Pisula dissenting. Chair Bailey recessed the meeting at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:43 P.M. . Director Nielsen commented this decision would' give the Commission a chance to review current standards and not be placed in the position of having approval with reluctance. Further he noted it would be important to dovetail the notion of what was wanted as well as what was not wanted by the community. Councilmember Zerby commented some community standards had been raised at the CUB Foods Public Hearing, and it was important to consider the implications of those standards. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA The August 21, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting Agenda would include a Study Session giving consideration to the Organized Refuse Collection Study, the County Road 19 Redevelopment Project, a Senior Housing Study, as well as a review of proposed text for the Comprehensive Plan regarding a Planning District in the City. .' Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 7,2001 Page 9 of 9 9. REPORTS Commissioner Gagne reported on the Gideon Glen Advisory Committee Meeting of July 12th, noting the purchase of Gideon Glen was clearly an asset to the City in its beauty. He also stated he hoped the dumping in that area would be discontinued. Commissioner Packard reported on matters considered and actions taken at the July 27, 2001, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Woodruff stated she had recently attended a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meeting where approximately $250,000 had been budgeted for wetland restoration. . The Commission determined the Commission Liaisons to the City Council would be as followed for the remainder of the year: August September October November December Commissioner Pisula Commissioner Borkon Chair Bailey Commissioner Woodruff Commissioner Gagne 10. ADJOURNMENT Packard moved, Gagne seconded, adjourning the August 7, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting at 10:06 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLYSUBNUTTED, Sally Keefe, Recording Secretary . " CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 3 August 2001 RE: Russell, James - Revised Variance Request FILE NO. 405 (01.21) Mr. lames Russell has reapplied for a variance that was considered by the Planning Commission in December oflast year (see Planning Director's memorandum, dated 30 November 2000, and Planning Commission minutes, dated 5 December 2000 - copied in yellow). His request was withdrawn, pending an appeal of the need for a variance. . The current application contains modifications to his original plaris that are in response to recommendations made by staff and the Planning Commission. Background on this request is contained in the original staff report. Following is a summary of the current proposal: A. Existing dwelling. Mr. Russell still proposes to leave the house in its current location. Rather than completely replace the existing roof system, he will repair it. He does propose to extend the gable dormer on the rear (lake side) of the house by six feet. He also'proposes to replace the shed dormer on the front (street side) of the house with a gable dormer consistent in style to the lakeside dormer. These changes are illustrated on his revised site plan (Exhibit A, attached) and the revised second floor plan (Exhibit B). These improvements are all within a buildable area that would be consistent with a 20-foot side yard setback, as previously recommended. ft ~J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~q~ '. Memorandum Re: Russell - Revised Variance Request 3 August 2001 B. Existing car.:pOrt' The applicant has agreed to remove the carport. In its place he proposes a future (possibly sooner than later)detached garage to be located in the buildable area of the lot (assuming a 20-foot side yard setback). The garage would be connected to the house by a wooden deck. C. Existing driveway. At such time as the garage is constructed, the applicant proposes to remove approximately 50 feet of the existing driveway (nearly 40 percent of what exists today). D. Existing accessory structure (near street). The applicant requests approval to keep this structure as a storm shelter. E. Existing accessory structure (near house). The applicant proposes to remove this building. . The applicant's revised plans result in approximately a 23.7 percent hardcover ratio, which complies with the 25 percent maximum required by Shoreland management regulations. The plans also respect the previously recommended 20-foot setback from the Third Street firelane. Removal of the shed near the house, the carport and nearly 40 percent of the existing driveway all bring the property into better compliance with R- 1 CIS zoning standards. It is recommended that the plans be approved as presented, and that the corrections proposed by the applicant be incorporated into the resolution approving the variances. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Larry Brown James Russell . -2- " . ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ - - .. ~., -""'~' ~.~!l\II!1" ~ ~ _, , ReMl>\.J~ ~)Gi~t,~ X c11"l \Ie I,V", ~ (API" ro~ \ ~~), \ z i..... ST \ \ ~ \ :1:3&' 1- THB POUNDA TION .l.r"'""" I c...."..,. Po'(' ===~~ l- ,..... c,. NU / ~ 1~~\ \ ~Vl<O \\ ~. ~ 1...,...................- ........ .................... .....,..._= ~",. _.....".. " ...-onT. _ A. h".. 1IIIII!a.,...... 2CBI3 IIIIIIIIalt .... DIll J11 J ~ei ! I ~ ~JGGO Proposed SIte Plan Project No. 01-12 , J\ r Exhibit A REVISED SITE PLAN Russell variance u~ GFt4VEL DRIVEWAY "-"---~ 161.581 N~..3'91~1 liE ~(.~ >:;~.. ~ ,. ,(), ~~ ~'4~, '." .~ '''~~4 ,iG G ~r:. '-\ '\ ~.<; ,!~ q, 41 ~ ~ ~ ~,..\~' ".".i' "'3.i:.... ': .,. "..; "<! ~ -~~-- ~ f:~ ~~\:; ,\.;, ~l ., q , .; .r.l.G ," ',\ >",. lIEJ..L '; "," .... ....., ,,~ ~ . "'I! .~ ,:Jf. .I ...... :~~{~ ~G:, " r-... \~.~~~~' ~ ... \ =~T~ \ ~ REMODELED \ 2NO FLOOR ~ \ '" ~~"~,, \ 1"" <l:! ,,~ " "ot'41 <tl" ~ " " ",,~. ~~4bk\\~.. dOrMI (' \ ~ \~ \ ~ J.! I I NEW GARAGE- ---~ \ 1- 1'!~31 1 6t/).3~1l)1"W 1- - TOT AI.. HARD 5UFFACE APEA: 3631 TOTAl.. &ITE AREA: 1&33& FERCENT AGE ct= 14AfiilD eure=ACE APEA: 23.'~ Qj ~~!~~;D €lITE FLAN (LOT 22) IL " / ' () I' III, :: . 11-10~" NEW ~A6LE DORMER 201-1411 REMODELED EXISTINC: 2ND FLOOR AREA 11-4~" EXTEND EXI6T'~ ~A6LE DORMER ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---: - - - - - - - I . - I - 't . I II II 011 II .: u! AT~ II II I I 6DRM i3 "-~IIXI31_211 8 DN o o I I II 1/2 WALr~-4-i4k I =1 -IN eN ~ - -"- l_______________________________________=___________~ ~ ~~~~;AN - OPTION D -=- -j / II = .::BE:J2~M --~ I 9'-S"XI3'-211 II 6DRM i2 1I1-8I1X81-111 z ~. == - -IN N I - 't N THB POUNDATION .l.r"''',,', I c...."..,. Po ~ JIIDN~"''''_ ..... __ r--....MJI w...8.... "'J ,.......................- =...................... ...1............ _= _....."..__ ............a _ II. lila".. I11III8/2/,...... 2IDI03 IIIIIIIIalt .... a. J11 J ~ei ! I ~ ~JGGO Proposed F100rpIan Project No. 01-12 Exhibit B UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN .\ Subject: To: Request for a variance from the setback requirements Shorewood Planning Conunission and Council On July 7,2000 a large tree limb fell onto the roofofthe dwelling at 26080 Birch Bluff Rd. causing damage to the roof peak and attic. The repair to match the original construction would be a simple matter but the building inspector will require changes in the structural members in the attic and second floor. The dwelling which was built in 1880 according to the Hennepin County Treasurers record, does not have frost free footings beneath its foundation. Your applicant.has decided to install proper footings and foundation before making the attic repairs, but is confronted with the following: 1. A 35 foot sideyard setback from the street/firelane which adjoins on the west. 2. A 30 foot sideyard setback total which applies to shoreline lots. . 3. The encroachment on both the Birch Bluff Road right of way and the street/firelane by a stone and concrete structure which lies on the southwest comer of the property. There are special conditions and circumstances peculiar to this lot which should entitle the applicant to a variance from the ordinance requirements. 1. The city planner informs me that previous requests by landowners for relief from the firelane setback requirements have been granted and that the firelane is treated as an ordinary lot line. Also, it is my observation over fifty years that the use by the public of the firelane is minimal and is much different than with an ordinary public street. 2. The Birch Bluff Upper Minnetonka plat was filed May 10, 1881 and used parallel lot lines from one end to the other, ignoring the angle of the lot lines to the lakeshore. It probably wouldn't be done the same today. The dwelling was oriented to the lakeshore, and not to the sideyard lines, and only crosses the sideyard setback line on one comer in a triangle shape 39 square feet in area.. . 3. The stone and concrete strucuture built into the hillside formed by Birch Bluff Road and the firelane was probably built when the house was built., At any rate, it is not a noticeable building from any angle, does not infringe on the light and air of any neighbor, does not interfere with the use of the roadway or the firelane and has great value to the property and to life and limb because it is a safe storm shelter. There is no other storm protection available at this house which faces north and west, has no basement and faces nearly every important gale. The Zoning Administrator interprets the ordinance to deprive the applicant ofthe right to make structural changes to a single family residence. The special conditions and circumstances that require this request for variance, a setback encroachment, are the result of a plat and building placement 119 years in the past and are not the result of actions by the applicant. ~ ~ ~ant:' . Exhibit E APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER t CITY OF SHOREWOOD.' " ''''''\ 5151 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD .SHOREWOOO; MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 F,4.X (952) 474-0128 · .www.cl.shorewQ9d.mn.us.cityhall@ci.shorewoO<l.mn.us , MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: 'DATE: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 30 November 2000 '~ RE: Russell, James - Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (00.31) BACKGROUND . ~. James Russell owns the property at 26080 Birch Bluff Road (see Site Location map- Ex~bit A, attached). The property is occupied by an old cabin, a carport and two accessory structures, as shoWn on Exhibit B. Due to recent storm, damage, Mr. Russell must replace the existing roof on the structure. As explained in his letter (Exhibit C), Mr, Russell wishes to , , place a foundation under the existing cabin in conjunction with the roof replacement. 'SinCe none of the structures on the site comply with current se~back requirements, he, has requested variances to allow the cabin to remain in its present location. The property is zoned R-IC/S, Single-Pamily Residential/Shoreland and contains 16,204 , square feet of area. The existing cabin is only six feet from an old street right-of-way called Third Street, which,is classified as a "fire lane" on the Zoning Map. Sinc,e th~se flIe lanes ar~ technically street right~..of-way, a 3S-foot setback would ordinarily be required. , As shown on Exhibit B, two small accessory structures located on the property not only fail to comply with setbacks, but are actually located within the public right-of.-way. ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDA TION While there is significant precedence for granting a variance t9 the setback requirement from the fire lane, there is also a good opportunity to achieve better compliance with current standards as part of the proposed work on this site. ft t.41 PRINTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Russell Variance Request 30 November 2000 ", The City has 'granted variances to fire lane setbacks on at least three other occasions., Similar requests have been granted in recent years on Birch' Bluff Road, Ferncroft Drive and Glen Grove Path. It is worth noting that, following a lengthy fire lane study a few years ago, the City decided to retain ownership of fire 1an.es for lake access, rather than vacate them. In essence the fire lanes are more like park property than street right-of-way. For example, the Glen Grov~ Path fire lane was maintained primarily for drainage purposes. The Eureka Road fire lane is designated as a Class m fire lane which allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, and launching canoes and small boats not requiring a trailer. The Third Street fire lane is similarly classified. ' When viewed more as park land, it is appropriate to require normal setbacks. 'In this case, the , westerly property line would be treated as a side lot line. For 1akeshore lots, a total of 30 feet of side yard must be provided; with neither side being less than 10 feet. Although the applicant has requested to keep the building in its current location, it is recommended that the building be turned on the lot to comply to the extent possible with the required setback . requirement. Construction of a new foundation requires the building to be raised up anyway. Since the cabin is 46 feet wide without the carport, and the lot is 75 feet wide, the building will be one foot short of the 30-foot requirement, but far more in compliance with cun'ent standards A review of the home locations on Exhibit G illustrates that not all buildings have been oriented parallel to the lakeshore. In fact, the house immediately west of the subject property is oriented to the lot lines. In turning the structure it is highly recommended that the applicant consider moving it back 10..15 feet in order to accommodate possible future decks or a patio on the lake side of the house. ' 1. The house must be turned ahd situated 10 feet from the easterly lot line, leaving 19 feet from the Third Street r.o.w. 2. The carport should be removed as part of the roof and foun~ation work. 3. The two accessory structures should be brought into conformity with R-IC/S setback. requirements. 4. Strong consideration should be given to moving the building back from the lakeshore , to accommodate a future deck or patio. Cc: Tim Keane Joe Pazandak James Russell -2- ...... o o en o o ;r CD ..... zI> · · /N~ ~~ · ~L I~ ] r .L " ~ "~ _(:. --..-r~p! ---, .-OJ_ I ~ ~ ~ _ ~ I 3: - I ~:tOO '\ -!--- :lll-jij Q -i 5 =I~I~~\ ~ 4$;~-~~ - ~ - - - ~r~. - I -z I r-- . -, ~ r-- r--~1' I -" , ~ g- \\ I n :-JW r;::: 1 J \\ 1\ _L 1 1 ~ - .'~RDi 1\ 1\ ::v (IJ Ll I I - \ -:'. \ -\\ 0 e. -= ~ ~k LJ ,,~ --\ J1\:\lI -: ~-\1lJ' 11 ~ 1 L= 4 co-: ((~rl;Rl ;;\ ~~ . ~ ~1~~rl'-~ .i ~. I g \t -\\... ~ I . \ I - , . . , r[\ \, -\ \\ - .4'>' . \ I -\. . ; I \ If', ~\ .'\. , ~ \ L 1 - Iv . l..-/~~ · · ~A\ ""J\~ ~ ~ '\.l -A\- J P - ~ ~ ~~~I ST f"J ~ I '\'C:::::_~ \- - Rn ~ IE., '<' LL ~ H ~ 18 - I IIf ~"~J~' ii \ fU ~AY j \~ - - .... El .I--........g~ 1 {\ . r ~ l '" \ ';:-- - s;. ""- ~. :..).t j \ I~ \ ~. r- - ,r;; · '. P 1t II ;;: "i- r-.-, . _ '< ~ "' ~ -Ijr' .. . I ..u. ILL I-,~~'" ~ . '~ ~ _"' ~ . · .' ~__. ' L-J ,,\ ~ '. r-' Ii: LJ '\. '\. ,- _ "' .' . . I IL, I .'(, I.---t I I ~ :1j ~ Ai ~ ~ ~ ~ I1i d ~ ,. ::= ~E-4 ~~ Z .....m I:: :> . 111111 E! r-f 'U ::Sllllll r:: bl3 ~r::1II - ..-I IIJ o r::+l1lS 1'010111 I-l..-l Q/ 0....-1 X /.4 Jl:111S , :: .lIJ .... III 0 In +J bI. "00r:: Q/ I:: .'-..i r-!1II01-l III 0 0 Ill. "U OQ/ t/) 0 X.1Xl ~- 't'" . ~ '::.<~.'.:.:..: a ""ll\ y-; .::: '"" . :".: -1 - tl\... '-. .... "'. . :... ~:\~ IS' .....-:..... \\llo ... ~ .. . . . '.' ." .' ":t. . ...: . < ,. ~ ...... >C . 1 I , \ \ < --:j.SF-__ t,., IV I , , , . , --- ~ ~, .. ~\ ~\ ~\ ~\ \ '...... ," ~ \~ ~" ",,"::t -s.\<' ,"'! ~\~ ~. ...' "', ~\ \...-- -~-~ _ --~t5 ~ b-\ ~ -.., ~\ --- +"7 _. ,...... ,_.l ...., t,~ ....:. '-' d < - JlIt,.t.Q,6toOs-rrt;.1.1 i! .1 '. ~ti ~k "u ~q I! '. <- - ~ \ ~ .~ ~ --. 0" \! \ '"ei \ ~. fiI\ lid , . ~ '~., \ ii:: \is \ fiI , III \:. ~ :\ 1'01 "\ oIJ S . ~ .. ~. ~~ g. :: ..-I ~~ '\ Q r- SI":"'i' :nM;l <" 0\ -\ -- \ I I \ \ \ ,-) \...'" ...... ,,\to I (n., ',"\ "7 _"') II "riA?") _,.:J!:i,..... ,"",-7..,niIJ ~'\ ... .., ':1 II ".:j ON " I CJ .J , \ \ , .\ "" ~ \ \ , , .. .+~ . II' 1\-. 1"\ J j;J '-J I l tU ,..., ~ 1;) t"!II ~ ~ \oj ~ ~ ~ ~ if ~ ~ .. . ~~.....,..... ""'-"-'- ..........,~,......,"'" "-,.......~ \ , \ \ ~. l\J I'\J ~ k. G ~ ~ ..... ~ ~' -.. " ~ ~ \ P\ ... ~ .;} ... \\ ____1 .3Q~Q,6fC'.OIY - $($z.~/_ { ;;;;",w' ~::;:;=--- -. t\l .... ; '.l ... iN I , I t':~ I~ .. ~ A -'- " ,:.' '1 --r-~_A; " ~ ! ' - .ld ., ~ It t.! "Ill .. III ,... ~ ""5 en o ~~ :-9 en .d- ><:><: J:I,:lJ:I,:l .rf -.i 1D+l lIS ~:> 0111 -..i'r-f +Jill U Q/'U IIJGl 14+J Q/IIJ +l::i r::'n -..i'U lIS Q/ "r-! 0'1 01'01 -a~ III Ii! ' Q If.I, 01> c."; o ' . E.n!; ~ ....:I A.. 01114 >.c 'UO+= 0.0 III lIS . > Q/Q/C "::1.r:1d 14+J +l ..., ..., -rf lIS 0 lIJlI.lll.l -..illlbl ..-IC lIJ/.4..-1 -..i1lS'U .c:'Ur-f +J C'r! ::1::1 +JO.o 1Il.Q .c: r-! +JG)r-f .c: III ~ l>!+J If.I ..., .rf"" 0 -1-10 I /.4 C-l- G)>'O~ UQ/'rf8 !>+JE ~~"~t Q/lIJOa: H r-!e "111111 s.. -.r: G) U . If.I.r: c HO+JQ/ . . Subject: To: Request for a variance from the setback requirements Shorewood Planning Commission and Council On July 7, 2000 a large tree limb fen onto the roof of the dwelling at 26080 Birch Bluff Rd. causing damage to the roof peak and attic. The repair will require changes in the structural , members in the attic and second tloor. The dwelling which was built in 1880 according to the Hennepin County Treasurers record, does not have frost free footings beneath its foundatiOn. Your applicant has decided to install proper footings and foundation before ma1cing the attic repairs, but is confronted with the fuUowing: 1. A 35 foot sideyard setback tom the 1irelane which lUljoins on the west. . 2. A 30 foot sideyard setback total which applies to shoreline lots. 3. The encroachment on both the Birch BhUfRoad right of way and the firelane bya $ne and concrete structure which lies on the southwest comer of the property. 4. The encroachment by a cetneht drive~y on the firelane. There are special conditions and circumstances peculiar to this lot and the terrain which should entitle the applicant to a variance from the ordinance requirements. 1. The city planner informs me that previous requests by landowners for relief from the firelane setback requirements have been granted and that the firelane is treated as an ordinary lot line. Also, it is my observation over fifty years that the use by the public of the firelane is minimal and is much different than with an ordinary public street. 2. The Birch Bluff Upper Minnetonka plat was filed May 10, 1881 and used parallel lot lines from one end to the other, ignoring the angle of the lot lines to the lakeshore. It probably wouldn't be done the same today. The dwelling was oriented to the lakeshore, and not to the sideyard Jines, and only crosses the sideyard setback line On one corner 3. The stone and concrete strucuture built into the hillside formed by Birch Bluff Road and the. firelane was probably built when the house was built, the fireplace and chimney and the stone building in question probably were the work of the same stonemasons. At any rate, it is not a noticeable b11ildiDg from any angle, does not infringe on the light and air of any neighbor, does not interfere with the use of the roadWilY or the:fire1ane and has great value to the property and to life and limb because it is a safe storm shelter. There is no other storm protection available at this house which :filces north and west and gets nearly every important gale. 4. .The lot in question along with its neighbor on the opposite side of Birch Bluff Road is the low point on Birch Bluff Road. The lot is lower than the Birch B1u1fRoad roadbed and lower than the fire1ane. The east portion of the 1ire1ane is an incline down to the lot in question. The encroaching driveway on this incline protects it from erosion and provides traction on the incline. Literal interpretation of the terms of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of the right to preserve a worthy and historic Iakehouse by installing a proper foundation. A new foundation would probably require only a building permit on a different property. The special conditions and circumstances that require this request for variance are the result of a plat and building placement 119 years in the past, and also terrain conditions, and are not the result of actions by the applicant. ~_ ~~/ /l pplicant: r .' , Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER . . ~..;.t ) - I rn o E-t 00 .....P:: .... tl.. ..0 :E~ P1~ tI1 >< ::r g .... otI1 " o rn I tv ) . . .... .... .0 .... . NORTH . . ........ .,...(.-, .' .' .' .' .' ..fJ .. ..# ,. .' ..' ..' . ... . ......... .,,- ,., ._ .1 .;..... .. ~. LAKE MINNETONKA I +- s ~ -:. ~ ;::-.,.;, ~\~ ~, ~ .\~ ~J1~ .'\ ~. :; -- \: ~~~ ..... ) ~ W !BlU + Subju.,t Pro~(*t1 + A ~ , ~ ( t;;JoI ......."" l ...... !!lII I n I .. I I '. x S32.3 ..... ~ ~.~ F ':.- . ~c.~J .1~v:;I~k-"'. lltJJ' .'. :;'l, ,,~-;: =. ~ I / j1fs'f{f:- F"\.. t:/': , . ,J;..._ r ~) fj ~ .~ ~~ ", ~ J ~ - ~-: I. \ .. ~7 ~~~;- '-,~ .' .' ~~ 'j xllU \... ..... r?i. . \ !I!iU;. .-I I ~, ~. \12 VI J1' ~ - ) 1 ~ ) } rJ!:1,) l.--\\. ~ ~ ~' , / I ~ 1 ' c.r j;J'" . I( - -- ~ ~ ~ ~ . ')1- Ii iJ 1.' ~ -;SUX,~ .~ ." J \ xUU-:? ~. ~' ~ "\.'1 -0 i , ::;:;.-...... ~ , ~~ ~';:'\"~~.~. '~., ~ ~~ ~ --I ~~~'I' L..1 ~ ,~~. ~I~- tM.4~~ 771 \h . SO ,r~ttl! ~ ~ \ ~'~'. ~ .~ ~ ~(~ [M/Cl ~~: ~~::. u~t.ll\~ ' ~ Ij,.~ ..~ .~ ~kl VI ~ \ ~~ ~~ L:J :,lIll ~~ . ')))- '\, ~~ m ."'[ ~..l ~~ ,),.... 1:_ ~ \ ~ . -...... }\'\~.~~ )> ""-.' ...'\t;.; ~:;... --.....-...,,,: ~':.:iX\~\';;;::::: -:;... /..-/ ~~. ~\." ~~ ,j" '-t: ,.,~"/".ij'A{\'l~\ r------,..;.-: ~~ ~ ~- ~- .Lnl! .I'~ ~-'~ n ~~ ^ II/~ . N~1 .~ ,....~ J . ~ (J ~ 'J !l V A '1 j~..... ~~ .~.\.~ ~ 'lit - alL.. ~. ~J . ~~ 1 .. l.- !l J I ~ 1 ~ '''" Leo C. Melaene 26120 Birch Bluff Road. Shorewood, MN 55331. FAX. & TEL. 612/470-1770 November 22, 2000 . . .. _.. .""_ 'ow . , ~'\ IE I:::;) '2 n \\ fi71r-r:::: i~ rjl L I{ . I..... ,,\\. ~In\ ,if] NOV 2'T 2lXXl ~ : I;) I -'v ! ,.__.._00._' ._~ .... .._ ....: .............."......... City of Shorewood c/o Planning Dept. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, :M:N 55331 . Subject: James Russell Project, 26080 Birch Bluff Road Please let it be known that we support Mr. Russel's request for a setback variance, which would allow him to construct a new foundation under his house. 20~~~~ . Leo & Marcia Meloche \-e' r. ;:... ...: r~.~' f\ ~i7." '.~' r'f. ~ f':'" \ 0':' . 0 . dO" l' :' ,... ." I ..... .' i.' , I I :i I i\U'J 2 V 2.000 \ I . t ~ .' .' . /)Iou, 0'(8, ,!;laoo ;(1.:, ObC B:....~ 131,^--~ r<.<L. .s~<,>rQ-i.QooJJ r?7N SS:3:1\ .,.,.,....--.... "Ij...-;..-:~"':'"".._....'''.' " ptZ.A...r )71r.. /It' fJ_l.. 's 4-11 : . ~ re...spDn.se_,~ ~;;e,.. 'PuJ.,/,',;, f~J,n~ 11,,1:; c:...ca... ,/ ...;;,- :::s- t;LW1e-.s. R<.t-.5.Re...Lt.. o-f';' 60 Be .a;r~' a/v-~' I<J I we, /i::>JJ ~'" e... Hlr. l4c,f;s..J( tlli .. w- LJ 6e, 9 rA-",,+:J a.. .s.t21 kJ... . '~Gl,r: tL.~c-~w/'iJ wlJv-ld o-tLOLU hllrJ +0 c.o,,? .s../rtA....c-/ a.. /-1e....w +ou.ncIJ: e "1 LA. Yl jcu- h ,'$ h 0 """$ e.. w;.JJ, oJ J;n Ii u ~ no j 'rf ,We., a...re... 01'1 a..J.1 a..c....",j L(J-h: t!LMJ hi'.> h 0 v.....$ e, I /1;1 ;h. p re-s e_J-1J- te c:..d--J-; 0 '1 de.e.s. nJ pre-.s~l- a.. .p/"'Ok/e-1?'1 tL'?J we-' b t2-L 1 ~ v e.. l!- t. 0 (;) L -fI, e- be-.s;...,L a-J.- w,,# d- :..s: 'pO$IJ-: Md. ~oa.. ~~ -/ .$;d. 0., 0 ~ t, ,'.s h o'v...... e- )..s pO-I'''"' Ll J -&0 +t e.- We..sJ, s ~J Q- O+- ()u.,..r h ~ &..L.-S e., . -rh <Vll y"..... ~,... :::J c~.,.... C" Yl ~ "jor~ II . Yo c..t.,r.s --rr ~Ly ) _ ~~) 0., ~ p-t# ,,' ete1i f( wwh 7p.::&.N.. q'_I I f-.D..,3 '1.3 ~o D 'I Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page 4 of 9 December 5, 2000 Turgeon moved. to table this matter to January 2, 2001, Planning Commission Meeting so that clarification could be obtained on the lengthy list of conditions required for approval. Motion failed for lack of a second. Anderson moved, Callies seconded, recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit subject to staff recommendations and a plan for screening of the mechanicals on the rooftop of the proposed ~dition as well as a designated sidewalk to the buses from the building, for Our Savior's Lutheran Church, 23290 Highway 7. Commissioner Anderson commented this seemed to be, a good project. He believed City staff to be competent and capable of dealing with the complexities involved in this matter in an effort to work together with the church. He also reiterated his request for architectural standards being held in this matter. Chair Bailey commented he would not vote favorably for this matter as he agreed with Commissioner Turgeon. Commissioner Woodruff stated she thought the same initially, but was confident enough agencies were . involved to handle the matter effectively. Motion passed 312, with Bailey and Turgeon dissenting. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING. SETBACK VARIANCE Auulicant: James Russell Location: 26080 Birch Bluff Road Director Nielsen provided background on this matter, noting the property was occupied by an old cabin, a carport, and two accessory structures. Due to recent storm damage, Mr. James Russell must replace the existing roof on the house. He wished to place a foundation under the existing cabin in conjuction with the roof replacement. Since none of the structures on site comply with setback requirements, a variance was being requested to allow the cabin to remain in its present location. The cabin was only six feet from a classified fire lane on the Zoning Map. Typically, a 35-foot setback is required. In addition, the two accessory structures were located within the public right-of-way. Director Nielsen also cited three instances where variances were granted to fire lane setbacks. He also noted in essence, the fire lanes were found to be more like park property rather than a street right-of-way. When viewed as park land, normal setbacks become appropriate. Director Nielsen's recommendation to turn the house to more effectively comply with setback requirements was combined with his recommendation to consider moving the house back an additional 10-15 feet in the event a deck on the lakeside of the house would ever be warranted. In' addition, possible demolition or conformity of the two accessory structures was recommended. The carport was to be removed as part of his recommendations as well. . Mr. James Russell, owner of the property, stated the house was believed to have been built in 1880 and he was nineteen when the house was purchased by his father in 1950. Last July 7, during a storm, a maple tree fell in the middle of the roof attic space leaving a 12 foot hole. After meeting with a contractor and city officials, it was decided there were structural concerns and rebuilding was necessary. As part of this concern, he opted to build a foundation as well as repair the roof. He also noted the house had historical merit as well, Mr. Edward Reter, the owner in 1920, had documented the site was a ticket office for a streetcar boat. Mr. Russell believed his home to be a charming place worth saving. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page 5 of 9 December 5, 2000 Mr. Russell had done calculations regarding Director Nielsen's recommendations and a survey and found the proposed turn would be eighteen degrees. He noted the houses to the east were oriented to the lake as was this one, and this turn would change it from a westerly facing direction to a northerly facing direction, thus, minimizing the sunsets observed across the lake. He also stated turning the house would change, but not cure, the compliance issues. Thus, he would resist making the turn. His contractor informed him the cost to turn the home would double the estimate for lifting the house. Furthermore, he stated he would like to keep his carport as he used it for boat parking. and he saw it as an embellishment to the property and would hate to lose it. With regard to the two accessory buildings, the 9 x 12 foot building can be moved, and the stone building seemed to be buUt at the same time the cabin was built since the stonework matches the chimney. He also noted this stone house did not interfere with any use .of the area, and his family utilized it as a stonn. shelter in the past.. They would most likely continue to do so as the proposed foundation was anticipated to be 42 inches with footings. In conclusion, Mr. Russell stated he had no obvious need for the deck and did not anticipate sellingin the near future hence, there would be no need to move the house back the additional 10-15 feet as suggested. . Chair Bailey opened the Public Hearing at 9:08 P.M. Mr. Edward Soner, 26100 Birch Bluff Road-the property immediately west, stated he did not see what these recommendations would accomplish. He believed the historic aspects of Mr. Russell's property added to the value of the property. Furthermore, with these improvements the foundation would stabilize, but turning the house would not fix anything in his opinion. Chair Bailey closed the Public Hearing at 9: 10 P.M. Commissioner Anderson questioned what actually would be achieved by turning the home. Director Nielsen reiterated the setback requirements and noted this was a structu~ alteration of a non-conforming site. . Commissioner Turgeon stated she was thinking of any future owners and that it would be nice to fix part of the problems on the site since opportunity had presented itself, and a future owner may want to have them fixed. Also, she noted she was also trying to be both fair to the applicant and consistent with what had been done in the past. Commissioner Woodruff stated she sympathesized with the issue of turning the house and changing the view of the lake, however, this was a tough issue to resolve. She haClno problems with leaving the stone house on site in its present location. Commissioner Callies confirmed should Mr. Russell repair the roof but not replace the foundation, the home could exist in its current location. Mr. Russell responded it would be a much better horne with the foundation and would greatly improve the living space. Commissioner Callies also stated she did not have a problem with the storm shelter. Commissioner Anderson commented this was a tough issue because the economics of turning the home needed to be balanced with the Zoning Code requirements. Commissioner Callies confirmed moving the house back 10-15 feet did not have anything to do with bringing it into conformity. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Page 6 of 9 December 5, 2000 Chair Bailey questioned Mr. Russell about accessing the driveway. Mr. Russell responded the driveway was accessed using the fire lane as had been done for the past 150 years. He was not aware of the prohibition of non-motorized vehicles on a fire land until this evening, and actually this fire lane was used very little as this was a summer home for his family. ,f ... Chair Bailey stated the Planning Commission tries to bring conformity to the community, and it would be hard to "turn a blind eye" to this massive nonconformity. He cited the use ofthe fire lane as a driveway, concrete beneath the carport, as well as the nonconforming accessory structures contributing to the overall detriment of the site. While these have all been a part of the past, it would be difficult to ratify these issues in granting a variance, he stated. Mr. Russell questioned whether the Commission should take into consideration the existence of structures and uses for the past 150 years when it is considering a request. Commissioner Turgeon asked Mr. Russell if he could live with the issue of turning the house. He replied it was already encroaching on the setback areas, and he did not see it as a possible solution. Commissioner Anderson stated he was concerned with setting a precedent, but did not want to deny this . request. He also noted Mr. Russell may want to reconsider as the costs to bring the site into conformity could become burdensome. Anderson moved, Callies seconded, recommending approval of the Variance, subject to staff recommendations and the addition of moving the driveway and bringing it in compliance with the Zoning Code, for Mr. James Russell, 26080 Birch Bluff Road. Commissioner Anderson commented he would be voting against his motion even though he thought Mr. Russell's attempt to fix the home was admirable. Commissioner Turgeon stated she could support leaving the stone home provided nothing further was done to it. She would support removal of the shed and carport, the turning of the house, and a designated driveway off the fire lane. Commissioner Callies stated she did not believe the Commission should be in the business of redesigning a lot, and she questioned whether this would be a buildable lot. Commissioner Woodruff agreed and noted this was a tough decision. '.' Chair Bailey reiterated his concern of the fire lane being used privately and would like to see construction of a compliant driveway. Also he would prefer to see the accessory structures brought into compliance as precedented. Motion failed 2/3, with Anderson, Callies, and Woodruff dissenting. Mr. Russell apologized for the use of the fire lane as his driveway, but believed parking to be problematic on Birch Bluff Road. Chair Bailey requested a recess at 9:50 P.M.. Chair Bailey resumed the meeting at 9:55 PM. 11 -10~" NEW GABLE DORMER z ~+ == 2g'-1~" REMODELED EXISTING 2ND FLOOR AREA 11-4~" EXTEND EXIST'G GABLE DORMER THB POUNDATION l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -,- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---: - - - - - - - I AreA"..,./ C....I'.." P.... mDIIII~~"- -.....- _!MIl 1"-.......,. ,..", ...., I II " 011 II I LJ I ATI-4 (8 DN o o CL . - - - I I I II t-~~ -=--1 \/2 UJALU- - / \ ---,------ ,I ....,..................- =....IIIIIr............... .............. ommT"" ............,......, ..-" ~ A. lila,'''' D*!a!-''' 20103 IIIliIIIIIII ... IlIII - ~ 6DRM i3 11-~IIXI31-211 'I = ::BE:Get=r ---lJ I 91-S"XI3'-2" i I =1 -IN eN ~ - -IN N I - ..l- - "'t N . 6DRM ~ 111-8"X8\-1" .1111 rld& ~ I ~ i D i L_________________________________==___~___________~ CL ~JOIIO Proposed FIoorpIan ~ ~~~;.AN - OPTION D Project No. 01-12 Exhibit B UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN . . ~ r--. I- ~ ~ I I i I I ! I THB FOUNDATION Jl.r.."..,.1 C....I'..".P..... mJMII...~.._~ -- ...., ;--..,. ...,. ,....... .... ...................- ...... ....................... ............... ............,.. .........,......, ............." ~ A. lila"... D*zazt...... 2DIO! ....... ... IlIIa J1jl rld& II ~ @~~~.'~~. EXTERIOR ELEVATION ClWrWIt 2DDD Existing Front 8evatlon Project No. 01-12 Exhibit C EXISTING REAR ELEVATION (LAKE SIDE) . . ,: I' : I . CD MAIN FLOOR PLAN aa ",. t4 ~ 0'lM IIlIIIIfl THB FOUNDATION J.rd"....' c....".... Po A. mJMII~""''''_ ......... ...."", ,,-.'" --.JIll ,.- OM NIl ,........................- ....................... ...,........... ~ ........,.._111 ~. ~ A. 1M".. a.z.az."-_ 2r*D ........ .... DIM J1 cld& ~ j I ! J CD SECOND FLOOR PLAN aa ",. ,"" ~ 0'lM IIlIIIIfl ExJati1g FJoor Plan Cap)JtIft :IlIlD Praject No. 01-12 D Exhibit D EXISTING FLOOR PLANS .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 01.. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO JAMES RUSSELL WHEREAS, James Russell (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 26080 Birch Bluff Road, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as: "The east 75.00 feet of Lot 22, BIRCH BLUFF UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota." WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is located approximately six feet from the right-of-way of Third Street, and constitutes a nonconforming stlUcture; and e WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to structurally alter the home by constlUcting a new foundation under it; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 3 August 2001, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 7 August 2001, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and e. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 27 August 2001, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant 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. The subject property is located in an R-ICIS, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district, which requires a 35-foot setback from public right-of-way. 2. The existing house on the property was built in the late 1800's and is located approximately six feet from the right-of-way of Third Street. \ 3. Two small accessory structures on the property encroach into the public rights-of- way of Third Street and Birch Bluff Road. repaIr. 4. The roof of the existing home has been damaged by a storm and is in need of 5. The Applicant proposes to build a new foundation under the existing home, remove the existing carport on the west side of the home, remove one of the nonconforming accessory buildings and construct a new garage on the property. way. 6. The driveway access to the subject property is located on the Third Street right-of- 7. The Applicant proposes to remove approximately 40 percent of the driveway. located in the Third Street right-of-way at such time as the new garage is built. e 8. The Applicant's plans result in a hardcover ratio of approximately 23.7 percent. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. 2. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a variance to stlUcturally alter the existing home and build a new garage as shown on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, subject to the following conditions: a. The existing carport and the shed near the carport must be removed in conjunction with the construction of the new foundation. e b. The driveway located in the Third Street right-of-way shall be reduced as shown on Exhibit A, upon constlUction of the new garage. c. The Applicant must obtain a permit for incidental use of the public right-of-way in order to keep a driveway in the right-of-way. d. In repairing the damaged roof on the home, the Applicant may extend the dormer on the lake side of the stlUcture and replace the shed dormer on the front of the home with a dormer gable. -2- ~, , 3.. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide 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 SHOREWOOD this 27th day of August 2001. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: . CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK . -3- ~ ~ ~ \ ~ I DRI GRAVEl. 161.581 Nf2).3~1f2)1"E .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ .. '\'l < ~.. 01 .~ 4. ,,'1'1' ." ;. "'~~4 4 q :;:.a 4 l\ ';; ~<f. cr..~1~'\ 1\ ..;:':I'l\Q~ ;'\~~~' - -1M A Cl.\.. ~~. .. '. 'I \. ~. 11.... . . '" ~ - '1 ~Ill (~ ,~,\., :.~ ...., ' ~t' 1... "1.\ ",':.<r, J...... '~'Il"~ q ''lr;ea~~ ""' r. ~:-&~:~~.. '-:J ........,ot~{j......\ " NE~ . "~~'I\'I~ ..<' ~ ,~ . I -~. ";41" "'. \ ;) '- .. ,~, ...s.'''l'o \', ,~ "~~<Rl\Q' "'-1',,' ~.~ . '~. ".. 0-'<1' '~. ~ '111. 'i. 4'" .... ... "It ~ .~~ .. .. ~.. ~i.qtr. ~, '~.. ~ '~:'\iiJlO ~ '~oll",.. ~<$<. 4 .~..."..... ..'" ~';." 4 "" 4;,- "\ ~.c; ~ '5' .. .. . ~. ~.\, .. ~ .~ , ",-.~ ..t~., ...t"\ ell!: .. ~.~.. +:. 'V"". t \'~i#!~ ~~~~ ~ ..\t~ ...~~ :~,t~ 1"~..<" <lI:Il< "~:, ~ ''''l' \ ~ 'i~' "oil" ~ '\\ ,,' \S.\~ S>: .ft,~.~, .'~~%~~ ~ ~ 'J:' 1 -1- 1- - ) z ~...... ~T ~ ~ \ ;...\ \ i3S' 1- ' THE FOUNDATION .lrdU.." I C....I'.,."" .J. IIIDW~""'''_ ........ _.a.r '--"'0fI'N11 /f1t1IIIlUfUfII _r'" /~;.<~r~~~~t) ..--'..<.:.:.:.:<:. \ (<.::.~:.:': <.~ . ....,....................- __......IIIIIIt..........- ......._....... AIIO<ITttT ................... W......-mT. _ A. s;."... ~!G!.OIIII. NI. 2OB03 ....... .... DIIII .111 J cij~ ~ I ~ ~2ClOQ Proposed Site Plan project No. 01-12 Exhibit A REVISED SITE PLAN Russell variance r , " MEMORANDUM CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.cLshorewood.mn.us · cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council . FROM: DATE: Brad Nielsen 25 April 2001 RE: Apple Ridge - Preliminary Plat FILE NO. 405 (01.05) BACKGROUND Roy and Ruth Lecy propose to subdivide the property located at 6185 Apple Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) into four single-family residential lots as shown on Exhibit B. . The property contains 4.92 acres, and is zoned R-1A, Single-family Residential. An existing home is located in the southwest corner of the site. Land use and zoning surrounding the property are as follows: North: East: South: West: single- famil y residential; zoned R -1 A single-family residential; zoned R-1A single-family residential; (in Chanhassen) single-family residential; zoned R-1 C The site is characterized by a large hill on Lot 3, that rises nearly 70 feet from Apple Road. There are no wetlands on the property itself, but much of the site drains to a wetland area located to the northeast of the site. This is illustrated on Exhibit C. The site is substantially wooded with primarily maple, ash and oak trees. All of the lots are over 40,000 square feet in area, with the two easterly lots being substantially larger. Lot 2 is 59,430 and Lot 3 is 57,310 square feet in area. The lots are ft ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 4t tt6 " Memorandum Re: Apple Ridge Preliminary Plat 25 April 2001 served by a cul-de-sac street, approximately 280 feet in length. The applicant proposes to create a storm water retention pond in the northwest comer of the site, near the existing street. Exhibit D shows a preliminary grading, drainage, erosion control and tree preservation plan. It is worth noting that the area affected by grading is approximately 2.1 acres. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS The proposed development is subject to a Shorewood's development regulations found in the Municipal Code, including zoning (Chapter 1201), subdivision (Chapter 1202), and tree preservation (Chapter 1103). Following is how the preliminary plat complies with Shorewood's Code. A. Zoning. The R-IA zoning district allows single-family homes on 40,000 square foot lots. The proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum requirements for area, width (min. 120' at building line), and depth (120'). The use and proposed lot sizes are consistent with the 0-1 unit-per-acre residential land use designation recommended for this area in the Comprehensive Plan. . B. Subdivision Requirements. 1. Street. The proposed street meets the minimum r.o.w. width and cul-de-sac , diameter required by Shorewood's Code. The length of the street is generally consistent with City policy. It should be noted that the developer has shown the paved surface of the street having a width of 28 feet. This exceeds the 24 foot minimum width requirement for lots over 20,000 square feet in area. Consideration should be given to reducing the width of the street to 24 feet. . The Shorewood Subdivision Code requires street intersections to be offset at least 125 feet. Although the proposed street location is adequately offset (155 feet) from the intersection of Apple Road and Stratford Place, the sight lines for the new intersection leave something to be desired due to the crest of the hill on Apple Road, south of the subject property. This is no small issue, and the City Engineer will likely recommend a revision to the plat to resolve it. 2. Grading, drainage and utilities. As shown on Exhibit D, the development of the property will involve cutting into the site to create the road. Approximately 20 feet of earth will be removed from the top of the hill for the building pad on Lot 3. The excavated material from the road and Lot 3 will be used for fill on Lots 1 and 2. While grading, drainage and erosion control will be addressed under separate cover by the City Engineer, certain issues are worth noting here: -2- -Memorandum Re: Apple Ridge Preliminary Plat 25 April 2001 a. The grading plan shows a maximum grade of 2: 1. This slope should be reduced to 3: I, which will likely require the construction of retaining walls. b. Based upon the new rules of the Minnehaha Creed Watershed District (MCWD), the retention pond proposed for the site does not have to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. This is positive from a tree protection and site alteration perspective, since a NURP pond would require additional area and tree loss. The retention pond must be sized so that the rate of runoff after development does not exceed the rate of runoff prior to development. . The grading plan shows the pond being constructed partly in the right-of- way of Apple Road. The City Engineer should address the proximity of the proposed pond to the road. There appears to be ample room to move the pond onto Lot 1. c. Grading, drainage and erosion control are subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and the MCWD. d. Sanitary sewer is available to the property from Apple Road. Prior to release of a final plat for the project, the developer must pay $1200 per lot. Credit is allowed for the lot with the house on it. . e. Municipal water is available to the property from Apple Road. Current policy requires a $10,000 connection charge per lot. The City has allowed as much as half of those charges to be assessed against the project. In that case the other half would be paid prior to release of the final plat. The developer should indicate whether he wants to pay the entire charge up front or have half of it assessed. The City Engineer has raised an issue relative to the capacity of the Woodhaven well that serves this property. This will be addressed in the Engineer's report. 3. The Comprehensive Plan does not suggest the need for park land in the vicinity of this plat. Prior to release of the final plat the developer will be required to pay $1500 per lot in park dedication fees in lieu of land. As with the sewer charges, credit is allowed for the lot with the house on it. C. Tree Preservation and Reforestation. Preliminary tree preservation and reforestation are addressed on Exhibit D. The site is subject to a maximum replacement of 40 trees (eight per acre). As part of the final plat a more detailed landscape plan will be required. It is recommended that the replacement trees not include elms as currently shown on the plan. All replacement trees must be three -3- Memorandum Re: Apple Ridge Preliminary Plat 25 April 2001 caliper inches. Also, the City Engineer recommends that replacement trees not be planted in the right-of-way for the new street. A boulevard canopy can still be achieved by moving the trees back to the property front property lines of the lots. The final landscape plan must include specifications for planting the trees, and for tree protection fencing. The final plan must be prepared by a registered landscape architect. RECOMMENDATION In general, the preliminary plat for Apple Road meets or exceeds the requirements of Shorewood's development regulations. Nevertheless, the road location issue is significant enough to warrant consideration of some revision to the design. Any such revision should also address the items raised herein. . Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Roy Lecy Pete Knaeble . -4- Lake Minnetonka (St. Albans Bay) o ;0 Subject property U c Chanhassen/Shorewood border HOLLY LA o 500 Feet J tJ. N Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Apple Ridge - Preliminary Plat :::: UWm:J(i" J/EVELDPERr ROY LECY . LEeY CONSTRUCTION INC. 15012 HIGHWAY 7 MTKA., MN55345 <'52"'44-949') . N . ~ '" ,., ofO 0 ... '" 2- f'ir.. - I ~ 1IouJr. \" I I , I I I NO. 4 6 3 ~'\\I I ( \ II I I I \ I ",."" II / I " , ",."" I II \ I I \ \ \ I ",. I' \ \ I I \ ",. I \ \ \ \ I I , \ U ",."" \ \ I \ ,. ,.- \ \ ,. . E/CISTINGZ~NG R~lA,RESIDENTiAL . ,. MIN. . LOT SIZE ' 40,000 Sf'(excl. wet1nnc:ls). . MIN. LOT "'10TH.. 120' (0. t 'front. setl:1o.e:k), MIN. LOT DEPTH 150' ,. . fRONT SETBACK 50' (;"o.x.IOO') SIDE. SETBACK 10'(50; corner) REAR SETBACK ,50.'. STREET RIGHT-Of-"'AY '14AX. CUL LENGTH CUL. RIGHT -Of-"'AY RADIUS CUL' STREET, RADIUS ' MAl<. 'STREET GRADE ... , CORNER RIGHT-Of-WAY RADIUS STREET CORNER RADIUS MIN. LOT EASEMENT , 50' 2000' 50'. 42' B-C 6Y- 10' STREET DESiGN STREET WIDTH SURMOUNTABLE CURB BIT. WEAR/BASE CLASS 5 AGG" SUBGRADE 28.67' B-B 28' . . -1.5'/2.0" :8' . 2'SAND & fABRIC TDTALSITE 4.9,2 ACRES ,. ~ t;; g "l' ! ~ P .i" . .' J -,~ 0 /0 //'. 1/ . :'d~Cf~ x! hi-YJ 'I........ Z ( ';1 0 1 ~O+ ........... - I tj- ~< I'LAL. + 'I .JII ~ +] ""I~X T ~~ ~~~::~ 1,\(11 I ~ '1 -= !i;..........'..~.A. -,- I.." .:::W~~ ,~ . ~ ! l- ~ / _ '/ -; I I __, x ~ ~ '--II ..:t ~~ ~~,,~ t" - 'l- "- ~ M ,~.. " ,,".\ ~\ ,,\; l"II ~ IlL . .'. ,-i.-'" - "I\:t"". .. ~ .-ry (J::: ".),; ~~~~.l ...... ~\\' I', l) !tl" " s-- ' '- ~ · 1'\,- FI. \.1, \ '\ '- ro~- !~ ~,,,, ~ ~\\ .:l;l. .~'{) I . '^ 15 ",\:i''1)N If\\ ~~ \, l- ": + :-~ I'-~- / ~Ji I~ ~\~I-! h ) I ~ ~ :\ " 'Z~ " '''.. ( >> ft g tul!IVI\~::-:~ ~~ >::;.;,,.,........ '( 'I 1M) I'" ~h0 "~ I' r / r \ r ~ ~ /'-- ) ~I~) /l:.J IJ \\~~ ~ I~ ~~~~ .~,,~ 7. ~~ ~I//I///{ Ix \~ / ~-' 4- ~ ~- ~~ ~r!I'/IJ N ~) h) ~~ ~~;; ~ 'li /~~.' ~ f~-~/ ~)~r-::I F ~~. ..'~~. ~. -" 1~~, ;>c% ~1' -~~:;it I 'I {{~_~~.. ~~~. .. l~/~~ ~ x '<l~~~'" ,..( Q It> ~~~ .. ~~--"'f-~\ ))JC--=-..:;y ". --! ~[ :[;;~.! "( ~ v g_~ ~ '. · I V(L...t!)/ Yrdf>'~ r/'!X ~~~ ~' --::%~ ~ ~I/. VI- ~>:=.. I. _\\ if ~ ~ ~~ .....--,.. . 'II '.' ':'l~ g:CS() ~\ T I l/~~': ''9 ',,-- ..~{ /j~ 'I"... .. %: ~~ CD ~ . "', ~l~'~~ r ""_7 \" .- .. ./ .. . ~~. % ~ 1/"). ~ J .j..,. --:\'l (+" V lll~~ ~ 1 )... ... lf~41._. l~~ ~ " "~!~"'"' ~ ) ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ."~' .,O/~ ~' y filr~WJ;( r ~ II ~7,^", ~_ ~ ,~: .~ ~ 'jI ~\ - . ,~~\ ;;... .., ~ -- . ~v ~ ~~~l" E + ~"tltI1 ~~>< trj~a: ~~g: ~...... "tl~t1 ~~ ooZ ~> ~~ ~~ 1-3~ ~> 00 Z~ "tlZ ~~ >0 Z~ ~ Z > ~ trj > Z o . N ~ IIenclvnGttc: TOI ~ COrIIIr 0-' . 40 0 ~-- . 40 .. 110 I NO. E:ocIs~ _. \, \ I I ~\\\I \1 I I I .," II I I ,," I '" \ \ I " I \ \ \ I I " / \ \\ I I I ,," \ \ I I ./ " " " I I I , / \ \ \ \ \ I I I ( \ I \ \ I U 1'--______ 463 ! 9 'l' I <.; is ~ i 9 ......... . J' MEMORANDUM TO: . FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474.3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLShorewood.mn.us Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 21 June 2001 Apple Ridge - P.D.D. Concept Plan and Development Stage Plan 405 (01.05) In May of this year the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider a four-lot subdivision called Apple Ridge (see Staff Report, dated 25 April 2001). The request for preliminary plat approval was continued to the 6 June Planning Commission meeting and again to the 3 July meeting. The applicants, Roy and Ruth Lecy, were directed to respond to issues raised by staff and by area residents at the hearing. Since then, the Lecys have submitted an application for a conditional use permit approving a planned unit development for the subject site, pursuant to Section 1201.10 Subd. 4.g. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. . The new plan, shown on Exhibit A - attached, still proposes four lots, but eliminates the public street, clusters the proposed homes on the site and creates an outlot over which a conservation easement in favor of the City will be recorded. Proposed lot sizes are as follows: Lot 1: Lot 2: Lot 3: Lot 4: a.L.A: 27,930 sq. ft. 37,210 sq. ft. 45,470 sq. ft. 32,870 sq. ft 70,890 sq. ft. ft ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ., , Memorandum Re: Apple Ridge P.D.D. 21 June 2001 Access to the lots will be via two shared driveways. A new driveway, located near the north end of the site will serve Lots 1 and 2. The driveway to the existing house will serve Lots 3 and 4. ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDA TION A. The Original Plan. . The redesign of the Apple Ridge plat is intended to address the two most significant issues raised by the original plan: 1) safe access from Apple Road; and 2) site alteration. While the lots in the original plan complied with R-1A area, width and depth requirements, the proposed road location was downhill from the crest of the hill on Apple Road, resulting in poor sight lines for cars coming in and out of the subdivision. The road also resulted in a significant amount of site alteration. Approximately 20 feet of earth was to have been removed from the high point on the property. In order to achieve compliant slopes resulting from the grading and excavation, vegetation was to have been removed from 43 percent of the site. The City Engineer had recommended that the road be relocated to the northerly end of the site to improve sight lines. This would have alleviated the safety concern, but still necessitated considerable site alteration. B. The New Plan. . As mentioned, the revised plan eliminates the public street altogether. The driveway serving Lots 1 and 2 is located where the City Engineer had recommended the street shOUld be. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the proposed turnaround for the driveway to ensure that emergency vehicles can safely exit the property. The driveway for Lots 3 and 4 is already located at the best spot on the property in terms of sight lines. This location allows oncoming cars from both directions to be seen by cars entering or exiting the site. Since the grade requirements for private driveways are less than for city streets, significantly less site alteration is necessary to access the lots. By clustering the homes on smaller lots on the west half of the property, even less grading and tree removal is necessary. Whereas the grading limits for the original plat (see Exhibit B) affected 2.11 acres of the sight, grading on the new plat (see Exhibit C) is limited to 1.28 acres, nearly one full acre less of site alteration. On a five-acre site, this is considered significant. It should be noted that the applicant is now requesting permission to use an old driveway to serve Lot 3, instead of sharing the driveway for Lot 4 (see Exhibit D). The City Engineer will address the advisability of this request in a separate report. -2- Memorandum Re: Apple Ridge P.U.D. 21 June 2001 .' C. Planned Unit Development. . . Each zoning district in our Zoning Code provides a conditional use process for planned unit development (P.U.D.). Very simply, P.U.D. allows for some flexibility from traditional zoning standards (e.g. lot area, lot width, setbacks, etc.) in exchange for greater control or protection of natural features. In this case, the developer proposes to grant the City a conservation easement over Outlot A. This not only ensures that nothing will be built on almost two acres of the site, but also that no alteration (grading or tree removal) will occur on the most sensitive portion of the property. In exchange he proposes lots that are smaller and narrower than what would otherwise be allowed in the R-IA district. It must be realized that the overall density of one unit per 40,000 square feet of property will still be maintained. The provisions of Section 1201.25 of the Zoning Code establish the mechanisms for maintenance of common facilities (in this case the shared driveways) and protective covenants that are recorded against the lots, putting future lot owners on notice as to what rules govern the property. Since traditional zoning requirements (in this case, lot area and lot width) are being relaxed, the require~nents negotiated between the developer and the City are set forth in a development agreement that is also recorded against the land. If approved as aP.U.D. the development agreemel1t and protective covenants submitted for the final plan should address the following: 1. 2. Easements and maintenance agreements for the shared driveways. Where, what kind, and how high fences can be. This is considered crucial, given the unconventional lot configurations proposed for the plat No parking in the driveway turn-around. Restrictions on outdoor storage in front yard areas. A revised tree preservation and reforestation plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, should focus on landscaping between the proposed homes, especially between Lots 1 and 2. Also, some attention should be given to the area where the driveway for Lot 3 branches off from the driveway for Lot 4. Tree protection fencing must be in place before any work on the site commences. The development agreement will include remedies for failure of the developer or his subcontractors to observe and maintain the fencing. Ownership and maintenance of Outlot A. To date it is our understanding that the owner to the north of the site will buy the property. He apparently wishes to split off the north 72 feet of Outlot A without a conservation easement. This is acceptable, provided that Lots 1-4, plus Outlot A average 40,000 square feet in area per homesite. A stipulation must be 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. -3- Memorandum Re: Apple Ridge P.D.D. 21 June 2001 incorporated into the covenants stating that Outlot A is not to be used for lot density purposes for any future subdivision. The portion being sold to the adjoining owner must be platted as Outlot B, and then be legally combined with his property. 8. The driveway for Lot 3 must be approved by the City Engineer. One of the main purposes of planned unit development is "The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristic such as natural topography and geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion." In the past few years the City has asked for a demonstration of "what is in this for the City?" where P.D.D. is proposed to be used. In this case nearly two acres of a five acre site will remain untouched. This would seem to be consistent with the goals and objectives of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan. . Subject to the requirements listed above, and subject to approval of utility, grading, drainage and erosion control plans by the City Engineer, it is recommended that the concept and development stage plans for Apple Ridge be approved. Final plans for the P.D.D. must be submitted within six months of the Council resolution approving the concept and development stage plans. Cc: Craig Dawson Larry Brown Tim Keane Roy and Ruth Lecy Peter Knae1;>le . -4- . . 40 . ~.ll: 'i , ! :80 : :. 120 : ,. No. : \ I \ I : I I ( \ \ \ \ "I, \ ' I / I \ I \ I \, I )'--- 4 q 3 """""'- ;;~--- ! g "It I Q ~ ~ ~ l tITY oF- SH ~ENNEPIN cgO~~OOD cItYiir' -- Y . CA~VER ~t\~SSE' t. ...--- Exhibit A REVISED PLAT Apple Ridge P.D.D. . NORTH ff -- . . ~ v--,,.. . , hrtcIrmotfc Top Hut Hydtanf I ~ _. _-fDO <<I e ~-- -. . <<I .. If , \ / NO. 4 6 3 I (I 1 \ I \ I U )'-- ------ ! !1 ~ I ~ ! ~ l Exhibit B GRADING LIMITS - ORIGINAL PLAT . NORTH Sol CnohHr, ~- _ c-...... ..I. // 4 .... t:I ~ 3 {J '" ~ ..ll; i 8 ~ I'toperty Comer. . . 40 ci r"\Jl".. _. '"' 80 : -JIZO ; I No. 4 6 3 ~t::JHouse \ \. \ I . . ,. \ \ \ ! . . \ \ I \ ././ \ I! I \ " I \ II' \ i ,," I \ \' I I " i '. .\' \ I I ,," . \ \ I I ,./; \1)\\1, I " ___ /1.1 / ~ -:::/</, / ' \ .i Q \ ' (/r. ..-. \ \ ;,,/i_I \ I \ I I \ : ; I \ i' I \ \ \ ~ I \, I' " I '-- , ..... ~ -... . ------ \ --- ..........s,"_ ;::.~.-=-- 9_ \ CITY OF' SHDREIJDDD. HENNEPIN CDUNTY CITYii~ . CHANIiASSEN, CARVER ClJIJNtY I f / / I I i I , I \ \ i , \ ,-- , \ Exhibit C GRADING LIMITS - REVISED PLAT . NORTH .# Exhibit D ALTERNATE DRIVEWAY LOCATION- LOT 3 Requested by applicant ."': ;:..., .~~1_.~..~:~~. r.? ~ \ ....;~..ti> ~~~..~~t~;;~?iJ_;Vf;~:~:~~tj:~~r~~ ~'~~r~~~:'~:.~r&,:z: ....:. ~<;n}i'7 -~ / '-.. .::~ Exhibit E TREE PRES REFOREST:~ritJ~~~;ND ,.;- '. "." 'j ,------ fYor~o. trot'" . NORTH l~f "OClO":J;JJr-r -01 CllOOCDCll ~C...rto)O"" .-t UI CD lU a. -< 3 -. CD "0 3 ~ ~ at Cll ;:t g Rl en :r 0 :J -. C -g 1ft CD (I) en d. Cll <.~o.tT <'CD -3~~ go-:E(\)-<Cll5 - -< ri..... c .... .... a.' :r0:J:r0l :rOJ:Jg.o.Cllo CD ., Rl _.CD 0 0 i1lU~c/)"-C 0. en ~ 0.-0 3 z"2.Q.1\I a.(i" ;:+. -. 01 C :J ~. -. !!.. :J rt ~ < 0 cg 1/10 cr. o' (Q:J ~ -to ... :J:J < C/) Cll:J(Q' ... II) Q. ... 01 C/) 0) :r -< c :r :J ... :J ~ ....... cr. (\)0.0'< 00 --:;r-g....:J o _ Cll 0 _..... C/) I/)O_I/)UI:T..... I/) 0 '0 I/) _. Cll 0 o"Q)ol/)o'" -Cll=......OI-... ...0'0....0Cll::T a; DI =:. CD 0 ~ 0 CD....OIm -- I/)....a:-I/):;~~ -. 2: :J ("I 0. CD :Jeng.ID< co o -0 (\) 0 0' CD e. ., 0 m (II:J a. 1/1 0.. UI "0 -' Ul ~ !1. ~ !!!. a; g. ... 0- ::!. S -:J -I 0=';3...0...:r Q) rl' ID (\) G I/) m o-<:Jo.:J~D" OIl)"'o-o:T(\) o :J lU < Gl -. I/) 3 0- ;; (I) g. ... 3:r:l:J:JIII~ o ID $. CD ... 0 CD O-III.,;:r::T("I:J OlCOOOCllCDQ) .... ... :J ... ID I/) ::l. ID Cll 3 :J < I/) 0 1lI m Cll Q) ID ID I/) 0. :J cr. :J UI ~ -ortrl<"'oo :r::TOtRl....-toc 1>>01- ::T-- ri ,., -3'"2. I>> 0 a. . 0 11),.,.... tT o'O:J....-.-o 3 Q) ':J" Y (l)O~(\)"Og rloo~ :> C -. (\) CD (\) -~ = ~ 0. (ii' ~ . .... III ::t:~ II"'" -u::E ;r :J rt ... C 3Q) 0) -. IV :T .., ., M ("I Cll (I) (I) g. -. III :T C~a.~CD.z~ ~ a... nlIo ,..,. :' ....... 11>> (D Rl ... ,....., Cll -0 (II :J <' ~ ~ g. !!!. ::r -g "'~o'8oo.-...J("I ::~-g~~~-o::: ~<""'l/Io~Oo 3 a. CD <.... m~o6'~op:~ :J ~.~... 0 (l) ....o",I/Ig.~(IIO . ::T:> c:: 5' CD .... ~ ~. ~ g. .... 0. ~ '7 _ -. ... :r 0 ... 0" -:> CD CD:J "c (1)....1/) ... tT 0 -. m "'0 q.. 0- :>o.O)CD;:'CD SO'CDI/)......:J ... .... ::J Cll g m -. ::T003-0l~ Cll CD.... (II Cl/)5}>coo ocr'llIrt 3- ~~::J"'O~CD"" CDCDO-lIIo.:J::T 3....0"... ....Cll CD::TIll~O"'O("I :Jm("l-~~~ .... CD 0 (I) ("I'" -0 III :J ?'!:'? ro m 1IIU11/)"':J-oJ ... III 0:=<0 1Il.-t 03mo--::Tm !.. ... Cll CD III 0) III (I) _=1/) ~. ~ n. a; Ol -. III =-0 Q) C/) 3 ~ 3 Q) q=';...1ll :T ... "0 -. -< (I) :l Q) 0 ::l.CI... .... <!!..<<:IllO')> Ill. 0)0.1/)"'<0 g.g.c:lIIg:g.(D (l)Cllo.~:lIllCll Cll ..... :J. - 0 0" 3 ::tOl~~(JlCllCll Cll 0 <. -. - :l :J o .... <: < 0 Cll .... ........Ol (II 0_' ::T -< - 01 -.-< OQ) <rt....o -....m.....IllOc 0:r0l00'.... < Q) I/) ., 0 0 ~ (II (\) -':J :J -. 0- iii' 3 ~ CIl = C 1ll.,-o(ll:J ... ~ ::J (ll Q) -. 0 O'ortUlC):l.... III Cll .. /I) (l) co Cll 2. UI m Q) - (D .... :l !!!. < o.:l m ::T co ::I III . III co ::I ... :i"g-:l ~ iD-g ~ Cll~~~a:~CO -h O' -. 0> oS";ltcllla...... .... :J (l) Cll 3CQ.o.oUlCll 3... m m -'x ....(J):JIll:J.... -<:gm(l)/I)~<D ~I/IQg.~:};3 o ~ oJ (\) (\) (I) <Il ::T=:'?-0:=Q)< (II -hCO:Jo :JD"o~co.o <. (\) 3 III ..... <Il :J <a. :J coO 5' (\) QI ri g .... (\) 00. ~.... :J a:- :J ~ :1 .... 0 UI III ~~~3!!:...~ ~ (\) ~ (/) :J 0 <. _. 0. :T 0 (I) ... ;:to - -. (l) - 0) ::T :T ... :l ... .... .... (Jl .... -. ::T Cll ... 000(1) ()::r <. .... ...... ..... 1ft (\) <a.orn~~ O"~-.Q)Om'Q (\)~:J(/)I-O n....CO-h1l) iilo03~:J-g ....Q)-oO'O'C/l (OO<:l ....111 ~ ("I (j)' ri :n III - -<3~)>(j;5:8 Q) ,(O,:-t m c ~3Q)CD :Jri ::T 8.. :l al :E ("I =: !!!...Q)c3(\)1ll~ ........:JmO"Q) , CD:J:J!!..C/l rl .......alri ::T ~ :T 0' al'" Cll :rCllalOl<ir<ll CIl III III X .... :J /I) 0 ... :J -. CD III 0 :J" (\) C/l g. :E ... "0 -. < cr. 01 .z<I/)<:J :Jo. OOla.CO ~. iiJ -h a. .... ,.., < 0- -' ..... C al U3 :E -. < ~. 3- ~ m :J" d. <11 ~ III III o' g ~ ~ ~:<3:T~-<1I.l (\)0)0- _-< m:JC::T~o<. :lo.:JQ)o....<: rt ....< Q):T CD g. 0 <1l (I) O' CD Cll - al :r !" (I) 0 lQ' g :T 0. ri g-~::E "0 0 lD .... < QI (j) l\' "0 ~ ("I 0 :J II) 0 ... "0 to (\) d. N' 0. 0 CD III ~ ... ... a. ::T ..... Q) ::T"O ... iii' 0 ~ 3 -g Cll m Ul Q) ~~(D :i' :.... c co ...... :J 0"001 -<~O" < (l) Cll -. < ... ~CllO C :' (\)m~ o ""' .... ;g,[ -2:z... (I) (ii' ::T ~iiiCII .... 0 '- -. :l C ~:J"-< :J~<-l :J .. o III ... UI 3 o' ~ (II (Jl .... (ll (Jl cr-. 0.:J <0 ~ 5' ... 0 ::To III :J ... :J o m C 0 .... ri "0 o' o :J ~. ~ o'ri' :J ::T ~ :} o Cll c a: . r III 0- m UI 0) ::J 0. (;) (\) :J c.. m 3 III ::I ))Tl-l m .... 0 .. 0 .. Z~(J) CD :r <.'-0 <:; (l) "'\ "'0 :::t: CD o Q) ~ "0:>0 o 0- 0 (/) a. ~~3! ....."'\Q) o 0" :J ""'<.-:J CJ 0 :i' <11 ::T co <:l() ~~o o ::J C "0, :J 3 ~ n. <1101- :J~s: .... I\) (\) 8.7'3 r:JO" (]I 0 m o 0" .... -< :J: I/) "'0::': .... - o r "0 I>> (\) :l ;:l.m -<)) (\) (/) 0: (l) :l .... C/) '- C :J CD 00 N o o ..... .. ~v() -~ -v.~ 0' '" -4d\ 'i>~ C' ~ , ~ 0. ~ ~~ ':~ ..., V ~ ~~ ('- ..r "$. c Q ..s;-- ~~ (<-' ~ .~ V" ~ \1"'. -- v .:> ( c"::- :;f:~ '.~\"" G'.j ^', ~) :,'"-- "'oJ -" . . Thank you for your time and consideration. ( trust that we will be able to find a mutually acceptable solution to the matter at hand without resorting to litigious me~ns and bad feelings. .' , EASEHEBT ~GREEME:NT TEIS EASEMENT day of D (....,-0 .d ,f I<. land and Ma.:-I-ha Clevelands"), and husband and wife, AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ~ , 1995, by and between Walter T. Cleve- E. Cleveland,' husband and wife (n1:l:1e John C. KL"1oblauch and Sharon Knoblauch, (lI":.b.e Knoblauc~s") . .. ~ w~TNESS:::'~~ : "jijH I':~, the Clevelands own real property in Hennepin county, Mi.."'lnesota, leqally descriJ:ed on ~".;~it A attac:!:ted. hereto I which. real propert:y is hereinaf'ter refe::=ed to as parcsl A. w- ..~;::::.~, t..'1e K.."'leblaucils own raal -cro-oe:.d:.'f in Ca.--ver . Cou.Tj,t~;, M.L.-...nesota, abut-:~"'lC' Parcel A and ieqally desc=iJ::ed en E..-.6iJ=Ji t :s at"":.acl:.ec. herat:; which. real property is hereb- afta= rafar=ac. to as ~a.=cel Bi and, w - .. :-.:::..~ , t.."le Clevelal'lds and be K..,'"1ol:lauchs, se'Oa=atelV' h.erai.'"la.=~== refa:=ed t: as an "ow"nerll, - .. le.c:.:......ely as the "Cw-ner~::; and, are and each. col- w'1:..:...:'~~, there is a cc-mmon sharadd::"i ve~MaY existi.-'"1q over p crticns c f ? =-=:els ~ a..'P'ld E i and. ,. w.::....:..:~;,s , t;le C~...-ne=s desire to ment w"ith respee-: t:: such c:::..veway, c."~~i~= -~e~- -iC'hts ~,d obl;C'at~cns ---...- ~ -- --~ --., - dediea~a a drivewav easa- and to more partic...11a=ly with respect thereto, ... NOW, '.I.'...... "'EO?:::, t..."le Owners, hereby cove."'lant and aq=ee as fcllo',,;s: 1. Decica~:.on of Dri ve",;av Easement.. The Owners, for t.::.ei= mut::.al beneii-: and t.b.e benefit of thei::'" respective h.ei=s and assigns, c.eraby dedicate a driveway easeent over tllosa 'Cortior.s of Par::els }_ and B desc=ibed on 'E'''Y'M ; hi'": C at- tae=.ed- hereto, hera~ naftar refe:=ad to as the "Easeme.."'1t Par- cel". ~ 2. Sha::-i:nc: of Costs. The owne=s herebv a5S'..:It1e and ag::ee t: eq-..:ally share and pay the costs of malnta..;n; nq the d:i veway located on be Easement Parcel, includinq plcwinq, seal coat;L"1;-, resu=:aein;-, improvi."'1q, rep".; "'inq I and i~, nac- . essar'! I raplaei.."'1;' t:.e dri yeway. SUQ costs shall be due and paya.::le on the data sue: costs are due and payable to the pe=scn or entity renc:.erinq an account therefor. Eac: OWner's sha=e cf t::.e desC::":':':ed. costs shall bear im:ereS't at S% per ar..nt:::l or st:.ch. higher rata of interest as pe.-..-:ti t'":ad by law, (1:ut not mora t=.an 1S% per annt:Cl1) f=01I1 suo due data to the ~. ~.. { ~ . '. date of payment. An non-defaulting owner Eay bring an action to collect a defaulting Owner's share of costs, and there- upon, shall be entitled to recover such. attorney's fees and costs and disburse:ments as shall be incun:ed in prosecuting such action. ;. 3. Maintenance. The ci:ri veway over oe Easement Parce~ shall be mai..'I'ltained, and .at such times, and to the standard of quality as shall be aqreed by the Owners, but absent agreement, the standard of qua.li ty of mai..'I'ltanance shall not be less tha.'I'l that as may be required by oe ordinances o~ the city of Shore~liood pertaining to the abutting'" public roads, Apple Road/Yosemite AV~'I'lue. l> 4. Waive~. A.., Owner shall have the, right, t= waive and reli.."lquish ~e usa and enj oyment of the Ease.m~"1t Parcel, a."1d the:-eu'Oon, shall be SXS!!l.Dtac. from f"..1t'..u::e liabi.li tv for costs 0:: maintai..'"1i..'Q t=.e driveway on oe Ease.m~"1t parcel: provided such waiver and. :-eli..'"'lauish:!J.ent is bv cui t cla.i::n deed or otller instr"'.:ril1ent ; n recor:.able fO=::1, delIvered t~ the other Owner, forever e.~in~~ishinc such deliverL'I'lc Owuer's eas~~~t r:..C'l':ts, and. 'OrovidinC' for ue ~"I':clusive and. ccntinuinq use of _~; ~:s~~~~; ~:_=ci bv ~~c non-~~'.l.'n~~;=~;~- nO~_Ma;v;nq '--_ _.... ........_..._ _ _ __ __ _ . _ __ .. -..lIo.a.____..w I .... .... - -.. c...-ner, for ue pu--;oses s-catec. herein. - Should such a waiver a..'"lc. relinquisl':::len-: occur, the e.."I':e!!l.ption frOE liability fer cos"ts of ma 4 ntai..'"'linq be c:::. .....eway shall per:ai.."'1 only t: costs inc~ed af~er ~e data of de.live~! of such quit cla~ deed c= i::.str.:::er:.t. ::. C=ve~e::"\-:s ?e:!"scr.al. Each O'W"ner, and their hei.::'s and. ass i~s, by acca;:tanca of a deed or c:nveyance of pa.rce!.s A or E, wheuer or not it sha.!.l be so ex::=essad in the con- .V"eya..'"lce, shall l:e ~'"1d he.raby is dee:!lled to covenant with tlle c~er O'W"!'ler, t= p=~mptly pay whe!l due cei= share of tb.e c:sts descr:.=ec in ~araC'ra~h ~JO herein. Such costs shall ~e a personal obliqaticn of tb.e perso::.s who are Owners when suc:!l costs were i..'"'lc.:==ec., and sue.::. obligation shall not pass as a ~ersonal obliC'atior. to the successors i.."1 title of O'W~ar's, ~~less e~=assiy assumed by such successors. 6. C:nt~ ::ucus Ac=ess.. No O'W-ne= shall o:Cst..-.J.c"":. or in- te==ere i.."1 any ~.,,-ay whatsoever with the rights and privileges ~ of the ot=.er C'W"'l'ler L'l c.e Ease.me.'I'lt Parcel or the driveway thereon. !~ an Owner shall violate this paraqraph., tb.e OCe:' O'W-ner shall have t=.e right to ~'I'ljoL'I'l the obst..-uC'tien or 'in- ter::erenca anc:: restore ce Easa:l.e..'I'lt Parcel to its condition 'Crier to suo L'"ltar:are.."1ce or o1:st--.J.c:t:ion. the costs thereo~, l.'lcludinq =eascnaJ::le att:r:ley's faes, toqecer with aJ.l costs anc. disl:urseme.'I'lts inc~ed L'l connec-:ion with prcse~..1t- inc sue::. aC':ion, shall be recoverable ac:raL'I'lSt the ownS::" found ~ ~ to have L~tar= ere~ or o1:st..-.lc:":.ed t..~e Ease:le..'lt Parcel. ... 2 'S ') - . .. ~ t. 1- ". /'" 7 . Restrictions. Notwithstanding'''" any division of Par- cels A or B hereafter oCC".lr=inq, use o'f the Ease:me.."'lt Parcel shall inure for the b~~~o.t. '. ,.~in~le fam~ly residence located on Parcel A,and1oneJ.Ilgle am.l.ly res.l.dence located on paree.l B, only. Fu-~er, th within the Ease.!l1ent Par- cel shall be rest=ictad a"!c.lusively for L"lqress and egress pu.~oses for such residences and be considered a private driveway ease:me..'1t. No part shall be dedicated 'for use as a public st=eet or roadway, nor shal.l any driveway on the Ease- ment parcel be expanded, extended or reconfiqured to connect to any public street or roadway other than Apple Road/Yosemite Ava"lue, and with res~ect to Apple Road/Yosemite AV~"lue, cnly one connecti.."'lq outlet shall be pe.-"'"::1.itted. ~ ~ a. Lien Re!ll.edv. In addition to a."lY other ramedy pro- vie.ed by law: or equity, an Owner that defaults in the prOMpt pay:nent of any costs desc::'ibed L'"l paragraph ~..;o herein which. L""l effec-: may c=eate or ulti:matel'l result in a stat'.:.tcr.,r lien ove:: or agiins~ any pa.:-: of ~e - Ease.ma"'1t Pa.=cel,sl:.ail be deal!led. tc, and does he=eby qrar.t a si'ecific:: a."'1d ccntinn'i.A1q lie.."l in t:le aJIlou.."'1t of suc:b. default, upon ce respective Par- cel cw-nec. by silch defaul tinq Ow-ne= , in favor of the nc~-c.efaul -:.inc: Ow-ner. In t"lle eve.."lt a default shall not be ~~ad w~~L~-60 davs, ~~e non-~afaul~~'"lc Owner may file a - -. s~ecific lien of record, ane. ~ereaftar foreclose and ~ec.:.te upon suc lie.."1 in ue sa::e ma."l.ne.:' as if a stat:ltcr] lie.."l for i::rovemer..t of Dr=l'l'!'I; ses. Such nc~-ciefaulti."'la Ow-ner shall be ~t~tlec. to recover at~o~evs fees and costs and disbu=se- ."..c_,....~<:: as ~~= i~e..-=~ ; ~ fIlc::'co.-' ""s; ""q ~"'c:" ...~co-~~; nc: on sue:" .-. -- --- - -- "'--- -- -- - - ---... -- -.... ....-.......-.... ..... , ; ,:"" ---.... 9. '!':. ":le . Each Ow-ner re!:resents t~ t::.e other to be -~= o~';n~-~ o~ .~=;- ~=s-="'-;ve ~;~~=, "---- '" ---- - '----- -- ;:'-....-- - --'---- 10. Suc::esso:'s and AssiC!'!s. The cov~~a.."lts contained b.e.rSll1 shall ~ \lj"i tb. ue land, be a part of eVLry ccnveyanca cf a Pa.==e~, a..."'lc. shall be bL.'"ldi..""lc on ane. in'Urs to t1le l:e.."lefit of tlle ras!=ect.i ve Ow-ners, oei= hei=s, reprasantati ves , S-.J.C- c~ssors and ass~qr~. IIN 1N-=~SS wi-'ioXEOF, the J/JJ~~ Wa~~ar T. Clevelana' ?UfuTU r) ~ 67 if !7~ CUI ~ Mar-....:,.a E. Cleveland .........,. Cw-ners have hereu."lto exec.:.tad ., ~~ c. /UiJ ~ ~O"laUQ " O.IJ~~~h S~on Kno~lauc: ~ ~ ) ..-:' J 3:: --------- I , .p,~ ,/ .:JNII ,INJnJ::'V.:J U:J::'UdU.lJU -...., ('IV:lkV.I) ~~ ," ~~:' 11~77/-~I_S%:~~_. ;;::-"L:;2:\ 1""2'6 .3~ ^ I U 0 _,] ^ V U n--======-= 3111f :l:'/ ::I ^ 1 ?: 0 ,. /S~ {; {~ ~ It K~"" "~tF=----=tf . )/ .-LL// / / / / / ,I ~ ~ 1- ,'~~ \. ~ " \P m P .....~ amwoo JS3MIIUlOS 3111 now J3]J ,,' ,q , l:t..,tl JNVJSIQ '3NllIUnos 1111 NO JUlOd Y - -' -t o C :;0 , , , , 3NIl J.N3rt3SV3 03S0dOHd - J' , , , , "V.. V3UV J.N3rOSV~ - oJ / / / ./ / 1 / 1 / C;; / 1 I J. ~.. ~ ~~ / t.1 / ~/ / '.1 < r>'1 z o c VI /0/ / / OllZ'" / / / ... N j... 1 I .;.;....:.. .. :.~: :~t J..... ';:')({i~i;~:~,:.r~:r . ..n-OO. 00.... -, 0:.. (D ~ s:.3 n CA :r III ii: .... ,.. ,., :J J ~ g i: 5' n-1lI 0 to !!: 0 ....ft ::I ...."'.. 00 '< ;; II 0 ::t'" -:J.r.--:r 5',< ..... s: II :;.....::011 ::;0....::J 0~::Jl..ell5' 0.. oNo...... _ 0" .... III ~....zO' J C::J)-<Oll~~ O ., n- -. n C4 ~.. o.tt U "II 0 .....0 :) s: (I):J :i" ~ ~ ;;: e II ~ 0 1!J)":1. .. :J ,... ~ . ...., n. 0 0' 2. !': m IIII:J:T co :;: oq IJ) .. G~::2~.. ..Olls:....~ .... II ::r ,.. ,..zt:o~~ 00 0 ..;l.:J9;18'< g. :r 5' ~ II 5' o..::~ge. "0 1I0t""0 00....... -.. S' ell (.t 0 0 -< ....'!l a....:: 0 o ell _e lit -:: :: f,,:1 ~ ~...n~!;;: '9. (D it .... CT .. ~3I1lr~~ S' :J ~ r.- :!. 3 tOe.. :J:J , .... II croO ClI ...,...:T :J. .. 0 ~ ~,< _ 00 O>2;IIJ~ "," 0 IIcr:lE..~ 3::J::CJ.:J :J~""o..o ::-ooJ" f'l - 2: <~ ~ o co" "u .. "I"" - ....L.~ s:1I q...~"~ ~ _ 0 .0 ! n. :~ ..-, . '..\~.:~);',' 3~ ~ ,.. ~~ n ,.I :z o 0:1. n:r ~: , .. r<- nt) lie ~o .....J. -:;.. ... !;o :J- :1(1) III III 110 o ,.. 00' , ::J ~;t ::In 00 ,.. 11-0 NQ (A,.. Ii :f 3 :; 10 ~ 5. II ~ jjo~..:i" IDIDIIO:J ..... "e-. IJ) ..... ::J o n o::roO .....~N=:;o ::T:J'14::J- IIN~ClIg: I4NOOIll o ::J.... 0:0..0..",'" 1811100 '0 .0 -. e o....:eo..- _. ClI CD ::T ;.U:ltb~ o _ ""11) -...lllO -~ 0.. (" 0 ::314,0)0 ,o:j""'o] :i"cf! !! :],...--0. . _.ID 0 -: :J1A11140 .0 ......... , - 0 () (.t .... ~ ~ 1II~110: Ill. 0 3;-o....h' ::J - Il.. -~ It) IA :: !" u ~....o~ III .... a ..... 0 .... -:r 0........ _::Tit:) o G.f:'"o :J " .0 ~ ,... .. :T ('1 III"CDU on-::J14 o:-~~ 5' :IIZ~ III 0 0 "I ...........::1. c _ :T3 ::i' ~ m 0.." IDna orn.:: ~~.3 ~ ua .,-. _ _ ID ..3 n I.. II oil 1 (D UI U.. C) ,D NO 0:>> .0 :EO II.... ....... ""::r o II ....z -0 i;l :r lI,t ...... ::Till n. 'f11 ::P- 1(1} 1"1 IS'.: :(11 ,Z :-\ , . 'm " ~ ,,) ..... o t :J UI ::J' ii' 0> z o ... rt T ,. .. . 0"" ='0 On ~:l o -.. .0 " ~ . 1.; r o ,.,. (,1 !>> )>0- C 0- ;; o ., .." III C O' n. s: 14 o' .3 Z c 3 0- o ., "(11 ::P- 1(1) 1"1 I~ :(11 .2 :-\ I ~ 'l> , ~ '" p "J: II .] :J .. n :i" o o e ;) -< c 1" 1 '" .. o u II. II UI o . o' ,. el =::}'.;: '7":i' h ., ...... ~i .~.. ';' :.. .. .'" SCHEDULE A File Number: CA 15233 RE: J ohnson-1512 Knob Hill Lane Effective Date Apri110, 1998 at 7:00 AM 1, Owner's Policy to be issued: 1992 OWNERS POUCY Proposed Insured: Jeffrey P. Johnson and Barbara J. Johnson Amount $250,000.00 Loan Policy to be issued: 1992 LOANPOUCY Proposed Insured: Gopher State Financial, its successors and/or assigns Amount $90,000.00 . 2, The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is a fee simple and title thereto is at the effective date hereto vested in: John C. Knoblauch and Sharon A Knoblauch, husband and wife as joint tenants 3, T.c.e land referred to in the Commitment is described as follows: Lot One (1), Block One (1), Knob Hill, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, MiImesota . : . Torrens Certificate Number: 25342 " Note: If there are any auestioIlS concerning the content of this commitment, please contact Dale B. Kutter at (612) 448-5570. Note: If you wish to schedule a closing, please contact us at (612) 448-5570. COMA 3(81 ~ 15 .. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. . 22. CE COMPANY Fue Number: CA 15233 SCHEDULE B - Exceptions Continued 12. Judgment in favor of S.B. Multifamily Fund 10 Limited Partnership in the amount of $1,161.59 dated October 31, 1991, docketed December S, 1991 as District Court Case No. 91-28397 against Barbara Swanson and Frank McLain. Obtain release or affidavit of non-identity. . 13. Judmlent in favor of Raloh's Mobile in the amount of $165.84 dated October 11, 1993, dOCketed November 4,1993 as Case:/{: 10-C7-93-001592 against Barbara,Johnson. Obtain release or affidavit of non-identity. ~ 14. Judg:ment in favor of Ralna F. Theis in the amount of $6,813.55 dated October 11, 1993, docketed November 4, 1993 as Case :/{: 10-C9-93-001593 ag;ainst Barbara Johnson. Obtain release or affidavit of non-identity. - Judgment in favor of Nerstrand Agri Center in the amoUIlt of $$4,421.38 dated Apn14, 1994, docketed June 9, 1994 as Case # 10-CS-94-000841 ag;ainst Barb Johnson. Obtain release or affidavit of non-identity. - Inspection indicates =.ew constrllction on subject premises. WE REQUIRE that we be furnished with sworn contractor's stateme:lts and all lien waivers prior to the closing. Affidavit of Purchaser for Torrens Property must be furnished at the closing. .A:ffidavit of Residue for Torrens Prooe:tV must be furnished at the closing;. ... . - Q\'vner's Duplicate Certificate of Title is at the Cour.house as of this date. We require that standard form of ~ffidavi~ or affidavits, be furnished us at closin~ We require Well Disclosure Certificates be completed in typed form prior to closing; and furnished at rime of closing; for all deeds which reouire a Certificate of Real Estate Value OR the deed must contain-the following; statement: ''T.c.e seller certifies that the seller does not know of any wells on the descnbed real property." Terms and Conditions of Development Contract by and between the City of Cbanha~sen and John C. Knoblauch and Sharon Knoblauch. husband and wife dated May 20, 1996, filed Seotember 27, 1996 as Document No. T93816, Office of the Relristrar of Titles, Carver C:ounry, N!i.nnesota - Note: No forfeiture provi...sion. " ,~ ~. Ter:ns and Conditions of Declaration of Protective Covenants dated June 16, 1997, filed :June 18, 1997 as Document No. T97110, Office of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, Nfumesota. Note: No forfeiture orovision. ... 24. Subject to drainage and utility easementS being 10 feet in width adjoining the Southerly, Westerlv, and N orJIerly lot lines and 6 feet in width adjoining the Easteriy lot line of subiect nrernises as sho\VIl on the recorded Dlat thereof. . ... . c::::IoI8C 3/81 FIle Number: CA 15233 SCHEDULEB GENERALEXC~ONS Upon payment of the full consideration to, or for the account of, the grantors or mortgagors, and recording of the deeds and/or mortgages, the form and execution of which is satisfactory to the Company, the policy or policies will be issued containing e.~ceptions in Schedule B thereof to the following matters (unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company): 1. If an owner's policy is tO,be issued, the mortgage encumbrance, if any; treated as part of the purchase transaction. . .., :J. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. :. 2. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if a.IIV created, first appe~g in the public records or ~ttaching subsequent to the effective date hereof but pnor'to the date the proposed msured acquires for value of record the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. Rights or claims of parties in possession not shown by the public records. Encroachments, overlaps, boundary line disputes, and any other matters which would be disclosed by an accurate survey and inspection of the premises. Easements or claims of e~c::llients not shown by the public records. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor, or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not sho\V"Il by public records. Taxes or special assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the public records. General and soedal ta.1:es and assessments as hereafter listed, if any (all amounts shown being exclusive of interest, penalties, and costs): (A) Real estate ta.1:es payable in 1998 are 5698.00 and are unpaid. Base ta1: $698.00. Non-homestead. PropertY Identification No. 25-3940010 Note: There are no delinquent taxes of record. (B) Note: There are no levied or pending assessments of record. Any charges for municipal services (Le., water, sewer, correction of nuisance conditions, etc.) are the responsibility of the parries to this transaction. For information regarding the existence of any such bills, contact the appropriate municipal office. 10. W ARRA.i.'ITY DEED from John C. Knoblauch and Sharon.1\. Knoblauch, husband and wife to Jeffrey P. Johnson and Barbara J. Johnson conveying land described on Schedule A .., 9. 11. First Mortg;ag;e Deed in the amount of 590,000.00 naming Jeffrey P. Johnson and Barbara J.10-hnso~ husband and wife as mortgagors and naming 1HE PROPOSED INSURED as mortgagee. CCJolB 3/S1 " . ~.:::lrrB Le~al Desc=i~tion '!'hat 'Ca=":. of the Ncrt::'west Qua-~e::: of th.e North.west Qua=ter of Sec-=icn 2, Townshi'P 1:!.6, Ra:I:ge 23 r Ca:::-ver County r ltf.i:mesotar .. c.esc=ibec. as follows I viz.: Beg'; ';I"''; "g at. tb.e point of inte=sec~ion " of the oemt.er line of Apple Road and the Nonh line of said i' Northwest Qua=ter of the Nor-...hwest Quarter t which said 'Coint is the Northeast c:o:t'!le:: of the t:ac': of land. originally Reciste::ed July 5, 1352 I and is desc=~ed i:l Ca=-.;e= County Certificatet of Title #3205; ..1-t....~CA 1:':=s't: a.' one:: t'-1-t. Nc'l'"'!-r, 1';",. 0<F s"',;"; Qu:=~"""'-Qu' "'.......,.. sac: 7 <F........i- '--'-.....- ..- -.... -- -- --- .-, ~-- ----- ------..,.. -.....-- eo a poi=.t marked by a Juciicial Land Mark (here; ,.,=fte::: refe=ed to as aJl~!) i th~ce Seuc::. 16 degrees 42m;~utes West., a ~st.ance of :22.31 feet t: a 'Coi:lt ~~""k=d bv' a m~; thence South 4: dec-=ess 42 ~~~tes West. ~ Cista:ce ef 186.76 feet to a 'Cci~t ma=ked ~V a ~~; -~",,"'''''A ~"""'-...'" ::~ ","A.--o::...:.= .:1.2 '(Il,': ~"-:"'..S tJA=~ a ":;.; .;~"'.,.,....o 0<F 8~ OS. <Fo..:i- ,..... _______ -.......,'loIlIt _ w.... ........_____ - ....-- ,,---- '----~........ - -. -----~ . -0'-''''' ma=ko"; bv-a ~y. t~=~c= Qou-~ 70 do~o..:.s ?~ ~~~ll~=S WAS' ~ ;:.- ___ . _..... - _., __ _... __ _:___.... -- - I a ~st~=e of 84.36 ==e~ to a =c~~: ma=ke~ bv a ~~~; ~~e~ce SCU~ 4.$ c.~,:=ees 12 m'; .....:::es West. a -c.:.st.a::.c: of 4: S . 51 fe~t to a poi.::.:. wa=~~=c. :y a. ~'!i ~::'e::.=e So\.:.~=- 3 Q c:.es=ees 22 moo; ~u-:=s Wes~, c:. c.:..s-=a::.== of 54.09 ==S': t.o a ~c:.=::. uwa=~.,::=ci. cy a. ~~i the!:ce Sct:.~b. 23 _C,--ClQC ,,""~_""".,-_o__c: tJQ.__C::~_, - '-:";=-=~,...o. .JII'ft~ CQ ::c: ~~A;-~"" - .......-.:~- .,...-...~=,: ....:._:_ ___ :.. - "........ ,_ ,.. c:. '-'-'_ _____ __ ~ io.oi . _ _ ____ _~ c::. ::""-11___ ..~c:..-.__~ =.y a ~.i21 i e=.e::.ce Nc~:":. 21. ~~;=e~s 4.3 =.:.::::.:.':~s West., a ~st.a::.ce of 6.=~ :sec ~= a ?C~~ ~~kec by a ~~; che~ce Scu~~ 28 ~es==es ~i ~~~~=s Wes~ a ~s~~=e of 60.2 ==e~i t~e~c~ SCU~~ 52 ~eS==~$ 5i ~~~~~es Wes~, a ~st.~=: ef 1.00.3 =:e~; t.~e~ce ,Scu~~ 89 c.eg=e~s 32 :1:"::::::.:5 Wes~ a..lcI:.S- a.. li::.e pa=-:~l=l.w:..:.::' ==.: 6as~o :=e~ Nc=-:=. e= e1:.a Sc....:::.=. l':'::s c: sa.:.=- ~c=:hwes~ Q't:..a.==== cf -:.=.e Nc=:::'wes-= Qua=:.e::-- a ~~s~~~=e c= 355 ==e~, mc=a c= less, co e~e ee::e= l~=e cf sai~ ;..;==:= ?cac.i t:::e!:.ce .~c~=.;:ast.==~y a~c::.~ sai:. ce::-:e= l~::.e 6'03. 4: fee~1 illc=a c= ~ess, ~= ~~= ~c~n= c= =eg--~~~;. .::c",......--. -,- ~."'" ~_-o_ ,....._'iIIl:~....=.__-_:nc_,..-_. c:.......,.=~- ...._~.,..~I"".: , _ _...._ __: _w _ 'W_ v . .......... y......; ____ __..l... ...... _\.._'_=~_ '!-~A -.--........-...:'::--"',. _'7 _~_-=__c: 0-_'. ~_~.ca_ ~~'-.....-~=:a_ c..oc:,....--- JIIIII:,o':: .,.....=.",~ c:.=c: = c: 1"'r!:...~.....,.;_ ':'~- 1..."':......----:1. -......,.. ---------- ~-------I -- ~"'a.__..._ by J'u~c:.a..;. La::.::::::'l';;'-~.t:S, t:::'e lcc=.t.ic::.s c: wl':.ic:::' a=e show::. c::. i::::'~ plat. c: .sa:.~ .5~~ey.o= :. c. ~ackso~ e~ =~~e he=s~, are he=e=y :~ed a!lC es~a..::.i..:.s.c.ec. as bc't.::.r!a.':-f li:les 0:: ~=.e aCe".e c.esc=:'=ec. ;=etn:.sas. ., '0 c J " . V\ y.'l . " -. . 00 " . . . , . '. . \ . \.... ., . ..... " \ '. "'~-..... .......... ..... '" " " .: rtlAtt r:!a 0'" .... .... w .. m l-'- PI ... 00 ':Ut , I:tt ~ Jlt .... p.. . rt [::dl 0 IDrtl1. .~ 0 1/1 CO t.~~ rttd~ ~ .Iit ~- rtlll o l-'- ....[::0 tj.R ... rt ID t-.) ....00 c: Ha" ollt ~'~m ~ ~.fl p. II. t- . .... 0 '0 Ii 0, , Ii 0 . 0 R an Ha.~ " . .~.tt4 . . Po CD .. 9 aai ~ l1~ tt III .... tj CD ~ B. ~ rt ,.,- 0 . J:j . . -c.. .:..~ " . e. '. . ~ Itl~ I:I;~ tali u .... . " m~ () t:J p. I':l fII tt j1'-<: ID ,J o 0 III tJ' I'" 0 1-' tC ~ -.'P ~~r' ... ,I (~ tt D. ~ ~I'" lit ,~:.. tJ' ~ ft' p. ~ fU 10 .j :.1rt 0.... ~'I~ ~ 1'1. 'I> In ID 10 . UI I>> ... p- tJ'R 1< 0 ~ ~ 1-' o (D h' J"L -... . U III 'r'" (D (" 0 p. ~-::-". i'1 t.. -.1\U ~~(Il 0-1 0: ~ .... p.tA . o ~ o <<;b'i - In ~ 0 1-3 .pI ........,..................... m III . '" ,. .' In 1-1 ~ l-l ltJ o hJ ~~. p. D==- ~e'l1 ~'< CD fIIO..... H.O Ii pJ CD . lQ .. ~ 1.11 I~II u o . . I'" ~ ~ II ClJ - ,--. ,-. j ~ Iii ~ a !.. ~ tr ~...~ p.\t>ln \t> r ~~I~ ~p. 9 r ~.~~ Ha I..... ID :t1 ~ ,-.... · r-. Ill' ">- ' rt (D ~p. tJ' ~~ o & o~ '~ i= /' ......~ ~ . Po . . o o g .-4 (Jl 1-:1 '", 8 l~ o tJj o ':'i fin _ 0 . . !J ~....... In (II . ~ ~ . ~ I .~ ff 89~ &.3 / tZ5'/6 /09,29 __ () ;>-- IJRIVGWI/ eA$EI11EPT . -. _ -L _felt.. {J{.r!., No, 1'8%88 \' 0 10 (,8 I{::-';-' ~-1--===1 --;1 PRAIN~6C= ANP / / L (; 37-" / H I / f!; IIT/tllY eAGEIHENT / ~ · 4 (~f'Jl{) f!€1I\'/'/~/I(. wl\qf'(t~ ;t ~ b" f~ =)C.'a':f_ - - - ,,~ ~ I/flB=<t>41:!:ba!_ · \o\~.o OI3.BJ..-- ,o;~.~ ~ ~ ~"'\" 1(I'5,ll'.1 ~~-9~~ __ (l!i'-.;; 5' , Ii Jo~..e> I~ II ~ I .8 \0 0 / --/~ \l~t'b~<9 ~ (\J Jo.1 \0\'1-' \ ~ 24;00;]":'" - ~ ~ ~ . _IO/3:'!) \ I~ " "I ltJ r, 'W ~ j44/1Ai----J. t) 00'2- - ,,1I ~ --l ""i t \ \ J .. N "I "":~.~' 11. " a 17.5"0 -f \I~" -~ ~ ~ " 11 ,~ 19.(10 Q\ . N JO'~/a- ~ ~ ..... I ,---- - 1013 -< .!.\J ~ .~ .W ~OP05EO I 2.50 ~'!1 ~ ~ I llXi 1Iot-J::E I Go ..... Q i'.. 11I1'8~/{XJ8.OCJ I\J -- ,-.I :..qR.qGE~ )\.. , ... @IO.oo ,~; I r, . I /.-- - .--~- ~b,t:b _~' z~.oo 10. ~ -=< '- j lL~. 2.\ cI/O,2.' ,- -,'" -- 10 E1=,.,rRI\'.~e - - 10;3,8) 1--1 Q.~i. ~ IOI4:/~-;O' 1'& ~_. !d:'In-::- J (I',v'fLIfI'CNT J (Io'~ .8) ,- -..:- @3b,a>. )--) FE ~: ~) 0 '~.8) H08: 10'3 51-~ "",~ G, <II 0 r-- _ ---1i!io:,. ;r :.. '5 ~.~SI1l:i re"'''/vll\q, 1<<>3.51 'L -.... I ~ -- It":' 1J To f!e MAfN1AIN(;r. o "'Z3, 3 . !'oE.iN":'~ - 13Y gUILDER . I\. ~ 210 00 I . ~~.", - ~ B.o_~_ , ~@= 5' 8.'/;)D57' .. I _~Cts,~IJ ---~-, I~:.s. t I KNOB . .I/~ b V"-~.-"- - '-;..-% __6' .5 S"iJII;GwatJ-{Pi"p';g; 6. 1""8Jf5~IVO'tJ -@tI-J;,' 7. IZ"BA>>Wtt;V -epii;~~) B. /f" /.JASSWaiJ _@ij':.!,,1 H. 9" IZ" It." &'Is>i~ -@]~;g) 71l/1't-E 11..2" 8.455JJWL;;J - e..iil.ig; pv8/.t I~ t1JC -~igi~:l' . . 002.0.9) @~t I ~~-- ~ /lILL I A c2~i~' ,- ~ L-rtNE - . ~ (( bto.l$; \'t) ~ - 'j CITY OF SHOREWOOD ~ 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen . DATE: 2 August 2001 RE: Pabl, Gaylord - Setback V arianceN ariance to Structurally Alter a Nonconforming Structure FILE NO.: 405(01.18) BACKGROUND . Gaylord and Monica Pahl own the property at 5100 Anthony Terrace (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). They propose to remodel their existing home and add a new deck to the rear of the house. As illustrated on Exhibit B, the house does not comply with the 50-foot rear yard setback for the zoning district in which the property is located. Consequently, their plans require a setback variance for the deck and a variance to structurally alter a nonconformi,ng structure. The subject property is located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains 38,469 square feet of area. The existing house is only 35 feet from the rear lot line. As explained in their request letter (Exhibit C), the applicants propose to rebuild the center portion of the existing home, changing the direction of the existing gable on the house and raising it six feet. They also.propose to build a 12' x 16' deck behind the house. As shown on Exhibit B, the deck would be approximately 21 feet from the rear property line. The applicants' plans are shown on Exhibits D-H. ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDATION A. Existing: Nonconformity. Unlike many nonconforming properties, the Pahls' home was not constructed prior to currentc.zoning requirements. The house was #9r ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #fc.. . Memorandum Re: Pahl Variances 2 August 2001 constructed in 1962 and reconstructed in 1965 following-severe storms. Although there is no record of any variances having been issued, the house was allowed to be built closer to the rear lot line than the zoning regulations at the time prescribed. Staff researched this property back to the approval of the original plat for Wood Duck Knolls. In approving the plat there was apparent recognition of the rather severe topography of the property (see Exhibit I). Minutes from a 1962 Planning Commission meeting (Exhibit J)-discuss an exception due to the terrain in the area. Exhibit I illustrates why the subject house and the house to the west of it were built to the back of their respective lots. . Although the applicants' lot appears adequately large on paper, a significant portion of the lot drops off dramatically to the east. Despite the lack of a formal variance approval, this begins to explain the existing house location. B. Variance Criteria. Shorewood's zoning regulations reflect the criteria set forth in state statutes relative to the granting of variances. Following is how the applicants' request complies with the criteria: 1. The topography of the property and its affect on the shape of the buildable area of the lot constitute special conditions peculiar to the land. 2. The applicants' plight is not economic in nature. 3. The location of the house is not due to the actions of the applicant. 4. The variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood in which the property is located. The closest home to the south is approximately 135 feet away and separated by vegetation and grade from the applicants' home. Itis worth noting that the homeowner to the south has expressed interest in granting a conservation easement over the north 90' :t of his property. . 5. The Code requires that variances be minimized to the extent possible. In this regard, it is recommended that the proposed deck be turned so as to extend southward only 12 feet instead of 16 feet. Combined with the applicants' proposal to remove two feet from the rear of the existing house, the resulting variance would be 25 feet. The applicants have agreed to this condition. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicants be granted a variance to rebuild the center portion of the existing roof as proposed. It is also recommended that a setback variance of 25 feet be granted for the construction of the -2- Memorandum Re: Pahl Variances 2 August 2001 deck. As a practical matter, it does not appear necessary to require additional front yard setback to compensate for the rear yard setback variance. Cc: Craig Dawson~ Tim Keane Gaylord and Monica Pahl . . -3- ~o "1 51 ~ \~ \-\'l'J'< ~/T7~ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Pahl variance 400 0 I 400 Feet I /j. N A ..--- ~ .,f;~ ~~e ..&!//d c: & // ~;. t.-:h. 'THE E. .B. McDONOUGH CO. 1953' UNIVERSITY' AVE.,. SAINT PAUL,4 . BI4 .NATIO~AL BUILOING, MINNEAPOLIS 2. . .P.LAT OF' SURVEY SCALE: .1 INCH' _-50 FEET . . . {FE. 5.6611' .. TEL.EPHONES' MI. a.6ase . MI. 9.5072 I Cb,;-/ .a r:!:/1'/h'e7;/j/ -~,A: t}, . An '/At2Hj/ /~P"P'.::'"":: 6i:'~/~/l.'7p /~/~ .L34?'R' t );b/Jd-j/L'~ ,&0/4 ##~,'zh. OF PROPERTY' OF OESCf!IBEO.AS FOLLOWS '1 'I + . II . ~tJ .~1l~ flN~HO~ ... ~. " .\ \ 3." 4 '11' \ t1:. . . , ...... · . . 2%./~' 2~,/ 2~ . ~-r..<It _ '" Z . ~ J.r. ~ -.31.~-: ~ 21..5. Q.,.. . ?oZ' ~ ~ -.- / 4)' 0 > t;';./-,'c. GO, . , C!:::::::...-___ 2 0,0 .- ----: -, -- - ~ ...-.Q... W If . 1 l 5(jl . /1 Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY OCATION OF BUILDING' I . /2../9 '19 ~:1. :ation of the buildin~(s) on the and that the 'location of said ),Y'P-...,;' 9n.the "bove PlaJ. .;, I{...",r' . ."," .,.~. .,.i ,~ "",.#~.4i'.." I hereby certify ~hat 0)1 19~ I surveyed the property described above and that; the above plat is a correct representation of said survey. .# -- ."~ It) .. 'r\ '$ ~ ~\ I~ . ~ '. ~ , t , .' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Gaylord & Monica Pahl 5100 Anthony Terrace Excelsior, MN 55331 RE: VARIANCE REQUEST Gaylord and Monica Pahl, owners of 5100 Anthony Terrace, Excelsior, MN request to alter center structure of roof for gable to eliminate ice build-up on rear roof and to subsequently add bay-window. Existing two foot rear push-out will be eliminated to accommodate bay window. Additional request to add small deck off dining area (rear of house). The above proposal supports Shorewood's building requirements to retain a low density residential character, yet enable greater flexibility in design. This variance request complies with criteria set forth in section 1201.05 of the Shorewood Zoning ordinance. The above proposal will NOT: . 1. impair adequate supply of light to any adjacent properties. 2. unreasonably increase congestion in public street. 3. increase danger of fire or endanger to public safety. 4. unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within neighborhood. This variance proposal WILL: 1. NOT increase any square footage to house. 2. greatly enhance aesthetics and character of adjacent property 3. eliminate damage to rear window from snow/ice build-up and greatly improve livability thereof. 4. include minor structural repair and incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the nonconforming use. 5. take into consideration the protection of light and air to adjacent property. 6. increase property value of 51 00 Anthony Terrace and adjacent properties. Special circumstances for gable and bay window: . 1. Ice build-up on existing rear roof line which has subsequently led to permanent window damage. 2, Rear push-out will be eliminated to accommodate bay window (therefore, distance between building and rear lot-line will remain the same) 3. To maintain structural integrity ofroor, gable must continue through center of house - front to rear. Special circumstances for rear deck: 1. only place on lot that provides privacy and additional rights commonly enjoyed by properties in the same district. {1201.05 - b. (2)} 2. dense woods at rear of house - not visible to any neighbors 3. placing in back yard has only access to dining room 4. to place up front would obstruct neighbor's view and thus adversely affect aesthetics and character of adiacent orooertv, Exhibit C APPLICANTS'S REOUEST LETTER c +~ z . . {II) GETf 7/f2t;11ClUf}) ~ ~~ or ....-- ') ExJfl1ltJ(, ~ "---J f!..uJII ouT 2 I -- 'P:/Z57 R Oaf( QUel( //AN6, .;dr/ -Itoo f ~I WflJ\Jr 70 ;<E. ~R~ I~ ~ , L 70 A 00 BAY - .~ ......... ~ 1'... I I ,....."" ~ .......... 1-_ L I L - T ~ 1 z..' D I Prt:>fo~ .,- iLlJ - I d ~ e,A(.. tr ~ / 6N~,1 ()1out [J/wJ)o ~ L/~, . Exhibit D FLOOR PLAN . . <..!.J o '<: ~ -..... \...J ~ ~ ~ ~ 4J ~ -. tv) \\J Exhibit E BUILDING ELEVATION - FRONT ~_// ~ / .I f i I , i I I , i I i I ! I I i I ! \ \ , '\ \ \ \ ""-" -"". (C)lD ...... J'.w - ~ <':1:: '0 t-- \~ ~ ~~ . . Exhibit F BUILDING ELEVATION - REAR ~) ~ ~.:s: ~ ~~,., \Ll rS.? . -<.~ ..~ \oM, V...,' ~ ~- -;;1~ 3. / ,----'~, \~~.~,.,/-." . / .... ~: I / 7A \ ~ \ ~ ~ r-. "'", \ [ -::;:'- -:~ f I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ . , ~ ~. Q. ~ \p \.-, ~ ,1\ ~.~J \ fA ':"',) ~ ", ....\/ '::'\ .~ ::; V', ".~:~ '~...;;.> ~~ "-'~ ........... ~::t ~ l) ~Q VJ I ~~ l.J.J<:::) ~...~ I - \b . \.u tE ~ -..........: \[) r-- . 'v-) '3 tE Exhibit G BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST SIDE . l.J.J <::J \n 1---- V) lU . Exhibit H BUILDING E .......... \~~ 1 - ~ -1 :::::.. co ...:L If l A -!.T , /'. / ~ '//"1 ,/ ) / 1- .... .... -. VJ '\) \0 , ~ - .... 1 'i !J II II 1// Vi ~ i) -...!:) ',< ~ o. ..... j.~ ~ l,l. ~ / / / ~\ '-.D :( 01 - -1\ ~ ~\ \ \ . \ - " ~ "~ , \w II ... - ~ - ,-,",.J - N '0 -....j' ....j :::._- OQ~ i:::; ...... "'::'-. ~J ~ ~ , Q "\.,)j r sf) 'v Q -< ~ c:o ~ \~ .. ~-. ~ ~ ~ -....J~\j~o ~ '-U ~~ )" 2. <:::) ~ \; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 LEV A TION - EAST SIDE -v.~ 0~" '0'< ~ ~~\~~~ I I - 4,) ::=:. .::::- '-.i .~ --.J 3,:~ j ~~~ ~~.t - ~ :=J -' :~ ~ IYvrr' r!f!J/; " ,HI: / /- 11 J~II ~ t ' . #, I)Q OD · - ui(j'a t \ H \ -~ t1j f \ ~ ~~ ~ .~ '~j/; '" r r;' (( \1JJ ''- 0 "00 J!".: ..I t I . 1/' , '1"/ F tt, ~ . \ \vIE-' w~, i " .... ~ i I. t 'If .",J. ' .: I - "l -0 ,<.. <. \. \ - . . \ /~. '; _ _'" ',- ~f ~ C<.~ · ., -..; ~ ~~_' .~.: \'~) ) ~~1n . _: .~~r . ~.;,~ 1l ~\1-!o- ~ . ~. ..-". _ <.., q _ _ _ _ . . c 'P-l " . , .....1 \; \ , I , ,~"C =.... ~.,,:: _ _ .. · i~, ,.; , + ~:'l ~=<~~~' ~'\ r'~ . 'f' ~I< 1\ 51 0 . -::.~""'......i~'~...~l'-' . ~dtfn~ . ,\..~" RTH ",,,,,~ l\.~' iW I 'I JJ F) .. \ '" ~ I \~~ JiI.'41~~ ' . '/.. L7lt ), -" (~I~/~,~\\.;:!;A,,' , ~ ,,/ u Il'J ' . ~ ~ ~ /'''-..'' - ...;J 'I' ~ Z ' .... ,..--- ~ -, 1\ ~, .~ '-, " '. ~-/Ar -..... ..,' ~ r,"'- .=.J1l I~\ ~f/:~" ~d\I _ . L . ';,,,,,,,.,/ I . ' I}I tJ ~ \\ ' \ ~ ftl}'~ / =::- - J"!'L' ~ ,:J,,~..~;;:;./I " \' -' . . '. .,J/ /' ~~ ~ \ ,'~ vie.? ""; Ot~-' .... /~~ ~ ..~~.... ~~~ ~,. :;""~ ,V;III'" - -f-;~~ . .~. ~;,~~~ .':' ~~ I, ~, J !.. 'i _.~ !1,,11 ,It.. . ::-\ \ \, ~~ ~It tb"'" 1,~ "I ".. .. " ,1'iI" "li ". ..,' : If''' " . ',. I 25 0 II 'I '. : : J /11.'tli. " : 9a. A... .', 11 llll, .;../ 77.) ll. \'1.--.' .'" .... lib... h ' '"ijJjm':' - (!/jj""" / / . Il"fr(-;:::-~' \/ " 'h. '. ,,' .:. ....,...&)j'JIIIII?. .'. . ~.................,....., :~ "I/1,dll.p .~'O .f'''>\ 'I.JfJ/'''' · . ," J -.I/t ,If, I I/. ' / oil ,;:): ~jr I 11 :: lC . . . >;,1,' . ---- ,n'-: t.' ./~: ,Iii ,''',." \ YA _.' . 'i ~:~'. \1) \ \: ~i w{fffff~~~tl ~ ~~\~~~.~.'.~~.' _ ",I '.'~~,~ ~ ..' ",:i\~.,...~t~./:/"'~ . "'?' ~ _ "~ j . .~~,-l .. ,z'- ~ r- '-.:. l! '..". z '<." _ ..' . c-': I' '(\ ~ ~~.': /~<< .. ., \ ~~ lC "'~" ~\I i/~~~~ " \..... dt)~. .' ~-/' - . II' ,/ f l ' \ ". . \ \\ .."~... ..,.., . ~j i m. ,,, \\~ ~~: " ~-.:i ~ ' .,.' j ~ . . . I I I I I " ~. ~')yfir~:~"". -~ri)~' ~ I t , fD. l \ ( ~\ ~ \ ~. ~ . ~ ~ I ~~. ~~ \ "0-" .... Exhibit I Sl)E TOPOGRAPHY -=- , , + - Mn:rtT'j~E;S e,F E~:J.L~;:ING ()F rrrIJI; 2,:~~"J~~~T.':Jl~\TCl())) }'TJ,,:\:"'''~~~:rI~TG CI)L'J.~/LI E:JSI C:1T Tue TsgulaJ: meeting of the Shorewoocl Planning GOlllLLlission was 1'l81d '::lerlr18St1.B.Y eveninO' A1W'Ue:ot ')Cj lQ~:;;) "-it +}"'le IF; nl;6"::r':'r::ht~, ("choul ~~ _ t.. '~;O-'p 'tjf' ,1!'ill ."_c"~'bc-"'~ ,~~ .A'~~'-;~' r,~\o...:",l. l;.: ",,'f'~"\o.'J'J..I..n"'-';' J'~~."""~.;"".". t..,) ., c.t ? t,. I . ,I;,i. .t!.. U1e:n.I",-~,.... 1iij 8.i. e j;,Jr;;::: ...,e.m.l' hu,. ..D. ,. Ih 11n of the Vi lla.ge Coul'wil Was p"lso 'prc~;ent. In the first order of business, Mr. JessuiJ reported th"-:lt he JJ.ecl been contaoted by Mr. J. B. Babcock of 5615 Humboldt Ave, Minne.r:w;;olis, wi th 2.. reCluest for liermi seion to build bOBTding lcennels for dogs. Mr. Jessu~ advised Mr. Beboocl::: thF.;t it vva.,s a.g(:~inf:;t our Ville,ge ordinances. . In the next order of bUE,iness, M:r. Don .Anthony submitted 8.. 1'e- vi sed ~lf::.t; of lj1 Si-/T.OP0r.'ty whJ.cl1 he would. like to sub-di vide. Mr. B1i S8 made 8. motion. t1:,L?t the revi f.;E1Q. d]J'.t ;o;e ,!'cce.;;t ed, ?,S ;-'11 exce)tion 'because of the terrain and becense of the f'n.at tll<3.t the roeer '1:.'1.11 serve the adjoining vroJ:)erty when tha,t is platted. Tllirdly, it 1;7ould. ywrl{ a }Jf';.I'dsl'1i.t? on the O1i1ner to force hiLd, to :pla.t only tb.ree lots, each of which i20uld '1)6 well over 40 ,000 feet. Mr. Clyborne sE.conded the motion. TheJ;Jroi,)erty ov.rners to the Ee,st of this :"Jl'o,Joserl '.1.-Jla.t were J;)resent at the last C01.ll1cil meeting and expressed t:J:16lUsel ves in favor of this revised plat. Mr. Richa.rd WaJ:cefield, ltl8iaber of the Villp...ge Council spo1:6 to the menibers of the );)1&'-1:1ing Conll~ission of the dLlties of our Folice force and its increc:.sed load. of res)onsibilities, 2nd whether the Village now needed. the services of two full-time policemen. The lllajorlty of the rnsmber s of the COlllmissi0!..1 expressecl 'themsel Vf:.;: S as being in f;:wor of the incre.a,sed. services if the VillELI:::;e CotUlcil felt it nec6s88xy. . 'rlle next order of business '\II1f,S a request from ]/11'. V,Thi tney of the lvlL::lIlesote., 1'rBnsi t Lines, Ine. for j:;Jermi seion to use tl".l.e old Dee,j)!la.ven But: garage for a. te11l.J)otaxy storage for the school buses of the area. .fA illotion vIaS made by Mr. Cly'oorne that tIle Village Council gl'c1:l'1t iJermi stiion to the lJIinaesota Tr e:nsi t lLines, to use the old DeefJh2ven Bus racili ties for maintenance & storc:..~e only for the c1ll:rent yesx or until permanent facilities a:re a;vai.lable if tha,t is sooner. 'rhe motion iH'c:i.S seconded by Mr. Jessup. 1'his illotion to be subject to tJ:le 2fl.f:)rOva.l of the adjacent oyrners. All member were l..manimous in favor of thi s m.ot ion. 'I'l......e;~ e b.e'l' ,1"_. ~-,..;.' 1'10' f"~~ 1~.l,.':.E-';1~ b'\J.~;l' ',!'.~8 P. q, t 18 '''1' 8....1..'" ''''~ c ~'(l, U' llI'nl!:>rc1 I _ I..... u.L OJ , _... ~ J. _ ~ 1', li i.: L,' !"'c,: \'~ c:t,i:;l d ,...~ '" ,\;;O.~. Hes.tJect:fully SlJ})i~littt:d, , See' y ~{HCl:ITf:.~OD PLb:::,,,-TP'G- G.::ELH:;E'IClT Exhibit J PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - 1962 . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO GAYLORD AND MONICA PAHL WHEREAS, Gaylord and Monica Pahl (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 5100 Anthony Terrace, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as: "Lot 4, Block 1, Woodduck Knolls, Hennepin County, Minnesota." WHEREAS, the Applicants have an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is located approximately 35 feet from the rear lot line; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for a variance to structurally alter the portion of the house that extends into the required 50-foot setback area; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied for a 29-foot variance to construct a deck on the south side of the building; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 2 August 2001, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 7 August 2001, 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 August 2001, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant 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. That the subject property is located in an R-IA, Single-Family Residential zoning district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the rear property line. 2. That the existing building on the property is located approximately 35 feet from the rear property line. 3. That the existing home was built in 1962. the house was originally built. 5. That structures located on the lot immediately west of the subject property are located on the southerly portion of the lot, similar to the location of the Applicants' home. 6. That the owner of the property located to the south of the subject property has proposed to convey a conservation easement to the City of Shorewood, which easement would prevent any structures being built within approximately 90 feet of the subject property. CONCLUSIONS . 1. That the Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. 2. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a variance to structurally alter the existing home. 3. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a setback variance of 25 feet for a deck on the rear of the existing house. 4. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide 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 SHOREWOOD this 27th day of . August 2001. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- , '~ l CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 5 August 2001 RE: Olson, Scott - Revised Variance FILE NO. 405(01.19) BACKGROUND . In 1999 Scott Olson received setback variances to replace his home at 6125 Ridge Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) with a new one. The property is quite substandard with respect to shoreland management regulations, and virtually anything requires a variance of one kind or another (see Exhibit B). Mr. Olson now proposes to simply enclose the lower level of the existing home, replace existing decks and build a new porch. Background for this request is contained in a staff report dated 2 September 1999 (Attachment I - copied in yellow). Mr. Olson's revised request is explained in a letter (Exhibit C), dated 3 July 2001. As described in his letter, the house is currently supported by a masonry wall on its west side and a series of posts, beams and footings that form a sort of stilt construction. While the structure appears to be surprisingly stable, it is very difficult to heat and the lower level is wasted space. Exhibits D-H show the improvements proposed by Mr. Olson. Due to the location of the existing home, the same type of variances that were approved in 1999 are required for the revised plans. Specifically, the proposed basement is too close to Ridge Road n ~.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER *qD .t , ~) -. ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDATION improved, the proposed porch does not come as close. to the bluffline as the previous request. Except for the porch, all work will be done within the existing footprint of the building. The porch is extending toward the buildable area of the lot,. as shown on Exhibit B. Whereas the previous request involved a considerable amount of site alteration, the revised request requires quite minimal site work. Approval of the variance is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to any construction activity, construction limit fencing and erosion control barriers must be erected (southwest of the existing house). 2. The site plan should be revised to include a combination parking space/pullout on the north end of the site. This has been required, where feasible, on many of the properties on Ridge Road due to the extremely narrow traveled surface of the road. . 3. Site grading and drainage should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Larry Brown Scott Olson . Ii . t. 600 I '" . '" '" CITY OF CHANHASSEN o 600 Feet I ~ N Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Olson variance I<[ ConNER or SlC. 2. 1. ",. R. ZJ ". . .r , ... .,- ~t NORTH ~;I~b\e- AY~tA otLo+ l ~. ' .... /'.::Y.7 \ . s ' . Blll/"ool . ~:J " . ~....)O SCALE I" - 20' , l/.,' . ,- " "<C , '"' o f- ,"l (J- ~lt.,...,' ~', .. lot VI ',,' ,...mmonl lol 1, Soctlon 36, Township 1\6 Norlh, Rongo 23 Wosl 01 1100 arldlan: Commencing ot the Nor'hea.t corner of Section 2, Township 118, ce Norlh 2919' Eosl, 668.5 leol; Ihonco Soulh 6811', 110.7 feel olnl of boglnnlnl) of 1100 Trocl of land 10 bo doscrlbod; Ihonco North 21'32' ,.ocllon ..llh a Ilno parallel ..1110 and I!if) feol Norlhooolorly, meoourod al .... sold 110.7 fool 'lno boarlng Soulh 6811' Easl; thonco Norlh 21'49' thence Soulh 681 I' Eo.1 10 1100 ohare of Siver lake: Ihonce Soulheoolerly along o on Inler.ectlon with a line beorlng South 6811' Eo.1 from tho actual paint .once Norlh 68'11' Wo.1 to Ihe oclual polnl of boglnnlng. for Ihe purpoo.e 0' 11010 South line of sold Section 36 I. allumod 10 bs due Ea.1 and Wost line. I I. 0 Irue and corrocl ropre.enlallon of a survey 0' 1100 above d.scrlbed and 0' the location 0' all buAdlng., If on,. encroachment., If any, ftom or on ..Id lond. february, 1999 1/ I " If I Apr., 1999 by: U,-J/IU/..... {Jac:lt Boike l4lnne.o\a license No. 2028' (.I NOTES: 1, The orl.nlollon 0' Ihls beorlng .yslem Is bo.ed on th. .oulh Ilno 0' Section 36, To..pshlp 117 North. Rongo 23 ..hlch I. o"ulRed 10 hove o bearl10 0' EOIL 2. The or" 0' 110. properly do.crlbed horeon I. 42,747 I..t or a.9811 ocr... 3. No tllle..ark WOo furnlohed for Ihe proparallan 0' 1101. survey 10 verify Ihe logal de.crlplon or 110. oxl.lence 0/ ony .a.em,nl. or oncumbrance.. ..... Vj EGAN FIELD & NOWAK Sl JRVFYORS INC. ~~:~:':~~~A .:::.:gm~o lnr~ (lif". .:.. .I,'~ \. . . Scott M. Olson 6125 Ridge Road Shorewood. Minnesota 55331 Home Phone (952) 470- 5127 FILE COpy July 3, 2001 City of Shorewood To whom it maY,.~.9ncem:,~--~~...._._. -_.. ",,;: ...... ...~,.::....~.:I'o..t>I' "'..-,.." ~~.............. ... --....._~. '. Subject: Variance Request for Scott M. Olson 6125 Ridge Road Shorewood, MN ,/ Enclosed are the materials Required by the Shorewood to process my application for building variances, These variances for front yard setback and bluff setback are being requested in anticipation of adding a basement and porch to the home, as well as replacing the existing decks, The decision to repair and remodel my home instead of using the current variances granted to me (Resolution number 99-091) has been made after considering the cost and difficulty to demolish and replace the existing home on this steep lot, The current home was built in 1973, and is supported by a concrete block wall on the uphill side of the house and a system of steel beams and posts over concrete block piers on the downhill side, this creates an open crawl space under the house that varies from 4 feet to 9 feet in height. As a result of this foundation design, the home is quite unique in this area, and has proven difficult to insure. In addition, due to the relative land to building ratio it is virtually impossible to mortgage, I purpose to install a continuos foundation around the perimeter of the house and create an approximately 1064 square foot walkout basement in the area shown on the rear and right side plan elevations. In addition I purpose to add a screen porch of approximately 250 square feet and replace the existing decks to there original dimensionso These additions will increase the footprint by 250 square feet and the homes total square footage will increase from 1736 to 2800 square feet. As building regulations and setback requirements have changed they have rendered this lot unbuildable, As a consequence almost anything done on this site requires some sort of variance In reality the lot is quite large, but changes in these regulations make the request for these variances necessary, Due to the steep slope on the east side of Ridge Road I would assume several of the houses would not be in compliance with current regulations, Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER .' t. . . The additions I am proposing to accomplish will have less impact than that of my first variance and in my opinion will be a welcome improvement to the neighborhood. Therefore, I respectfully request that you approve the required variances. Thank you for your consideration Scott M. Olson (....2. "'I1tI1 t'"">< o=: 08': ~- '1jtJ t'"" ;z 46'-2' 1 c".,,~-3' . ropose Porch Addition 19'-4 f.:: "8 ,." 6'.(1'x6'-8"CO ~ '" 'rect P~h 2'-8"..3' ; .., ~ '" ; .., .. :, io r. :!: .. ~ 6'.(J'i tl.8" Co ".!It 5'.0'.. 6'-8" SO 2'-6'.. 3'-F-8" .. 3!S' 14'-6' Or: ve...:vJc-y { 18'-4' 22'.r i. 66'.(1' 1!S' x13'lll'lc 3'-6' '10'-4' 2' ',,;.." First Floor 1C10"..r..f11' . 16'.1' DECK .. . 2' ...4......",....4'-5" 11'-8" 10'.4'.. 6'-8' co 2~"'" " ~ .. 2'-4".. 4'-89 43'-5' 37'.7' DECK 12CO"..6'-8"SO IL Gl ~ ~ ... IC10"..r-ID'''4'-6'' ..........-. . , . 1 1 5C11' 1 27-9' ~ ~ ... l ~..a. ~"'" ~ 9' . Rear Elevation .) o Prooosed Basement 1 064 Square feet 38' Existing Grade -r-'~ . ,J.. D Proposed Porch Addition 263 Square feet tl:1tI1 c:::& ~o: t1 ~o 'Z"I1 o ~ tI1 <: ~ ~ o Z I CI'.l o Si ::t: Driveway . . ....-. . Right Side Elevation (south) Dl Proposed Porch Addition 263 Square feet I Existing Grade / ...~ . ~ft .. 'l ..... .. .. .. .. .... o. 0" .... :r. .... o. ... .... ... ... .... .... 0" . .. 0" . .. .... .. . .. .... .... .. .... ... . .. ........................................ ......................................... ~~Proposed Basement~ Hl 064 Square feet ~ :: 281 : .. 0 .. 0 l :! ............. .0........ ... .. .0 .. .0 .. .. ... .. ....... .0 .... .. .. .0 .. .. .0 ... .. ........ .0 ..... ... .. .. .. .. .. "' ... .. ....... .0 .... 0.'. .. .. .. .. .0 .. ... .0......... .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... ....... .. .... .... .. .0 .. .0 .0 .. ,.. ... ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .0 ... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .O' .. .. .0 .. ... .. ....... .. ..... .... .. .. .0 .. .0 .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... ... ....... .. .... .... '.. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... .. ., .. .. .. .. .... .' ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. ., .. .. ... ... ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .......... .... .... .. .. .. ., .. .. ... .. ........ .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ." .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ." .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... ., ., .. .. .. .. ... ... ........ .. .... .... .. .... .. .. .. .., .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. ., .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... ........ .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ........ ., .... .... ........ .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ....... .. .... .... ., .. .. ... .. .. ... ... ......... .. .... .... .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. ........ .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. '.' ... ... ........ .. .... .... ........ .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. ....... .. .... .... .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ....... ... .... .... ............. ............. ............. ............... ............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ............. .............. ............. ............. .............. ............. ............. ............. .............. ............. .............. .~ ::l ............. ............. ............. .................. tl:1tI1 c& ~o: t1 ~. 120 o tr.I ~ <: ~ ~ o Z I Z o ~ ::t: . Left Side E'lev.tNorth) . Proposed porch Addition Drivewa i D D 0 .. '" .. '" . 81 r-- 1, Existing Grad I . '" '" . '" . . ,". ... . '" ~ . .. .. '" '" . ... '" . . '" '" . ..... '" '" ..... '" . '" . .. .. .. '" .' . ... '" ... '" '" . ,".. .. ..... . .. . .. '" '" '" .. .. .. .. '"... . . . I. .. ... .. . . '" . '" '" '" . '" ....... ... ...... . '" '" .. .. '" '" ... ....... '" .. '" '" .. . . .. '" '" . .'" .. ::'". :.. '".. .... ::::::...:.. :'"::' '" :. .. .... '" '" '" '" '" '" . .:.. : I .. Existing Grade ..::.,:' : ::::. :.:::.',:. ::., .... .. .' :-.'.0 .. '. : ". :'... :::.::...:-:-::' : \ . .: .. ...... .:.. . : . .: . .: ...:" '.:. ,... .. . ..... ....: '":'": .'" '". '".: '" '"..: '" .... ...:. '" : '" .. . '".. '" '".:... .. '" '" '" '" .. ~\.::';::,;:::::;,:;::.:?:::::.:\;,:.::':<::':,: ::" <".::' ..: ::'" .; '. . ::>:"'-:.':: :':';' :;.: : ,. " :: .:....;.,.. '.' '. . . . . . .. .... '" '":.: .'": :... ::: '" ::_::::. '" '". '" ..: t.. '" '" '" ... . '" .. '" .. '" . '" '" .. '" '" .'". '".:'" '" '" : '" '" '" 0: '" '".:. '" '" ,"" .. '":: :. '" '" .. '" ... '" ...... '" '".. '" .. '" '" .. '" '" ... '" ..: .... .... '" .'" ..".:.. '". : ....:.:..... . :.. '":... . ..... ":::\: ::':::: ' ..:~ -\. "~' . :' ,: .:' . . ". ....:.. . ... '" . '" '" '" '" '" .. ... '" .. .. ..... .. . .. .o.. . . '.. .. ... ... .... .. .... . ..o ... . .. .. . ... ... .. .. . ... ..... . . I . :.. .. .:.::..... ... .. I ... . . .. . . ...... ....... .o.o .. . .... .. . . . ......... ...... . .o. . ... . . . ... . ..o .o.." . .. . ..o .0"' "_. "..,:.... . .... . ....o.. ...o .. .o" .. ... . .. .. ....o . ...... . .. .... .... . .. .. . .... . .. . . . .. . . . . L . : .. .. (J) .. .. .. "0 ...... e:! ~ ~ .... .. .. O"l ...... C .. .. .. t; .... .. .... .. 'x .... .. LU ....... ....... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ........ .... .... .... ,. .. .... .... .... .... a ........ ...... .. ........ .... .. .. ..... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... .., .... .. .... .. .. .... .. .... .... '---- U II ....... .... .. . .... ... = .... ., : == ....... == ....... ....... ,-- '0""0 .... .. '= ....... .... .. - .... .. , ..... ,.. ii~ .... .. , .. . .. ....... ....... .., .... ... .... . .. . .. ..... .. . .... .. . .. .... .., ... .... .. . . .. ....... . .. ...... : ... .. ....... .., .... .. , ... .. ....... .... .. .... .. . ...... ...... : ... .... .. . ... .. .... .. : ....... .., ....... ...... . .. ....... . .. ....... . .. , .. .. ....... , .. ....... ... .... .. , .. .. ...... ... ....... , .. .... ... .. . ... . .. ....... , .. . .. .... .., . .. .... .., .. . ........ (]) ....... ....... : "0 .. {!! .... ~ .... O"l .. ..... ,.. : C - .. :+;:; .. .... (/) .... Jj .... .... .. .... ..... ::p (/) (]) ~ c o 15 ~ jjJ 1:: o U: . ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................ .............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .............................................................. ................................................................. ................................................................ .............................................................. ................................,............................. ............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. .................................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................ ................................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................ .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................ .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. .................................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ................................................................ .............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................ ............................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ................................................................ .............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. ............................................................... ................................................................ ............................................................... ................................................................ ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. ................................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ................................................................ .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. .................................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................... ................................................................ ............................................................... ............................................................... ................................................................... ................................................................ ............................................................. ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... ................................................................ ............................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................... ................................................................ .............................................................. ............................................................... .................................................................... ............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ................................................................. .............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................... ................................................................. .............................................................. ................................................................ ................................................................ ................................................................ .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. ............................................................... .............................................................. .............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. .............................................................. ................................................................ ................................................................ ............................................................... ................................................................... ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................... ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. ................................................................ ............................................................. ................................................................. ............................................................. .............................................................. Exhibit H BUILDING ELEVATION - WEST (FRONT) ../ CITY OF SHQREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOO, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474.3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood.cityhaU@shorewood.state.net . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council . FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 September 1999 RE: Olson, Scott - Setback Variances FILE NO.: 405 (99.15) BACKGROUND . Mr. Scott Olson owns the property at 6125 Ridge Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to demolish the existing home on the property (see Exhibit B) and replace it with a new home, as shown on Exhibit C. Mr. Olson has requested a front yard setback variance and a bluff setback variance in order to build the proposed house. The property in question is located in the R-IA/S, Single-family Residential/Shoreland District and contains 39,786 square feet of area. Since Ridge Road is a private street the front setback is measured from a point starting at 15 feet from the traveled surface of the road. Consequently the existing home does not comply with front yard setback requirements. The lot is also subject to a 150 foot setback from Silver Lake. The topography of the site qualifies most of the property as a bluff, under the shoreland management regulations contained in Section 1201.26 of the Shorewood Zoning Code... As is typi<;:al of many lots on the east side of Ridge Road, the site drops off dramatically toward Silver Lake. Topographyon this site is most severe on the northerly half of the lot. The existing home sits on a relatively level area on the south half of the lot. As can be seen on the attached exhibits, the applicant proposes to locate the new home substantially within the footprint of the existing home. The proposed home will contain o PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER M~~t\t I ~ ~)' Memorandum Re: Olson, Scott - Setback Variances . 2 September 1999 approximately 985 square feet of floor area on each of two stories, with another 635 square feet in the walkout basement. Floor plans for the proposed house are shown on Exhibit D. Building elevations are shown on Exhibits E-O. The applicant explains his variance request in a letter, dated 3 Al1gust1999 (Exhibit H). ANALYSmmECOMMENDATION The applicant met with staff in advance of preparing plans for the new home. The design being considered reflects suggestions made by staff that attempt to comply as closely as . possible to Shorewood and DNR shoreland management requirements. . As illustrated on Exhibits Band C, the front yard setback requirement, combined with the 150 foot setback from Silver Lake, results in a very minimal buildable area on an otherwise large lot. With the exception of the existing building pad, the site is entirely bluff. As a consequence almost anything done on the site requires some sort of variance. The plans as submitted attempt to strike a balance between the City's setback requirements and the relatively new DNR bluff requirements. The proposed house is located as much as 20 feet further back from the road than the existing home. As shown on Exhibit C, the new house is 28 feet from the road on the garage end, but angles away from the road to 51 feet on the south end of the house. While this complies more closely to the buildable area of the lot than the existing home, it pushes it somewhat further into the bluff area. The applicant has designed the home, including the deck, to comply exactly with the 150 foot setback from the lake. . In addition to better compliance with the front yard setback requirement, moving the house away from the house allows drainage to be conducted around and away from the house. Currently the grade of the lot forces drainage toward the front of the house, undoubtedly contributing to the deterioration of the existing home. The variances in this case are considered to be justified. Strict application of focal and state regulations would render the lot unbuildable, depriving the applicant of reasonable use of the property, particularly when the topography of the site is factored in. The variance is considered to be minimal, as evidenced by the very low eight percent hardcover being proposed. It is therefore recommended that the variances be granted as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to arty construction activity, including demolition, construction limit fencing and erosion control barriers must be erected. -2- .. , . .. . . Memorandum Re: Olson, Scott - Setback Variances 2 September 1999 2. The site plan should be revised to include a combination parking space/pullout on the north end of the site. This has been required, where feasible, on many of the properties on Ridge Road due to the extremely narrow traveled surface of the road. 3. Site grading and drainage should be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. . cc: Jim Hunn Tim Keane Larry Brown Scott Olson -3- I >'.' ~ ~ ~~ ~ NORTH ~~ ~C:) ,. , i f' ; i j Not to Scale i I i' ,'" ~ ." ----------~---~---~-- . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ j i f. ~ ! ! ....... (4l} +~: .."w.........." . Exhibit A SITE LOCA nON Olson, Scott - Setback Variances i ~ i ! i ! i i ; IL I i it. I i ~ ~ ; ! :::r:.;. ~-:":t .. ~ l"-'b\& ~tA. 6.( Lot ,.,/ /~./ ", ;f6.)tbo ' .l' . . '1 / NPRTH SCALE '". 20' Nt CORN[lI Of He. J, 1.116. R. U ". . '.. o ('I 25 R..... Rood, Shore..ood, I.Ilnne.olo. , , , , , , , , , , , , .'1/ " l: f/ /,' /, ,1./ ,. 1// II.: 'I.: .t"': _mmenl Lol 7, Secllon 36. Town.hlp 116 North, R""9. 23 We.1 of Ih. wldlan: Commencing 01 th. Norlh4O.1 corner 01 Section 2, Townehfp 1111. ce Norlh 29'19' Eool, 668.5 leel; lhence South 68'1", 110.7 leel oint 01 beglnnln9 01 Ih. Troct 01 land to b. described; lhone. HorIh 21'32' ,...tlon with olin. porollol with and 150 1001 Norlheo.t....y. m........d at .... aoId 110.7 1001 1In. b.orIn9 Soulh 68'11' Eo'l; Ihenc. Norlh 21'49' thenc. South 68'11' Eot 10 Ih. thoro 01 SIver Loke; thonc. SOUthout....y """" . on intersection with 0 line beorIn9 SOUlh 68'1" Eosl from th. oc",,", polnt ,enee North 68'1" W..I 10 Ihe oclual point of beginning. for the purpo... 01 lhIt South line 01 .old Secllon 36 Ie o.eumed 10 b. due Eo.I ond Wo.1 'lne. NOTES: I. The or....lollon of IhIe beotlng .yol.m Is ba.ed on Ih. HUlh line of Section 36. TOWftol11p 117 Norl", Rung. 23 which Is o_ed 10 hove o b_I'9 01 Eo.!. 2. Th. orr of Ih. properly de_lbed hereon .. 42,747 f"!1 or 0.9813 GGr.... 3. No till. work we. fu,nlthed for the preporotlon of IhIe _vey 10 -uy the h90I deecrlplon or lhe eldalonce 01 any _Is or _anc.... ..eoa., C.'j ~ ~ ~ . I. Q true and correct ,.",...entGtJon 0' 0 eurvey of the above deocrlbed and of the locotlon of on building., If ony, PtcroachmMla. I' Oft)'. from or on Hid fond.. fe.,;.,ory. 1999 ~d II lAp,.. 1999 by. ~ W...... Jeer. _. I.Ilnnooolo lie..... No. 20281 EGAN FIELD & NOWAK SURVEYORS ( .. . I.'.,' .~. " ~c ~J.t....J ~', fir ,~. t".) VJ INe. ~::.fA =~-:o TrU": Ift''''l ..,. ,...., ~ tj,~:~J~~ r +-,vla-s:ao .r-i~1i:2w~ OJ ""OoJJ~o...... c ell '''C'lC'l 0 ,yof.~ e ~ ...... ..... '" I.V.c: "t:J 'f1, '" ~ ,-f ~ '~o ".. ,!!I ~ cd ~ (;; '3 U bil ,.d ..,. V) f-o e NIN 'MOOMClOHS O\iOCl 380lCl 9l~9 3~N3aIS3~ NOS10 1]'-;.: 13""'ll >. "-: s ....Q l'1i:l >. "'- .. ..Q1l~~g J;: ~ .. c> ';1 ~ g C>...... 'j;: ~il~Kf ~ 'i3 II ..Cl '" z ~ ...:l l:l-t ~ ~ """" rn Q ~ urn .....0 :.ol:l-t '-0 ~~ f.Lll:l-t UI a: :J <no mlU -I- I-i: xu lI?~ >-1- r'o( -- -~"'-' :;;~ --;}';;AIJt:j - - ----------- -- (gJ -- tL , .u:. ~ ~ ll;. t\- - - (7)l- u.. (/l CI'\ - (:jl , c;,; 0" (/' --::.. cA ~ .c> b r:!~ \.,.. J. -:r ~ - 0 <J t--l r- ~ - .. ~ 1\ - rf\ - , \- ,9- , ~ i)-- ~ \\) ':J. J:~ ~~~ 5~~", ~ ~ $Cill ~~S~ "'-:Si~ U)~ tU ~ \:::" ~ )- N . . is:. )(' 1:0 .. ; ,., ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~o~ . 1.'7" . -.a o;::-l I , I I - - - - 026- ---.../- ............ ." ::S___ . , -t- .j ~ ~ - <f- Q~b - - ---.. ~ f I ~ I ; -1- ~ -vJ- ,k \1 ,"'\ .~ ~ t: ~ ,~ ! ~ ~ ~Il\.. o 0 /""'01 -:\;:::. ~ J..,.....' J ~ ~ ~ r:;::::... ~~t ~~ \0- ~. ;,.,) "'X. . l- ~ -~ 4. ---l ~ ~ ~ ! I : I I I --- ..:i. i ~ - -- ill_ ~t-- ~~ ~ .: ~u:l 'ill~ ~n.. ~~ a-~ ~ ::::> ~,a z~ ~~ III _GJ... t-- I(::: ~tU ~. )(~ )( M~ -~f Q) 1 ~ _\!> ttl 1 ~ "!;: ~ .- --- . .a ~ -.--",,",,--- 01>/, -- - -- I I I -- --- ~ ---- ~.Jr- -r;.Jr- ~ -,- , ...- I ...1 r ~ \ J. / c- <r , ';>~6 11- _<J) s- ~)-. ~ .~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ U)_ ,~ 4.\- \S~ ~~ ~OA 2~ 1;;;Z 1.- ~ <.1) ; ~ ~,o ~-1~ -~s ""- . -t- t\\ ~ s.. ~ ~~ ~<O ;<..(1.\\ x x.o " ~ ~ lU~.l.. .\U~ 1llt- ~ 0- . . .. 'J SNV'ld lIOO'lil aaSOdOlId a l!q!qxg ~.~ ~.~ ~~ ~ tl'eu '" -. !', ::,' :11 , \1 t hi 3 .r .-. ~ j." ~ 1'1 ..~ 00_ - t,~ 8 " " - ~ ') i.J r"1 ~- -l C)I~ ,.:. ..... '-.... I ....../ .~ ~' ~ oi:::;;I .~ ~ 1M. d' >< ~i :;'7 2r t/'~ , -. :"qt r \l , e ..,. \ -<:0 ~ '., 7- ~ ""... ~ .' "11 -- 0:. - 8 "\ " ~ J\ '1 . . ~ ~ ~ ;; -.:I CI- a. ~ ~ '" ..." s- :l ool~]tg.~ ~ .-tv'sr .... .... ,s, i r ~ OLSON RESIDENCE " ~'-, n :l i i, ~~'C;~.; ~ !. ~ E' s.; l! i OLSON RESIDENCE OLSON RESIDENCE !!. n !!. o' a ::. If e ... e' a .... If +- o. a .. If " ~~E:,: " ~ ~ ~~CT i=__AoIT o' ~.. g -;- ~~ Il, " ff .. c: ~ v":'i S .. il~~-:-i 6125 RIDGE ROAD " ~_=9.. ~ 6125 RIDGE ROAD P:..":l - - S """:-i 6125 RIDGE r 'AD ~ 0 o' S ""' ~ ... If:;;- , ~rt1e:~,; " !l ... ' If- :'\.... ~ :t-" ~ :"l,j!: SHORWOOW, MN SHORWOOW, MN ... . SHORWOOVV. et&2' II ~ MN J-.. III ,. oD' r:: . :. ./ C '. 'i ;- ~ 1'-- I~' 1,-' 0\; ,,:) ~'"'ij (-, I I \ I \_,1 I~ I~ ~~ ~ i I..j' '~ ,~ 7" ).. >- ~2: .,.."'" .' \T 5:g ~7 ';1 ...., " )/" :;:z... "--ll [., ',', '" "" ~ '\. .... -II #= -- ?" (!-)-~ ...., ~'4 - -.. - .- _.:t...... - .-_. . - _.. r ~ . - 1. '-:,~n r "IP~/ 1J "V ~ I 0,," 'C l,.~I"YH"- _ H~al':' ~ r ~IGH I 1999 RCHITECTl.JRE ~ hab. architec It c;i t Itamid m. ture, ~c. ~OlO W lcasham- aia S est 65th S wte;#120 E' !reet Tel: 612 i 92dina. ~1;.; , 0-4953 regislrations: .... .~< \ ? ~ ~ ~~_: ,/ ~~ ~~ /"" ~ W (.) ZOZ W<(;:E C ~ - ,(j)WS Wc>O r;:t:OO ZC2$ 01.00::: U)~~ ..JCOCl) o ~ k ~ .L.. ~.~ ~, Exhibit E scale: i/" 'I, t I II BUIL'. -D DING ELEVATION FRONT . .~ ., 7: C'I) +-' U ~::='I/) .a (Tj.~.~.:s..J~ .~ i:i~~~ :1 ..00 .:J~~ 0 ,....1:;j S b. ... ... '0 10\1..&:1 "PO "" 'Cl C ,..d ~ 'il ::: ,~ it ,it ~~l/)f-< ~ NV\I cMOOM~OHS avo~ 38al~ 9Z~9 3~N3a1S3H NOS10 ['...... ----- -. ~ i I i I / I / t'-". 1 . ,'..=~__..J (f:t: ',8 s;.NEl k.Q ~~ .. 1 v- ~ .g Jl!"['1 '----'---'--- J= 1 1..,.. ~ .. / ---.op E; " ._--- ~ - C n._ _ ."-"..--- ..-... , ~I I j i .. ~ t=- DO. r=J II --. "') . - I "'-"--',J- ! I . S <a ] OJ u 1 0::11:11 ~~ t:I ~. -0 z .~ tI;1 L '\ t"'4 tr:l ~ ~ ~- -- , 0= -f'-l ~ -. CJ l [:=1 ~ ~ j' ~ [ g. It i ! I: I- ! t r r: '" .......[ IT ul ~ .t:r ';1 ~":'l ..J\ ....1\ H " ./"J- ;. .-,:10_.;., . .. . . . _"___ u . "-",--. " . ..--.- . -- -, - . OLSON RESIDENCE 6125 RIDGE ROAD SHQRWOOV\l. M~. ~. "' '" ( ~ ~ ~ ~ p (" :J n t 1~lfff. g: !:':: I!. r...... . ~_.. ~ 01. i j';", . . Scott M. Olson 6125 Ridge Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Home Phone (612) 470- 5127 August 03, 1999 City of Shorewood To whom it may concern: Subject: Variance Application for Scott M. Olson 6125 Ridge Road, Shorewood, MN Enclosed are the materials required by Shorewood to process my application for building variances. These variances for building closer than sixty-five feet from the road and upon a slope _ greater than thirty percent, are being requested in anticipation of removing the present house, and building a new single family residence in which I will reside. The decision to tear down the existing house and build a new one, has been made only after carefully considering the alternatives. Building a new house, while significantly more costly should not only provide me with a more safe and secure home to raise a family, but should also provide a more attractive structure that can only improve the quality of the neighborhood The present house was built in 1973. and does not confonn to the current road setback or bluff impact regulations. It is a cantilevered structure, built on stilts without a basement. As a result of it's design and construction it has substantial deterioration problems, as discussed below. In addition the house is built very close to -the road and is not very attractive relative to the other homes in the area. Given it's present location, design and construction; I don't believe thatit can be improved enough to reflect the overall feeling of quality represented by the rest of the neighborhood. Following are responses to Section 1201.05, Administration, variances and appe~s: Subd. 2a( 1)- The new structure will not further impair the supply of air or light to adjacent properties. It will be located further from the road, and will be approximately the same height as the present house. (2)- It will not increase the congestion on the private road serving the property. (3)- With current building codes and improved building materials the danger offire should be less and public safety increased. Exhibit H-l APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER Dated 3 August 1999 . . :. . (4)- The new house should increase not diminish the property values in the neighborhood. (5)- I don~t believe this proposal violates the city's Comprehensive Plan. 2b.(1)- As mentioned before, the cantilevered design and construction of the present home is quite unique. These factors have made this structure difficult to insure. In addition, due to the relative land to building value ratio, it is virtually impossible to mortgage. Some of the problems caused by the design and construction are: In several areas framing members are decaying, in front of the house there is decay from the mud-sill through the floor joists into the subfloor, the cantilevered design of the decks has caused deterioration of the floor joists and subfloor adjacent to the decks. . 2b(IXa)- As the requirements for building on slopes, and those as to how close you can build to the water and roads, have been changing it has made building on this lot more challenging. In reality the property is quite large, but changes in the regulations make the request for these variances necessary. (b)- As it will cost more to tear-down and rebuild, I am not requesting these variances primarily for economic reasons, I am requesting them because of concerns about the design and construction of the home and current governing regulations. (2)- Due to the sloping contours of many of the properties on this road, I would assume that several of the houses would not be in compliance with current requirements. What I am proposing to accomplish, will in my opinion, not only improve the quality of my property but will bea welcome improvement to the neighborhood. Therefore, I respectfully request that you approve the required variances. Thank you for your consideration . Sincerely, Scott M. Olson Exhibit H-2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 01- A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO SCOTT OLSON WHEREAS, Scott Olson (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 6125 Ridge Road, City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is located entirely within the 50-foot front yard setback area required by the Shorewood Zoning Code; and . WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a variance to structurally alter the existing house by building a basement under it; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a setback variance to rebuild the existing decks and add a porch on the rear of the home; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 5 August 2001, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 7 August 2001, 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 August 2001, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant 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. The subject property is located in an R-INS, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the front property line. 2. The existing building on the property is located entirely within the 50,..foot front yard setback area. 3. The subject property is characterized by a steep slope extending down to Silver Lake. 4. Strict adherence to the bluff, front yard and lakeshore setback requirements would render the lot unbuildable. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Minnesota Statutes. 2. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a variance to structurally alter the existing home. 3. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicants a setback variance for the construction of a porch and to rebuild the existing decks on the rear of . the existing house. 4. conditions: a. The variances granted in 2. and 3., above, are granted subject to the following Prior to any construction activity, construction limit fencing and erosion control barriers must be erected (southwest of the existing house). b. The Applicant's site plan should be revised to inClude a combination parking space/pullout on the north end of the site. c. Site grading and drainage shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 5. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide 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 SHOREWOOD this 27th day of August 2001. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- " f . . DRAFT THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE LICENSING 310.01: PURPOSE: 310.02: DEFINITIONS: Subd. 1. Massage Therapy. "Massage Therapy" shall mean a scientific health care or health maintenance technique or procedure carried out by a massage therapist involving the massaging, kneading, rubbing, pressing, stroking, tapping, pounding, vibrating, or stimulating the human skin, muscles and tissues for no other purpose than physical fitness, health-care referral, healing relaxation, or beautification. Subd. 2. Massage Therapist. "Massage Therapist" shall mean a person, other than a person licensed as a medical doctor, chiropractor, osteopath, podiatrist, licensed nurse, physical therapist, athletic director or trainer, or beautician or barber who confines his/her treatment to the scalp, face and neck; who for compensation practices and provides massage therapy; who has a certificate of completion with a minimum of 500 hours of class credits from a recognized massage therapy schpol. 310.03: LICENSE: It shall be unlawful for any person to practice any form of massage other than a Therapeutic Massage as defined in this section and then only after first obtaining a duly issued license therefor from the City. Subd. 1. Application. All applications fora license to practice Therapeutic Massage shall contain such information as the Council may, from time to time, require. All applicants shall be at least eighteen (18) years of age. Subd. 2. Term. All licenses issued under this ordinance shall expire on the last day of December of each year Subd. 2. Renewals. Licenses must be renewed annually. The renewal application shall be accompanied by an annual fee as provided in Section 1301.02 of this Code. 310.04: FEES: All initial applications shall be accompanied by a non-returnable investigation fee as provided in Section 1301.02 of this Code. 310.05: EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. Each applicant for a Massage Therapist license shall furnish with the application proof of the following: a. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a school approved by the American Massage Therapist Association or other similar reputable massage association; or $&fE J ..~ b. A diploma or certificate of graduation from a school which is either accredited by a recognized educational accrediting association or agency, or is recognized by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board or other state agency having jurisdiction over the school. 2. Each applicant shall also furnish proof at the time of application of a minimum of 500 hours of successfully completed course work in the following areas: a. The theory and practice of massage, including, but not limited to, Swedish, Esalen, Shiatsu, and/or Foot Reflexology techniques; and b. Anatomy, including, but not limited to, skeletal and muscular structure and organ placement, and physiology; and c. Hygiene 310.06: EXCEPTIONS TO LICENSE REQUIREMENTS: This Section shall not apply to persons in the following professions: . 1. A state licensed physician, chiropractor, osteopath, podiatrist, nurse, physical therapist, or assistant working under the direction of any of the above-described professionals. 2. A state licensed physical therapist, athletic director, or trainer, or an assistant working under the direction of any of the above-described professionals. 3. A state licensed beautician or barber, provided treatment is limited to the scalp, face, and neck. 310.07: LICENSE RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS: All Massage Therapist licensees shall: 1. Display current licenses in a prominent place at their place of employment. . 2. Upon demand of any police officer at the place of employment, produce correct identification. 3. Practice massage only at such locati,on as is designated in the license. 4. Inform the City Clerk in writing of any change in location prior to such change. 5. Refrain from the use of and not be under the influence of alcoholic beverages or any controlled substance as defined in Minnesota Statutes while practicing Therapeutic Massage. " . . 6. Be in full compliance with the restrictions and regulations set forth in subsection of this Section. 7. Require that a person who is receiving a massage shall have his/her genital areas covered with an appropriate opaque covering. 310.08: VIOLATIONS: Every person who commits or attempts to commit, conspires to commit, or aids or abets in the commission of any act constituting a violation of this Ordinance, whether individually of in connection with one or more persons or as principal, or agent, or accessory, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and every person who falsely, fraudulently, forcibly, or willfully, induces, causes, coerces, requires, permits, or directs another to violate any of the provisions of this Ordinance is likewise guilty of a misdemeanor. Each violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a separate offense. 310.09: PENAL TIES: Conviction of a violation of this Ordinance shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of any license issued hereunder. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council 1\ ~ Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator V-i-> August 23, 2001 Appointment to Land Conservation and Environment Committee (LCEC) . The Council has scheduled an interview with David E. Downs, 20465 Radisson Road, for possible appointment to the LCEC. At this time, the LCEC is scheduled to be disbanded in June 2002, unless the City Council extends its existence. City Council Action: The City Council should decide whether it wishes to. appoint David Downs to the Land Conservation and Environment Committee (LCEC). . --n-- lOLl 11-" I I n ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Shorewood Park Foundation Craig W. Dawson, ex-officio director Qt> August 23,2001 Appointment to Board of Directors TO: FROM: . The Shorewood Park Foundation currently has eight members serving on its Board of Directors. According to its revised by-laws, which were approved by the City Council in March 2001, the Board may have between seven and nine members on it. The Board nominates persons to serve as directors, and appointment occurs after the City Council approves the nomination. At its August 16,2001, meeting, the Board of Directors nominated Roxanne Martin, 5750 Christmas Lake Road, to serve as a director of the Shorewood Park Foundation. Ms. Martin is interested to serve in this capacity. She has served the Shorewood community previously on the Park Commission. . The Board recommended that Ms. Martin be appointed to a two-year term (Le., through February 28, 2003). Currently, three directors are serving through February 2002; two directors through February 2003; and two directors through February 2004. The director representing the Park Commission has an indefmite term. City Council Action: The City Council may approve or deny the appointment of Roxanne Martin to the Board of Directors of the Shorewood Park Foundation. If appointed, Ms. Martin'sterm should run through February 28, 2003. 1t lOb n ~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~.. . 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 MEMORANDUM FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members .Craig W. Dawson, City Administrato~ - Bonnie Burton, Director of Finance ~~ TO: . DATE: August 23, 2001 SUBJECT: Funding Commitment to Excelsior Fire District for Land Purchase As staff reported at the August 13 City Council meeting, the Excelsior Fire District Board has requested its member cities to make interim revenue commitments for the purchase of the main/west fire station site at 24140 Smithtown Road. In terms of what could be accomplished, the first preferred alternative was for the City of Deephaven to make this commitment in full; the second preference was for the City of Deephaven and the City of Shorewood to share equally (approximately $275,000 each) in this commitment. At its August 20,2001, meeting, the Deephaven City Council authorized a $300,000 interim revenue commitment. This would leave a balance of $250,000 for the City of Shorewood to make. . The City of Shorewood is in a position to make this level of commitment. The City recently received the $200,000 contribution from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for the purchase of the Gideon Glen property. These funds were repaid to the Sewer Fund and are now available as a source of revenue pending the decision of the City Council regarding the EFD interim revenue commitment. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review and approve the attached resolution which authorizes an interim revenue commitment of $250,000 to the Excelsior Area Fire District, subject to certain conditions. This revenue commitment is for the purchase of property at 24140 Smithtown Road for the main/west fire station. #. \,.1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER j/=ID lL ..~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 01- _ A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE SEWER FUND TO THE EXCELSIOR FIRE DISTRICT, SETTING THE SPECIFICATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE REPAYMENT THEREOF WHEREAS, the City Council is interested in assisting the Excelsior Fire District with . development of new fire facilities, and an offer to purchase land for this purpose has been made and accepted; and, WHEREAS, the purchase will be partially financed by a transfer of funds from the Sewer Fund to the Excelsior Fire District; and . WHEREAS, the City wishes to provide for repayment and reimbursement of this inter- agency loan/transfer of funds from the Sewer Fund at a fair market rate of return; and, WHEREAS, the Council has considered such provisions and specifications for the loan and repayment and found them to be fair and reasonable; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. The Shorewood City Council hereby authorizes a transfer of $250,000 from the Sewer Fund to the Excelsior Fire District. . 2. The Finance Director is hereby authorized to prepare payment to the Excelsior Fire District contingent upon review and approval of any documentation by the City Attorney. 3. The inter-agency revenue commitment will be repaid to the City of Shorewood upon issuance of permanent financing by the Excelsior Area Fire District. Repayment is anticipated to occur in 2001 and will include payment of a finance fee of $12,500 (or pro-rata portion thereof equivalent to 5% per year) to the City of Shorewood. 4. The repayment proceeds (principal and finance fees) will be transferred to the Sewer Fund as full repayment when said proceeds are received. 5. The Excelsior Fire District may elect to prepay the debt in whole or in part at any time. Redemption will be at its option and in such manner as it determines. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, this 27th day of August 2001. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: . CRAIG W. DA WSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR . ~ ). CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128. www.cLshorewood.mn.us. cityhall@cLshorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council . Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator /3 k . August 23, 200 1 ~ Johnson et aI. v. City of Shore wood et al. . The attached memorandum and notice of appeal are self-explanatory. City Attorney Keane will be able to answer general questions in open meeting. . ;fI:. / J. f1 4 {) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER " HOFF, BARRY & KUDERER, P.A. l PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION TELEPHONE (952) 941-9220 \ J.'" "".. i~ ')n O'i 1-800-989-9220 ,!,~t b ,(, U .." FAX (952) 941-7968 GEORGE C. HOFF* ; 'l(: e-mail gch@wintemet.com -'''Also Admitted in Wisconsin August 17, 2001 Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood,~ 55331-8926 Timothy J. Keane LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN 1500 Norvvest Financial Center 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Bloomington, ~ 55431-1194 . Re: Ronald Richard Johnson et al. v. City of Shorewood et al Case No. 00-CV-1281 (DWF/AJB) Our File No. 3200-108 Dear Craig and Tim: Mr. Johnson has appealed the July 11, 2001, Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. Enclosed is a copy of the Notice of AppeaI. The appellant's brief is due within 40 days of the filing of the record. Our responsive brief is due within 30 days after service of the appellant's brief, and the appellant's reply briefis due within 14 days after service of our responsive brief. The Clerk notifies all parties of the date of filing of the record. If you have any questions, please feel free to give me a call. . GCH:wmp Enclosure cc: Mark Rossow, BRAC #11031177 (w/enclosures) 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, #260-EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344-5382 . . rI-' .-,.. .,' ,; " , . '." .....~, l~ ~-'~/'''''' ..... / ~,; . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT R~C"l:-I\/CD "; ':':;-' ""1111 .1_, It:.:, L... f""~......~._). _~!i;.J... FOR THE DISTRICT OF ~SOTA Of AUG rOAM ll: 2: FOlJRTH DIVISION Cr -::~' ! t~, !"'l f'~r- -,f"J ......,- Le:. U\, 1.,1.~. :...1.::; ..\..;..A~i,;' .IUI"I~,;i::~cr.' 'e: ;'" 1~'lu'lr \t.J . ""'U'-', 1\;' "," Ronald Richard Johnson; and Dee Lundberg Johnson, Civil No. 00-CV-1281 (DWF/SR:..~) Plaintiffs, JOINT PL.A.INTIFF NOTICE OF i\PPE.:..I. vs. C~'CY of Shorewood; City ofMinnetonka; Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District; Trivesco, a partnership; and its partners Robert H. Mason, Inc., a corporation; Highland Properties, Inc., a corporation; and Steiner and Koppelman, Inc., a corporation; Highland Villa Builders Inc., a corporation; the United States; the Corps of Engineers of the United States; the Secretarf of the United States Army in his/her official capacity, Honorable Louis Claderaor his successor; and the COl111-nander-in-Chief of the Corps of Engineers of the United States in hislher official capacity, Lt. General Jos'ePh N.' Ballard or his successor, Defendants. Notice. is hereby given that Ronald Richard Johnson and Dee Lundberg Johnson, husband and wife plaintiffs in the above named case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from a judgment entered in this action on July 11~ 2001 and ~ all court orders or reports related thereto in all respects. We do not intend in this appeal . to deprive the United States Court of Federal Claims of'any jurisdiction over our claims. U&J-~ Ronald R. Jo n . - 5355 Shady Hill Circle Shorewood, ~ 55331 Tel: (952) 474-8171 Dated: 5f--/o - 0/ AUG... .. n ".: :~1 FlLEO . 1, i ,1.,-,..,... 1 RlCHAAO o. Sl.ETTEN. C:"..:":( ,jUDGMENT ENTC-,...-- OEP\JT'I' ClEflK --";;"':-":;;":::--