Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
082707 CC Reg AgP
CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2007 AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Callies Wellens B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session Minutes, August 6, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) B. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, August 6, 2007 (Att. -Minutes) C. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, August 13, 2007 (Att.- Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give t/ze public an opportunity to request un item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Staffing - No action required C. Conditional Use Permit Request (Att. -Resolution) Applicant: Gregory and Lorraine Scott Location: 28100 Woodside Road 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 6. PUBLIC HEARING A. Vacate Drainage/Utility Easement -John Pastuck Addition (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) Location: 6105 Church Road CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -August 27, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 7. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held August 14, 2007 (Att.- Draft Minutes) 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. Conditional Use Permits for Two Houses on One Lot/Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet (Att.-Planning Director's memorandum; Draft Resolution) Applicant: John and Kristi Marquardt Location: 5985 Afton Road B. Setback Variance/Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure (Att.-Planning Director's memorandum; Draft Resolution) Applicant: Craig and Sandra Erickson Location: 4715 Lakeway Terrace C. Setback Variances (Att.-Planning Director's memorandum) Applicant: Thomas and Patricia Scherber Location: 5080 Shady Island Trail D. Extension of Time (Att.-Planning Director's memorandum) Appellant: John McMasters Location: 4530 Enchanted Point 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Authorize Expenditure of Funds -Network Server replacement (Att. - Staff memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Proposal for Bridge Inspection (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN CI°I'Z' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, 27 August 2007 6:00 P.M. -City Council Work Session is scheduled this evening. Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staffing - no action required. Agenda Item #3C: This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Greg and Lorraine (Pagoda Boathouse) Scott. It incorporates the findings of the Ad Hoc Committee for Nonconforming Accessory Structures (AHCNAC) as well as the Planning Commission. Agenda Item #6A: Mr. John Pastuck of 6105 Church Rd. requested vacation of the drainage and utility easement in exchange for a different drainage and utility easement. The exchange allows for more buildable area and the proposed easement functions better with the topography. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution contingent upon the recording of the proposed easement. Agenda Item #7A: Park Commissioner Jeremy Norman will report on the August 14, 2007, Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #8A: John and Kristi Marquardt have requested a conditional use permit that would allow them to live in their existing home at 5985 Afton Road while building a new home on the property. The new home will conform to R-1 A zoning requirements, whereas the existing one does not. Subject to the City Engineer's recommendation relative to drainage, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to approve the C.U.P. Agenda Item #8B: The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend against an "after-the-fact" variance for Craig and Sandra Erickson. The Ericksons propose to replace their previous deck with a newer, larger one. The Commission agreed that the variance would expand the existing nonconformity of the property, and thaf ample room exists on the site for additional deck space. The property had a larger deck that was replaced with a room addition. A draft resolution has been provided for Council consideration. .s ~. ~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 27 August 2007 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #8C: Thomas and Sandra Erickson applied for setback variances for their driveway and utility shed, which currently extend off of their property at 5080 Shady Island Trail. At the Planning Commission hearing on this matter, the applicants agreed to cut back the driveway and bring the shed into compliance with setback requirements. They have asked for additional time (15 October) to comply. Staff recommends that they be granted the additional time. Agenda Item #8D: John McMasters received an extension of time to correct code violations on his property. He called earlier this week to ask for an additional extension. Staff suggests that if noticeable progress has been made as of Monday night's meeting, the property owner should be given until 4 September for compliance, after which the matter should be turned over to the City Attorney. Agenda Item #9A: The City's network server is scheduled for replacement this year. Techies, the City's IT maintenance company and consultant, has worked with City staff to identify a server that will meet the City's needs for the foreseeable future. The unit selected costs a bit more than budgeted, but funds are available from the office equipment/technology capital fund or the balance in the General Fund. Staff recommends Council authorize acquisition of the network server as proposed in the staff memorandum. Agenda Item #10A: WSB and Associates, Inc. submitted a proposal for Bridge Inspection Professional Services for the Shady Island Bridge. The bridge requires inspection on an annual basis per Minnesota Rule 8810.9400. Staff recommends approval of the proposal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2007 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M. 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the agenda a p-•esented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. 2008 SLMPD BUDGET Administrator Dawson explained on July 19, 2006, the Coordinating Committee of the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) recommended the 2008 proposed budget for consideration by the four member cities' councils. "The member cities" councils needed to act on the proposed budget by September 1, 2006. He then reviewed the budgetary process as outlined in the Joint Powers Agreement that governed the SLMPD.. Dawson then explained the SLMPD 2008 proposed budget requested the member cities contribute a combined amount equal to $1,726,900, x$95,375 (5.8%) increase from 2007 to 2008. The City's requested contribution was X863,450 (50% of the operational costs, a formula based on the outcome of the SLMPD Funding Formula F3inding Arbitration). He noted the major cost drivers on the expenditure side wei~efor salary and overtime costs, PERA (which reflected increases mandated by the Legislature), health insurance, and fuel (which was shown under "supplies"). Dawson also cx}~lained the lease. on the building was apportioned among the cities on a tax capacity basis. The City's share for 2008 would be $244,003 (55.33%); its share was $249,509 (56.45%) in 2007. Dawson went on to explain the SLMPD had prepared a separate proposal to provide expanded community service officer coverage; that coverage would include providing animal control services. The expanded CSO coverage was premised on hiring two part-time community services officers (CSOs) who together would work 40 hours-per-week. The cost would increase the SLMPD operating costs in 2008 by $45,000; the City's share would be $22,500 (50%). The City was paying $21,325 to Orono for animal control services in 2007; if the adjustment were 3% in 2008 it would pay $21,925. The City also paid an annual $1,200 retainer to an impound facility. If the four cities did not come to agreement on the expanded CSO coverage by September 1, 2007, it could be continued for discussion/revision further into the fall and be considered at a later time as an amendment to the budget. #Za CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 200'7 Page 2 of 11 SLMPD Chief Litsey was present, and he reviewed the highlights of the proposed 20008 Operating Budget and the Summary of Funds Supporting Operations (as detailed in those documents). He stated he appreciated the budget process being reviewed by the Operating Committee, comprised of all member city administrators and managers, and then being considered for recommendation by the Coordinating Committee. He explained there would be two action items for the Council to consider at its August 13, 2007, regular meeting -the 2008 Operating Budget, and the proposal for expanded CSO coverage. He commented the expanded CSO coverage would only be provided if ail four member cities approved the proposal. Chief Litsey made the following noteworthy comments and clarifications (in addition to the budget narrative provided) regarding the proposed 2008 Operating Budget. - There were data to support the SLMPD was understaffed based on comparing the number of officers to the number of residents. There were times when there was only one officer available for a shift, and that caused safety concerns; the goal was to have two officers per shift. Litsey would like to have enough staffing to provide proactive services (e.g., traffic monitoring). - There had been a previous decision by the Coordinating Committee to increase the contribution to the Designated Technology Fund Crom the Operating Fund by $2,000 per year from 2002 through 2008. That contribution was not keeping pace with the needs. Adjustments would need to° be made in 2009. - There were two significant technology purchases that must be planned for. The current record management system did not. interface with other law enforcement agencies' systems that it needed to, and the technology platform tlYe system used would not be supported in the future. The cost of a new record management system was anticipated to be in excess of $]00,000. Approximately $125,000 would be needed to replace existing equipment over the next 7 - 8 years. - It may be possible to use funds from the DWI Forfeiture Fund to support the purchase of anew record management system because the new system used in the squad cars would be used I-or DWI enforcement. - There were a number of capital and specialized funds which supported the operating budget. 1,he replacement schedule .for each of the funds identified the projected capital needs; there was not. a separate Capital Improvement Program document combining all of those funds. y The SLMPD strategic planning process would more precisely identify future capital needs. - The need for a I3uiiding Fund for long-term maintenance and replacements to the building had been discussed when the buildings were being built, but the need had not been addressed. - There were not enough officers to guarantee traffic enforcement services even if the cities requested those services for an additional cost. The topic of adding a traffic squad would be discussed as part of the strategic planning initiative. - The SLMPD utilized the State's bid for vehicle replacement. - The Vehicle and Equipment Funds receive transfers from Capital Outlay; the Technology Fund receives transfers from Equipment Leases; the Building Fund does not receive any transfers at this time; and the member cities make contributions directly to the Reserve Officer Fund. - The average hourly charge for providing supplemental policing services for BayView Event Center/Bayside Grille and Maynard's Restaurant was $62 and that figure included all related personnel costs. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 3 of it - The Deephaven Police Department had chosen to use Delano's firing range rather than the SLMPD range. - The SLMPD attempts to supplement its resources through donations and grants. Donations are tracked through the Equipment Fund. Councilmember Turgeon and Councilmember Wellens requested along-term capital plan (similar to the EFD's CIP) be prepared to reflect a replacement and purchase schedule. Litsey stated he did not think there was a need to project capital needs 25 years into the future because the capital needs of the SLMPD were not as significant as those of the EFD. Councilmember Callies stated the Strategic Planning initiative would identify future capital needs, including technology, and a replacement/purchase timetable. Chief Litsey stated the proposal for expanded CSO coverage was a good value and would be a more effective use of the financial resources the cities were currently paying. The following noteworthy comments and clarifications ~-vere made with regard to the proposal for expanded CSO coverage. - 4 PAWS animal control coverage was a response and periodic directed control coverage, but it was not general patrol like that provided by Orono. 4 PAWS did provide 24/7 coverage, and it did come and pick up the animal. - If the expanded CSO coverage was approved by all four member cities it would be included as part of the 2008 Operating Budget, and r•em~in as part of the operating budget in future years. - Part-time CSO positions were frequently. filled by aspiring law enforcement individuals. Chief Litsey did not think it would be appropriate to have apart-time CSO oversee range operations if the firing range were used by private parties. - Animal control services would be a small portion of what would be provided as part of the expanded coverage. - Shorewoodhad specialized needs for inspecting horse stables and licensed dog kennels. - The two-part time CSOs would 11ot do all the tasks performed by the full-time CSO. Councilmember Turgeon requested a list of what the exact animal control services provided by the SLMPD would be; she wanted to ensure the SLMPD would provide, at a minimum, the same level of animal' control services currently provided to the City's residents. Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Litsey for his efforts and for attending the meeting. 3. 2008 DRAFT BUDGFT Administrator Dawson stated staff had prepared and distributed to Council a first draft of the 2008 General Fund Operating Budget and a budget overview document. He explained Council needed to adopt a not-to-exceed property tax levy by September 15, 2007; the last Council meeting prior to that deadline was September 10, 2007. He commented, for the fourth year in a row the Legislature had not imposed local levy limits for the next calendar year. He stated he thought the draft budget was responsible and as "lean" as possible. Dawson explained the draft operating budget showed an increase of $1.85,054 (3.71%) in expenditures and transfers to capital funds. A property tax levy of $228,554 (5.2%) would be required to support that increase. The draft budget included the use of $100,000 from the balance in the General Fund to support the 2008 sealcoat and overlay programs per direction from Council. Police and Fire account for CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 200'7 Page 4 of 11 approximately 40% (or 1.5 percentage points) of the change; other City activities account for the remaining 60% (or 2.21 percentage points) of the changes. Dawson explained the City was exempted from the truth-in-taxation process if its levy increase was no greater than the implicit price deflator (IPD) for the government sector published by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The IPD (i.e. inflationary change) for the 2008 tax levy was 1.0428453 (an approximate 4.3% change). Dawson highlighted the draft budget overview document distributed to Council. The key increases in the 2008 General Fund expenditures included: salaries and insurance; fuel costs; transfers to capital funds; and cyclical activities. The draft budget overview memo included a s~munary of changes in levels of expenditure at the department/division level for non-personnel related expenditures, unless there was a significant change from salary and benefit adjustments. He then stated a draft policy regarding the General Fund Balance was also distributed to Council for review and discussion. Councilmember Wellens stated the draft budget overview document was well done. Mayor Lizee agreed. Councilmember Turgeon stated there was a debt service payment of $37,544 budgeted for 2008 in the Municipal Building/City Hall budget. She questioned where the $11,000 the City was supposed to receive from the County Road 19 project was reflected; those funds could be used to pay off the debt service. Administrator Dawson clarified the City was only scheduled to receive one-half of the $11,000, and Director Burton stated the funds were probably included in miscellaneous revenue, but she would verify that. Councilmember Turgeon questioned where the income from the City-owned house was reflected. Director Burton stated she would add the rental income minus associated expenses to the Municipal Building/City Hall budget. Councilmember Turgeon questioned the combined increase of 12% - I S% for insurance premiums. She suggested staff try and adjust the benefits or deductibles such that the total premium costs remain the same. Director Burton stated that information she had gathered indicated that increase was not unusual; the budgeted increase would be the maximum, Burton explained for employees governed by the AFSCME contract, the City paid up to two-thirds of the cost of a family plan. Burton also explained the final insurance premium costs would not be known until October and the Benefits Committee would be convetledto discuss this topic. Administrator Dawson stated insurance quotes provided by the City's insurance broker were reviewed annually. Councilmember Woodruff stated he would like to be presented with insurance options; he would like to evaluate the impact of maintaining the current maximum contribution, but he was not suggesting that was what should be done. Councilmember Turgeon stated the budget reflected a 2% economic adjustment on January 1 and July 1. She questioned what happened to the pay-for-performance approach initiated in 2006; she did not think an economic adjustment reflected that direction. She also stated an indicator had not been established yet for increases for employees who met or exceeded expectation. Director Burton clarified a 2% increase twice a year approximated a 3% annual increase; and the pay-rate charts reflected a market rate that increased yearly by an inflationary factor. Burton questioned if it was inappropriate to adjust the pay ranges annually to reflect inflation; that adjustment would allow persons at the top of their pay range to receive an inflationary adjustment to maintain their position in their pay range. Councilmember Woodruff stated that was a philosophical question Council had to answer. Administrator Dawson stated if an employee exceeded performance expectations they could receive an increase .5% - 1.0% higher than the semi-annual 2% increase, and the 2% semi-annual increase was based on the past practice. Woodruff then stated there were two items that must be addressed: a) an amount of money must be identified for CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 5 of 11 the combined salary increases; and b) a method must be determined for allocating that pool of money at a later time. Woodruff suggested staff ask other communities what types of salary increases they were considering in 2008. Burton stated the amount of money budgeted for salary increases was adequate to cover any approach that was used to allocate the raises. Turgeon stated it must be made clear to employees that a specific raise amount was not guaranteed. Woodruff stated if the combined raises did not exceed 3% of the 2007 salaries he was okay with that pooled amount for allocating raises. Councilmember Wellens stated the City had a trend for growing the General Fund reserves and there had been some discussion to reduce the reserves. He suggested maybe a permanent change should be made to stop the growth trend. Administrator Dawson highlighted his draft policy memo regarding the General Fund balance. He stated the latest position of the State Auditor regarding fund balances was the General Fund balance should be between 35% - 50% of operating revenues or not less than five months of operating expenditures. He explained bond-rating agencies prefer to see very strong and healthy balances because they indicate fiscal prudence and an ability to weather revenue volatility (including tax levy limits); healthy balances also confer higher credit ratings which result in lower interest costs. He went on to explain the City's undesignated fund balance had steadily increased over the past several years as a result of careful spending within the amounts authorized and unanticipated fee revenue. If the City were to maintain a balance of 55% - 60%, the reserves would be able to handle unexpected expenditures or emergencies, particularly if the practice was contimied t~ use the balance rather than the budget for contingencies. It was important to view surpluses (i.e. funds above the 55% - 60% level) as one-time revenues. Relying on surpluses to subsidize on-going revenues would develap a dependence on a variable source of revenue. In the proposed policy, the fund balance in excess of 60°,/o could he used immediately for capital projects or transfers. If the fund balance fell to 55% - 60% then none of the fund should be use for purposes other than cash flow and contingencies. If the undesignated fund balance fell below 55%, then that balance should be restored by budgeting no more than two zpercentage points annually until the 55% level is attained. In 2007, $3.30,000 of the reserves would be designated for specific purposes ($100,000 would be transferred to the Roadway Fund, and $230,000 would be designated to the Public Works addition); that would result in a reserve level of 56%. Couneilmember Wellens suggested that the rate of increase to the fund balance be reduced by adding more tothe Park Improvement hand. Director Burton commented $15,000 would be transferred to the Park Improvement Fund; $5,000 ~~~ould come from the existing Land Use Fund. A summary of Councilmember Woodruff's noteworthy comments, concerns and questions, as well as associated comments from others were as follows. - Wooda~uff suggested Council discuss the pros and cons of employer paid long-term and short-term disability versus reimbursing the employees for it at a future work session. - Woodruff questioned the $38,819 in year-to-date revenue in General Government Charges for Service. Director Burton explained revenues include special assessment searches, copies, zoning fees, subdivision fees, and pass-through account activities; the pass-through account funds were distributed to the appropriate account at year-end. Burton suggested the 2008 budgeted amount be adjusted to $8,000 - $10,000. - Woodruff suggested that Mayor and Council Support Services be reduced by $10,000; 2005 and 2006 actual expenses were approximately $10,000 less than the 2008 budget. Director Burton explained that approximately $43,000 was for various memberships; and $7,000 was for travel, conferences, and the year-end volunteer appreciation function. Woodruff suggested the budgeted amount be reviewed for appropriateness. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 6 of 11 - With regard to Woodruff s question about the year-to-date amount for Administration Supplies/Materials, Director Burton clarified that entry was an error and would be reclassified. - With regard to Woodruffs question about the budgeted amount for City Clerk Supplies/Materials, Director Burton stated she would determine what the reason was for the budgeted increase in 2008 and she would establish a general category for that line item. - Woodruff questioned the City Clerk Support Services 2007 budgeted amount of $35,835 when the 2006 actual was $29,454 and the 2005 actual was less than that; he suggested that be reviewed again. It was noted that the 2008 proposed budget was $4,000 less than the 2007 adopted budget. - With regard to Woodruff s question about the year-to-date amount for Elections Supplies/Materials, Deputy Clerk Panchyshyn c.larificd that was for maintenance on election equipment that was added. - Woodruff questioned the Finance Staffing budgeted amount of $176,272 compared to prior years. Director Burton explained the 2008 budgeted amount was Less than the 2007 budgeted amount because ahalf--time position was not filled in 2007 and was eliminated in 2008. Burton also explained that some of the Accounting Clerk's salary was allocated to other departments; she stated she would do an audit of how the Clerk's time had been spent. Woodruff asked that it be reviewed. - Woodruff stated he took a verified claims list from July 29, 2007, and on that list 51% of the checks and 61% of the vea•itied claims were related to liquor operations. He would like an approximation of ~~~hat portion of Accounting Clerk's time and Finance Director's time was spent on liquor operations activities; he wanted all liquor operations costs to be identified to fairly evaluate the true costs of liquor operations. - With regard to Woodruffs question about Professional Services Support Services, Administrator DawSOn stated none oC those expenses were offset. Director Burton stated much of the year-to-date amount was front-end loaded. Burton explained the 2008 budgeted amount reflected an approximate $7,000 increase for the assessor, approximately X6,000 more for the city prosecutor (whose fees had remained the same for a number o~f years),and there was an approximate $11,000 increase in legal expenses. Councilmember Wellcns suggested an increase be included for the auditor. Woodruff suggested t}Ze City obtain proposals for audit services. Councilmember Callies stated it could be appropriate toobtanl proposals for a number of contract services, but that was not part of the budget process. Councilmember Turgeon suggested the contracts for service be put out for proposals by year-end. Callies stated before the proposal process was done, she would like to review a list of the services the City was contracting for; she surmised it waslikely the prosecutor was not paid a significant amount of money even with the proposed increase. Woodruff stated Staff should provide Council with reasons why cex-tai n contracts should not be put out for proposals; he thought it was healthy to request them for auditing services. - Woodruff questioned the Planning Staffing budgeted amount of $195,291 compared to prior years. Director Burton explained salary increases as well as additional insurance benefits for a second part-time person were part of the reason. Woodruff suggested that it be reviewed. He also suggested the Planning Supplies/Materials be reviewed as it appeared too low; Director Nielsen thought the amount was appropriate. Director Burton explained the $2,450 for Planning Capital Outlay was for a desktop computer and software for a Planning Assistant. - With regard to Woodruff's question about Municipal Building Transfers year-to-date and 2008 budgeted, Director Burton explained the $110,000 was for a transfer of $60,000 to CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 7 of 11 the Sewer Fund for the past purchase of the City-owned house and $50,000 for Public Facilities Fund. Burton stated she would update the Transfers description. - With regard to Police, Director Burton clarified that $4,000 was included in the budget for over-time costs paid by the City, and funding was included in Police Support Services for the Reserve Officers Fund. - Woodruff questioned the City Engineer Staffing budgeted amount of $162,214 compared to prior years, and he stated the staffing allocations for 2008 were not included. Director Burton stated the 2008 staffing allocations would be the same as 2007, although there had been some reallocation of Director Brown's time and other Public Works employees' time. Burton explained there was an elaborate. spreadsheet that was used to allocate employees' time and to calculate projected salary and insurance increases. Engineer Landini explained the rationale for all the capital outlay items in this budget. - Woodruff questioned why the Public Works Service Staffing budgeted amount of $261,837 was less than the 2007 year-end projected amount of approximately $294,000 yet the staffing level remained the same. Director Burton explained the salaries reflect the timesheets submitted. Woodruff requested the budgeted amount and staffing levels be made consistent. Woodruff questioned where the labor savings fromthe Radio Read Meter project were reflected in 2008; he requested staff provide information on how that savings would be deployed. Woodruff suggested Council have discussion prior to the end of August with regard to the proposed Public Works building addition; the $170,000 in Capital Outlay for 2008 could remain in the 2008 budget for the next few weeks until the decision for an addition was reconsidered. Administrator Dawson stated the addition was first discussed in 2005. - Woodruff questioned the Streets and Roadways staffing and the budgeted amount of $122,973. Director Burton stated it may' be. helpful for her to provide Council with a staffing allocation chart for two utility maintenance workers, one utility lead, an engineering technician, and the Public Works Iirector. Burton explained that Support Services in this budget reflected an additional $8,000 to dispose of materials in landfill from street sweeping (not included in 2005 and 2006 actual amounts), in addition to increased expenses for roadway striping, traffic control and emergency signing. Burton noted she would fi~ ~ mistake in the Transfers amount. - With.regard to Snow and Ice Removal, Woodruff stated the metrics had remained the same in .2004 2006, yet the Supplies/Materials budgeted amount adopted in 2007 was more than t«~ice the 2005 actual and more than triple the 2006 actual. He explained he researched recent years' significant snow falls events (an event of 1 inch or more) from the Minneapolis Saint Paul Airport statistics. There were 10 in 2004, 24 in 2005, 9 in 2006, and 8 in the first half of 2007 (or 16 annualized for 2007). Based on the actual amounts for 20Q4 - 2006 and the number of events, the cost per event would be approximately $3,000 - $3,700. The projected event costs for 2007 were approximately $5,000. 1-1c c~ucstioned how the money was used. He stated the 2007 actual year-to-date spending «~as greater than in all of 2005 and 2006. Administrator Dawson stated the sand and salt costs had increased, and the transportation costs for the materials had increased significantly. Woodruff requested that staff provide cost-per-ton information for 2005 - 2007. Director Burton stated she would audit the account to determine if anything other than salt and sand was included in it. - With regard to Weed Control, Woodruff stated the City had 50 miles of roadway but he did not believe it did not spray that many miles. He questioned why the 2008 budgeted amount for staffing was one-fourth tine 2007 year-to-date actual. - With regard to Tree Maintenance, Woodruff stated the Staffing budgeted amount was significantly less than the 2007 adopted budgeted amount yet the 2007 and 2008 staffing level was the same. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 8 of 11 - With regard to Parks and Recreation, Woodruff questioned if there was a reduction in services provided because the staffing of the Light Equipment Operator position was reduced. He thought Parks was one area where the residents received a benefit for their money. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Director Burton stated there was $10,000 budgeted in Municipal Building Supplies/Materials for minor building maintenance and that may be subject to change based on information she was waiting to receive from Director Brown. In response to another question regarding the major renovation/rebuild of City Hall, Administrator Dawson stated the funding sources would be identified once a decision was made on which option would be pursued. Dawson stated if the renovation were to occur in 2008, it most likely would be funded by using some type of debt instrument and the first payment would not be due until 2009. Councilmember Woodruff stated a portion could be funded through a bond and the rest could be lei led. Director Burton stated she did not think she would be able to answer all of Councilmember Woodruff's questions by the August 13, 2007, Council meeting. Woodruff stated there was a month to have that completed. Mayor Lizee recessed the City Council work session at 9:00 P.N1. Mayor Lizee reconvened the City Council work session 9:09 P.M 4. CITY HALL DISCUSSION Administrator Dawson stated at a July 23, 2007, Council meeting Council requested BKV Group only updates to the construction costs for the 2004 bridge concept,: the 2005 renovation/addition option (12,200 square feet would be added to the building); and the 2005 new/replacement option (which would be 11,000 square feet larger than the existing building). Dawson reviewed the information provided by BKV Group about the updated construction costs which were based on a 5% per year increase for. the. consh~uction costs. ~ The updated construction costs for the 2004 the initial bridge concept (which included short-term. maintenance costs) were conservatively estimated to be $851,000. That was intended to be a band-slid solution for City Hall. The costs did not provide for a council chamber nor were set up and moving costs for an off-site chamber area. - The updated construction costs for the 2005 renovation/addition options ranged from $2,052,000 to $2,228,000. - The updated construction costs for the 2005 new/replacement option ranged from $2,500;000 to $3,100,000. Dawson stated at the same July 23 meeting, Council. requested staff provide a sketch of how the building spaces might be used in the expanded bridge concept. Director Nielsen coordinated the effort and submitted a sketchy sketch of that space. A final plan would need to be prepared by a registered architect. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Mayor Lizee clarified that Council had suggested that under the bridge concept all public meetings would be held off-site and the existing chamber area would be used for other purposes. Director Nielsen stated that the sketchy sketch he prepared was a hybrid of a couple of BKV Group's plans. All the bathrooms would be ADA compliant, the break room would be larger, the size of the office CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 9 of 11 spaces was similar to the size suggested by BKV Group in plans, approximately one-half of the existing chamber area would be used for a conference room which could be subdivided, and there would be an addition to the entry for a vestibule. He commented the HVAC for City Hall was very poor and needed to be addressed (it was inefficient and did not work well for the employees) and the drainage issues must also be addressed. He stated staff discussed the tradeoffs of moving the chamber off-site and using that area for other purposes or leaving the chamber as is; it had not determined that would be the better choice. Councilmember Turgeon questioned the $250,000 figure BKV recommended to use for budget purposes for the construction or accommodation of a new chamber in a remote location. Administrator Dawson stated he had not discussed that figure with Mr. Baxley, but he thought it may reflect establishing a chamber area similar to the existing chamber. Councilmember Woodruff stated when he suggested conducting public meetings at the Soutshore Center, the meetings would be set up with tables and chairs and some City audio visual equipment. Administrator Dawson stated based on his experience Couneilmembers were treated with more respect when they saton a raised platform than they were if the were seated on the floor level with the public looking down at them. Woodruff stated he thought that a number of meetings could be held at City Hall in the conference room area mentioned above. Dawson stated there must be adequate space for the public at public meetings. Councilmember Callies stated from her vantage point Council should consider aself-contained City Hall which was a decent public structure, and she thought that could be accomplished in a cost effective manner. She stated the facility should convey: respect to the Council, employees and the residents, and be effective for Council to work in. She clarified that she was not purporting that City Hall be larger than need be. She stated from her perspective the only advantage to the bridge concept was it may be the cheapest when an "apple-to-apple" comparison ~~~as done. She did not think a "patch job" approach should be embarked upon; the money to do that would be poorly spent. Councilmember Wellensstated there was no guarantee that the sketchy sketch option would work; there were many unknowns with the current. structure. Mayor Lizee questioned why thee. bridge concept was being considered, as it was ashort-term option. She also questioned if Council should consider the future use of the Southshore Center for City meetings. Councilmember Woodruff commented that for the price of a new building the City could purchase the Soutl~sh~~re Center. He stated based on what he heard during the last election campaign from some of his constituents the message was they did not want a new City Hall. He stated he would not have a problem explaining the need to make repairs and improvements. Councilmember Wellens stated lie would prefer a "small Mayberry-type setting". He liked the idea of having the Couneilmembers seated at floor level with the public looking down on them when speaking. Councilmember Woodruff stated the condition of City Hali was a travesty that should have been dealt with a long time ago. He commented he was ashamed to come into City Hall. Councilmember Wellens suggested Council consider astep-by-step approach. In 2008 drain the could be installed around City Hall, the next year siding could be replaced, etc. With that approach the City may find out that there were serious structural problems which would not be solved by taking the short-term maintenance/bridge concept approach; the cinder blocks could have deteriorated to a point beyond repair, there could be rot and mold in the walls, etc., that could render the building useless. Councilmember Callies stated she agreed it was not possible to know the non-visible condition of the building until work began on the structure. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 10 of 11 Mayor Lizee stated resolving the drainage problems required more than just drain tile; it required the installation of a drainage system based on a grading plan. She questioned if Council thought Mr. Baxley should be invited to discuss his perspective on the longevity of the building and answer Council's questions. Councilmember Turgeon stated a Council Chamber could be added north of the existing Council Chamber. She then stated from her vantage point previous BKV Group plans contained wasted space (e.g. a large lobby for no apparent reason). There was ensuing discussion as to whether the bridge concept was ashort-term solution or if it would extend the life of the building substantially. There was also ensuing discussion as to what the next step should be. Councilmembers Wellens, Turgeon and Woodruff stated they wantedto move forward on a step-by-step approach to repairs to City Hall; they wanted to solicit bids for slaking the repairs. Mayor Lizee and Councilmember Callies stated they wanted to understand the return on investment approach to making repairs and improvements to City Hall. Director Nielsen stated architectural drawings had to be done before the City could solicit for accurate bids. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if BKV Group was the correct firm to assist the City. From his vantage point BKV's budget estimate for a remote chambet~ area similar to the existing area was too high. He did not think the City could afford to use BKV Group. He thought another firm should be used. He commented that Mr. Baxley had not returned his phone call. Mayor Lizee noted that BKV Group was not on a retainer with the City, and Council had previously agreed that questions and requests should be directed to BKV Group via administrator Dawson. Woodruff stated he never agreed to that protocol. Councilmember Callies stated 'if that protocol wasn't followed, it would cost the City money for each call and it would result in confusion, Councilmember Wellens stated he wanted to move forward with installing drain tile. Councilmember Woodruff stated someone needed to make a motion at an upcoming Council meeting. Administrator Dawson stated it was a drainage systean,not just drain file that would be needed, and Council could consider having an engineering fins do a structural analysis around the building prior to installing a drainage system. Councilmember Turgeon stated another approach would be to have an architect review Director Nielsen's sketchy sketch to determine if it would work. Councilmember Callies stated it was appropriate that topic be discussed at a cablecast Council meeting so the public could hear everyone's perspective. 5. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING August 6, 2007 Page ll of 11 6. ADJOURN Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of August 6, 2007, at 9:43 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizec, Mayor Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, AUGUST 6, 2007 MINUTES 1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS Immediately Following City Council Work Session Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 9:43 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeou, Wellens and E~Voodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; and Liquor Operations Manager Swandby Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. LIQUOR STORE LEASE AND OPF,RATiONS Administrator Dawson stated the Liquor Committee met on July 30, 2007, and reviewed liquor operations financial data and the lease extension proposals for the Waterford liquor store space. The Committee thought Comlcil should extend the lease, with no consensus on a preference for Proposal No. 1 or Proposal No. 2. Dawson reviewed the two proposals that had been discussed at a June 25, 2007, Council work session. - Under Proposal No. 1, the current lease would be continued from April 1, 2007, through October 31, 2008. The gross rent would be increased by 10 percent retroactive to April 1, 2007; and the current space would remain the same. Termination of this lease would require afour-month notice prior to October 31, 2008. The annualized cost would be $73,990; the total gross rent for the 19-mouth lease would be $117,151. - Under Proposal No. 2, the lease would run from April 1, 2007, through March 31, 2012. Gross rent would start at $64,890 for the first year and would increase three percent annually; the total gross rent would be $338,492. The space would be downsized to 2,850 square feet, with a construction cost to the City of $1.00 per square foot included in the rent. Dawson noted that under both proposals, the landlord would no longer be paid 12 percent of yearly gross sales between $750,000 and $1 million. Dawson stated the Committee also had discussion about whether there should be a forum for public comment if the Council made a preliminary decision to discontinue its off-sale liquor operations. The Committee believed there should be an opportunity for public comment at a Council meeting on a widely-publicized date, and that the Council should make no decision until a subsequent Council meeting. #2B CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 2 of 4 Councilmember Woodruff stated aftel• considering the proposals further and because the financial future for liquor stores was still uncertain, he would preferred Proposal No. 1. Councilmembers Turgeon and Wellens stated they also preferred Proposal No. 1 because of the shorter lease commitment. Woodruff then stated under Proposal No. 2 the construction activities would be a disruption to the public. Councilmember Callies stated the annual lease cost for Proposal No. 2 was significantly less, and she thought the lease could be written such that it would allow early termination of the lease if the Waterford liquor business was sold. Mr. Swandby agreed. Mr. Swandby stated from his vantage point Proposal No. 2 was a better option than Proposal No. 1. Councilmember Turgeon stated the fact that the City would have; to f-md two buyers for its liquor operations could prove to be problematic. She then stated if the City planned to stay in the liquor operations business for at least five years, then Proposal No. 2 would be the bc;tter option; if the City were to exit the business in less than five years Proposal No. 1 was the better option. Woodruff moved, Approving Lease Proposal No. l to continue the lease for the Waterford liquor store space to October 31, 2008. Mr. Swandby stated the City would save $9,000 - $10,000 in the f°n•st year under Proposal No. 2. If there was not a potential buyer of the Waterford liquor operations business, then the sale of the business could be lowered by the amount saved in rent costs in the first year to entice a buyer. Wellens seconded the motion. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Councihnember Woodruff stated Proposal No. 1 allowed the City to exit the Waterford liquor operations business with afour-month notice, it minimized the City's risk, and the lease could be renegotiated in October 2008. Woodruff then stated under Proposal No. 2 there was no leverage to renegotiate a lower lease rate, the space leased was smaller, and customers would have to deal with construction improvements. Motion passed 4/1 with Callies dissenting. Wellens moved, Directing Staff to put the liquor operations businesses up for sale. Mayor Liree stated the Liquor Committee believed there should be an opportunity for public comment at a Council meeting on awidely-publicized date, and that Council should make no decision until a subsequent Council meeting. She did not think it was appropriate to take formal action to put the businesses up for sale at this meeting. Councilmember Callies stated from her vantage point there were two reasons not to take action to put the businesses up for sale at this meeting: 1) the Committee agreed a forum should be held where public comment could be heard regarding the potential sale; and, 2) the mid-year liquor operations financial data had not been discussed at a regular Council meeting. Woodruff seconded the motion. Councilmember Callies stated she did not support the decision to put the businesses up for sale without discussing the financial data and with providing the opportunity for public comment. She also stated the City made money from the businesses. CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 3 of 4 Mayor Lizee stated she thought Council owed the public an opportunity for public comment as agreed to by the Liquor Committee. Councilmember Woodruff stated that at the Committee meeting he reluctantly agreed to a forum for public comment, but he did not think that should prohibit Council from taking action at this meeting. He then stated Council could decide to take the sale of the businesses to the market based on public comment. Councilmember Callies stated she thought it would be more appropriate to take public comment before making a decision. Motion passed 3/2, with Callies and Lizee dissenting. Mr. Swandby departed the meeting. 3. SOUTHSHORE CENTER PROPOSAL Administrator Dawson stated the Tonka Bay Council endorsed the funding proposal for Southshore Center and Staffing/Programming Services for 2008. `1'he other four South Lake Minnetonka cities would consider that proposal on August 6 or August 7. Dawson then stated the SCS Board decided SCS would continue providing services at the Southshore Center through October 31, 2007. It was likely the SCS Board would also decide to continue providing services through December 31, 2007, if the cities and the Friends agreed to a financing plan for 2008 by the SCS Board meeting scheduled for early Sept-ember 2007. He clarified a commitment by the cities and the Friends to provide funding in 2008 would be required for SCS to provide services in 2008. Administrator Dawson reviewed the interim funding proposal that was before Council for consideration at this meeting. - In 2008, the five cities would pay the Friends what they contributed to SCS/Friends in 2007 ($17,600) but it would lie based on the share of cost for the construction of the building. Shore wood's sharewas 50 percent of the building; therefore, this commitment would be $8,800 in ?008. y The friends would raise an additional $25,000 for costs at the Center for 2008. The five cities would match the amount raised by the Friends, with each city's match based on their share of the cost for construction of the building. The matching funds would be given to the Friends. Shorewood's commitment would be up to $12,500. Administrator Dawson noted agreement to the proposal would be binding for all five cities. He stated the City's commitment could be as high as $21,300. Councilmember Turgeon stated she wanted to ensure the $25,000 in funds the Friends would raise was in addition to its existing fund-raising commitment, and that the funds to be matched were net after expenses. Administrator Dawson clarified the cities would match the amount minus fund raising expenses. Turgeon then stated she would support the $8,800 commitment to SCS/Friends in 2008; and she was not confident the Friends could raise $25,000 above at~d beyond its current fund-raising efforts. She wanted to ensure there was a way to track the Friends two fund-raising commitments. She commented that SCS had no financial commitment with this proposal. Councilmember Wellens suggested Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) should be considered to provide services at the Center. Administrator Dawson explained the Friends Board wanted continuity of services in 2008, and MCE could be considered another year. CITY OF SHOREWOOD SPECIAL MEETING August 6, 2007 Page 4 of 4 Administrator Dawson explained that a document would need to be prepared that would formalize the terms of the proposal, and that agreement would be binding on all the cities for 2008 only. He noted that if all five cities agreed to the proposal by mid-September, SCS would continue to provide services through the end of 2007 and use SCS reserves to do so. Councilmember Woodruff suggested the City's match amount for additional funds raised by the Friends should offset some of the cost for the City to rent the Center for meetings. Administrator Dawson stated that suggestion should be addressed separate from the proposal. Councilmember Turgeon clarified that the Friends would be responsible for paying all of the Center's Directors' salary from the $17,600 contribution by the cities. Callies moved, Woodruff seconded, Agreeing to support the concept proposal for funding for Southshore Center and staffing/programming services for 2008. Motion passed 4/1, with Wellens dissenting. 4. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 5. ADJOURN Callies moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of August 6, 2007, at 10:24 P.M. Motion passed S/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2007 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councihnembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Associate Attorney Mayeron; Planning Director Nielsen; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Agenda as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, July 23, 2007 Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of July 23, 2007, as Amended in Item 9.C, Page 9, Paragraph 10, Sentence 4, change "Woodruff requested Council add" to "Woodruff requested Staff add". Motion passed 5/0. B. City Council Work Session Minutes, July 23, 2007 Wogdr~iff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of July 23, 2007, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Turgeon requested Richard Stromberg and other interested residents be notified of when the Minnesota Bowhur~ters Resource Base was scheduled to make a presentation to Council. She stated she wanted the process that would be used for deer removal determined before the deer bow hunting season opened on September 15, 2007. Mayor Lizee stated it would be resolved by September I, 2007. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. Turgeon moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. #Zc SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 2 of 13 A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (This was moved to Item 9.E under General/New Business) B. Staffing - no action required C. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-050, "A Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding Contract for 2007 Pavement Marking Project." D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-051, "A Resolution Approving a Bluff Setback Variance and Impervious Surface Variance for Michael and Susan Fannon, 5625 Christmas Lake Point." E. Authorizing Submittal of the 2007-2008 Winter Trail Activities Permit Councilmember Callies stated she had a question regarding the timing of the pavement marking project. Director Brown explained road surface patching and sealcoating occurred in the spring and early summer, and those were generally completed before the roadway striping was done. Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented th i s even i ng. 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING. A. .Sketch Plan Review Fee Mayor Lizee opened the Public 1 le.aring at ?:08 P.M. Administrator Dawson stated this item was approved by the Council at its June 25, 2007, meeting. Because of au error in the legal notice that was published it was back on the agenda for the corrected public hearing andaction. Mayor Lizee opened theYublic Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:09 P.M. Ron Johnson 5355 Shady Hills Circle, stated he had objected to the original public notice because the notice stated the Public Hearing would be conducted before the Planning Commission. He suggested Council delay taking action on this item and that it reconsider the need for a sketch plan review fee of $200 for subdividing property. He stated a copy of Director Nielsen's memo explaining the rationale for the fee should have been published prior to the legal. notice being published. He then stated he understood Nielsen's memo to indicate the sketch plan review was a special process; from his perspective the process was mandated. He perceived that this fee was considered about the same time he had provided the City with a sketch plan for review, and he thought the fee was targeted at him. He questioned if other cities charged for a sketch plan review; he was not aware of any that did. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 3 of 13 Mayor Lizee closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Director Nielsen stated there were other cities that charge a fee for a sketch plan review but he could not provide a list of cities off hand. Councilmember Callies stated that from her professional experience as a city attorney it was not unusual for a fee to be charged for a subdivision and sketch plan review. Staff generally spent approximately five hours to conduct a "typical" review. Administrator Dawson stated the fee would not apply to sketch plans thzt had already been submitted for review. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was her recollection that tlierc had been other sketch plans that had been reviewed; the process provided Staff the opportunity to identify potential issues or core requirements that would have to be addressed in a more formal and costly process. The proposed fee was not specific to Mr. Johnson. Callies moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving ORDINANCE NO. 438, "An Ordinance Titled `License, Permit, Service Charges and Miscellaneous Fees'." Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee closed the Public Hearing at 7:21 P.M. 7. PARKS Director Brown stated there had not been a Parks Commission meting since the last regular Council meeting. The next meeting was scheduled for August 14, 2007. 8. PLANNING - Report by Representative This item was discussed after Item 9.IJ on the agenda. Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the August 7, 2007, Planning Cotmission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Tax-forfeited Property on Smithtown Circle Director Nielsen stated Hennepin County Taxpayer Services had forwarded a notice of tax forfeiture for a parcel of land located oi~ the south side of Smithtown Road, immediately south of a cut-de-sac street name Smithtown Circle. The subject property was a small triangle of land which contained 6,098 square feet of area; it was a remnant from the platting of Smithtown Circle. Nielsen explained tax forfeited property was offered to the city. The city had three options for disposing of it: 1) the City could keep the property for a legitimate public purpose (e.g., right-of--way, conservation, etc.); 2) the City could approve the parcel for public auction; or, 3) the City could approve the parcel for auction to adjacent owners. He stated the size and shape of the property made it unusable for a public purpose, and it did not make sense for someone other than an adjoining property to the south to own it. Therefore, Staff recommended the property should be approved for auction to adjoining owners. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 4 of 13 In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated. there was right-of--way in that area. Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-053, "A Resolution Concerning a Certain Tax-Forfeited Parcel Lying within the City and Approving it for Sale to an Abutting Owner." Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Excelsior Fire District 2008 Proposed Budget Administrator Dawson stated its July 25, 2007, meeting the Excelsior I~ ire District (EFD) Board took action on its proposed 2007 - 2028 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and its 2008 Proposed Budget. Its decisions were based on several meetings, including a June 25 work session at which councilmembers of the EFD member cities made comments regarding the CIP anti the budget. Dawson then stated the revised 2007 - 2028 CIP reflected the preferences of Shorewood and Deephaven to not include capital funding for technology in 2008, and to maintain the overall capital transfers at $155,000. The 2008 Proposed Budget needed to be approved by a majority of the member cities by September 1, 2007. He commented Deephaven and Shorewood. had already approved the CIP and proposed budget. Councilmember Turgeon stated the concerns of Dcephaven and Shorewood had been fully addressed. Administrator Dawson stated Chief Gerber was present to answer any additional questions Council had. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the 2007 - 2028 Excelsior Fire District Capital Improvement Program and the 2008 Proposed Excelsior Fire District Budget. Councilmember Woodruff thanked Chief Gerber; the L,l D Board, and all those involved for their efforts in preparing the C1P and the proposed budget. Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Gerber for all of his efforts and for attending the meeting. B. Mound Fire Department 2008 Proposed Budget Administrator Dawson stated under the City's agreement with the City of Mound for fire and rescue services for Enchanted, Shady and Spray Islands. The City was allowed the opportunity to comment on Mound's proposed budget. He commented the City was in the first year of a three-year agreement for services. He explained Shorewood's costs for Mound fire and rescue services would rise from $23,256 in 2007 to $25,257 in 2008, or an 8.6 percent increase; the amount was based on a new formula agreed to in 2006 and the same level of service. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, Accepting the 2008 proposed budget for fire and rescue services from the City of Mound. Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 5 of 13 C. South Lake Minnetonka Police Department 2008 Proposed Budget Administrator Dawson stated Council had the opportunity to review and discuss the Proposed 2008 Budget for the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) and the SLMPD's proposal to provide Community Service Officer (CSO) services for 2007 at its August 6, 2007, work session. Council did not suggest any revisions to the budget. He noted the SLMPD Coordinating Committee recommended the 2008 proposed budget for consideration by the four member cities' councils. At the same work session there was discussion about a separate proposal to provide expanded community service officer (CSO) coverage; that coverage would include providing animal control services. Dawson stated the Excelsior and Greenwood city councils had approved the proposed budget. They had not acted upon the expanded CSO services proposal as of yet. Dawson explained the increase for Shorewood in 2008 for operating expenses would be approximately $47,800. He also explained the lease on the building was apportioned among the cities on a tax capacity basis. The City's share for 2008 would be $244,003 (55.33%); its share was $249,509 (56,A5%) in 2007. SLMPD Chief Litsey was present this evening. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had na issue with the proposed operating budget with the exception of the Technology Fund. At the August 6 work session she had. requested along-term capital plan (similar to the EFD's CIP) be prepared to reflect 1 replacement and purchase schedule. She would like to see that plan prior to approving the budget; from hea• vantage point there were still opportunities for Council to act on the budget prior to the September deadline. Chief' Litsey stated the Coordinating Committee had made a decision to increase the contribution to the Designated Technology Fund from the Operating Fund by $2,000 per year from 2002 through 2008. Litsey stated significant changes were anticipated in 2009. The'SLMPD St~•ategic Planning initiative that would occur later in the year would identify future capital needs, including technology. Administrator Da«~son clarified the proposal for expanded CSO services could be considered at a future date. Councilmember. Turgeon stated she would like additional information with regard to the animal control services component of the CSO proposal. Chief Litsey commented that Excelsior and Greenwood were interested in the CSO proposal, but focused their immediate action on the operating budget because that had to be acted upon by September 1, 2007. He explained if the four member cities agreed to the expanded CSO services proposal, the 2008 operating budget could be amended to incl~~de those costs. He stated that having additional discussion about what animal control services would°be provided by the SLMPD could be beneficial; it was important the cities had a clear understanding that the SLMPD would provide, at a minimum, the same level of animal control services currently provided to the cities. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the Proposed 2008 South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Operating Budget. Councilmember Callies stated she did not think there was a need for much additional information regarding the proposal for expanded CSO services; she thought Chief Litsey had already provided a substantial amount of information. She then. stated that animal control services was a small component of the proposal. She would support taking action on the proposal this evening. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 6 of 13 Motion passed 5/0. Mayor Lizee thanked Chief Litsey for his efforts and for attending the meeting. D. City Hall Planning Administrator Dawson stated at its August 6, 2007, work session Council reviewed the updated construction costs from BKV Group for the 2004 "bridge" concept (which included short-term maintenance improvements), the 2005 renovation/addition option (12,200 square feet would be added to the building), and the 2005 new/replacement option (which would be 11.,000 square feet larger than the existing building). At that work session some Councilmembers indicated they would like to take action on a direction at this evenings meeting, in particular the "bridge" concept. . Dawson then stated the 2004 "bridge" concept, which had been proposed as an interim solution, would become a permanent solution. The footprint of City Hall would remain the same, and the Council Chamber would be moved to an off-site location. The construction cost estimate for:.that solution was $851,000 in updated 2008 dollars. He stated the architect claril ied that the costs included for fixing the water infiltration problems in the basement were for ashort-term solution; the costs. for along-term solution must be determined. Dawson went on to state the updated construction costs for the 2005 renovation/addition option ranged from $2,052,000 to $2,228,000, and the updated construction costs for the 2005 new/replacement option ranged from $2,500,000 to $3,100,000. Dawson stated Council may want to select an option for further desi~~,n, and Staff recommended Council authorize BKV Group to perform the more detailed design phase. Councilmember Callies stated it was her understanding that at its August 6, 2007, work session Council had discussed considering some of the. short-teen maintenance issues with City Hall to determine if they would realistically extend the life of City Hall for a significant period of time. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Administrator Dawson stated it was his understanding that at that meeting, some Councilmembers wanted to take action at this meeting on which of the three: nptions should be designed in more detail. He stated since that meeting he provided Council of what impro~~ements would be made as part of the "bridge" concept. Councilmember Callies stated she thought Council needed to consider a more comprehensive plan than the "bridge" concept which by its own terminology sounded temporary. From her vantage point Council should consider aself-contained City Hal] building which was a decent public structure, and she thought that could be accomplished in acost-effective manner. She stated the facility should convey respect to the employees and the residents, and be effective for Council to work in. She stated that a decision to move toward the "bridge concept" was a move in the wrong direction; both the renovation/addition option and the new/replacement option provided long-term solutions to the maintenance issues at City Hall. The "bridge" concept also included conducting City Hall public meetings at another site, rather than having City Hall be the location for City business. She clarified that she was not purporting that City Hall be larger than need be; she thought a well constructed and attractive City Hali could be accomplished without using an exorbitant use of taxpayer money. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 7 of 13 Callies then stated she did not agree with the "bridge" concept approach. The current City Hall did not meet the space needs or work place standards. She compared the existing improvements made under the "bridge" concept to the condition of the City's water towers; they were not well maintained and looked moldy, yet the water towers were part of the face of the City. She stated improvements cost money, and the Council had to be judicious in how it spent the taxpayers' money. Councilmember Turgeon stated the difference in the cost for the 2004 "bridge" concept and the cost for the new/replacement option was quite substantial. The "bridge" concept, which included resolving short- term maintenance issues, would solve many of the City Hall problems. She then stated the recent budget figure from BKV Group for an off-site chamber area was $250,000; a 1,000 square-foot chamber could be added to City Hall for less than that amount. She suggested another option that could be considered would be to do nothing more than replace the windows and siding and address the water infiltration issues, but no renovation would be done. She wasn't convinced a large cha3nber area was needed based on the number of instances where large public crowds attended public meetings. Councilmember Woodruff stated for the most part he agreed ,.with Councilmember Turgeon. He commented the condition of City Hall was a travesty that should have been dealt with a longtime ago. He stated he was the person that suggested the "bridge" concept be reconsidered; part of his suggestion was the existing chamber area would be used for additional office space, meeting rooms, etc., and the public meetings would be held at the Southshore Center (of which the City owned 50 percent) if necessary. He commented that from his perspective that was a way to provide the Southshore Center with additional funding by renting meeting space. He stated he did not think it was appropriate to spend the money necessary to replace City Hall; the size of the staff should remain the same and the City was almost completely built out. He then stated he thought the "bridge" concept had to last at least thirty years. He went on to state he was in favor of having the detailed design for the "bridge" concept completed; however, he was not in favor of using BKV Group asthe architect for that effort. Woodruff moved, Wcllens seconded, Moving forwa-•d with the "Bridge" concept as a long-term solution to City Hall improvements and to look for a different architect to complete the project. Councilmember Callies stated she ~~s~as not clean about the motion. Couneihnember Woodruff had stated in his version of the "bridge" concept the existing chamber area would be used for different purposes. Yet, h~ <~ sa stated that public meetings could be held in the area. She then stated she would prefer Council decide to embark on Councilmember Turgeon's approach to replace the windows and siding and resolve the water infiltration issues, rather than embark on the "bridge" concept at this time. She went on to state that building maintenance had been postponed for too long. She also stated there was a solution somewhere in between the "bridge" concept and the new/replacement option that should be considered. She commented the City had already invested a great deal of time and money with the BKV Group to develop alternative plans, Councilmember Turgeon stated there would be nothing that would prohibit public meetings being held at City Hall under the "bridge" concept. Councilmember Callies stated in 2006 Council had discussed the possibility of having a divided chamber area when the "bridge" concept was not being considered. Turgeon stated having multiple locations for meetings would require good communication of the meeting location. Turgeon commented that nothing had been negotiated with the Southshore Center regarding renting meeting space, and research had to be done to determine if the Center had adequate storage space or the necessary equipment. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 8 of 13 Councilmember Turgeon stated she was ready to agree to replacing the HVAC, siding, windows, and carpet; painting the interior; fixing the drainage issues; and doing the necessary landscaping. Director Brown clarified that three of the five furnaces in City Hall were at least I S - 20 years old. Mayor Lizee stated her concern with Councilmember Turgeon's approach was it would solve maintenance issues, but it would not provide long-term solutions. She then stated it was not appropriate to assume the Southshore Center would provide along-term solution for public meeting space until discussions had been held with the Center and the Southshore Center funding issues were resolved. Councilmember Callies stated she would like further discussion about a solution somewhere in between the two extremes of a maintenance only concept and the new/replacement option. She would support the renovation/addition option. She stated although she had been a supported on the new building option in the past, her priority was to have aself-contained City Hall quality building that satisfied the City's needs. She also wanted further discussion regarding which architectural firm should be used. Motion passed 3/2, with Callies and Lizee dissenting. It was clarified that the City would select an architectural firm for the de~~gn using a request for proposal process. E. Approval of the Verified Claims List This item was discussed before Item 8 on the agenda. This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember Woodruff asked Director Brown to provide Council with a status update of the Badger Field Lighting project and the payment to Honda Electric that was on the verified claims list. Director Brown e~plaincd E{onda L,lectric had submitted an invoice of $16,000 for a progress payment. The company had completed the wiring and the lights were operational, but there was a great deal of cleanup work remaining: ~fhe City retained a portion of the funds due to Honda Electric and the City would not. release a performance bond until it was sure project had been completed satisfactorily. Brown anticipated one or two more payment requests from Honda Electric. He stated staff was discussing whether or not the drain the installationportion of the project should be delayed until the spring of 2008 because of the upcoming football season; it was likely it would be delayed so the turf could be reestablished. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Verified Claims List. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS A. Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project Feasibility Report and Order Preparation of Plans and Specifications Engineer Landini stated Council had been provided with a status report on Amlee Road, Manitou Lane, Glen Road Street Reconstruction Project which was prepared by WSB and Associates per Council's request. He stated Council needed to define the scope of the project and determine what the width of the roads should be. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 9 of 13 Engineer Landini stated Dave Hutton, a Principal of WSB & Associates, Inc, was present this evening. Mr. Hutton stated he prepared a memo which was distributed to Council which. summarized WSB's engineering fees for the project. WSB had submitted a final feasibility report for all three streets in May 2007. In June 2007 Council authorized a contract with WSB to provide final design and construction oversight; that effort was approximately 75% complete, and completion of that effort was dependent on Council making a number of decisions. He stated he would entertain any questions Council had. Councilmember Turgeon stated she was pleased to see such a large number of property owners in attendance at the meeting. She stated at a public information meeting held on July 18, 2007, the property owners (the majority were of which were on Glen Road) adamantly stated they were opposed to widening Glen Road. She stated it was difficult to retrofit a 24-foot-wide road into an area that was developed in the 1950s. She commented that there were communities tieing developed with roads 18 feet wide. She recommended if the project could be done and the current width of the. roads retained then Glen Road could be reclassified to be a private road which theE residents would be responsible for maintaining; otherwise Glen Road should be widened to 20 Fcet. She commented the west end of Glen Road was currently 14 feet wide. Turgeon then stated she was unsure of how the project, including Glen Road, could be done if the residents were not in support of it. She askedEngineer Landini to comment on the easements that would be required. Landini explained a temporary construction easement would be required on all of the south side of Glen Road; a temporary construction easement would be required on three other properties; 10 - 12 residents would be impacted by a storm sewer easement: there would be two permanent easements required on Glen Road if the road was widened to 20 feet of drivingsurface; and a couple of permanent easements would be required for fire hydrants. Turgeon questioned if the City was not able to obtain the easements would it be possible to solve any drainage issues in the project area. Landini stated if the City did not obtain the stormsewer easements, the storm sewer improvements could not be made, and they were one of the reasons for the project. He also stated the temporary construction easements were required to "shoehorn in" the 20-loot-wide.. or 2~t-foot-wide Glen Road. Turgeon stated for a cost of $2.4 million she would not support putting in a road that did not address the issues. Turgeon stated if the necessary easements co~ild not be obtained, then maybe one of the three roads could be considered for a pilot polymerized emulsion asphalt project. Turgeon also stated there were studies that showed narrower roads reduced traffic speed. She stated she thought there were organizations that could help the City with the retrofitting of roads. Turgeon then stated if the City could not obtain storm sewer easements on Glen Road, then there was no reason to reconstruct it. Councilmember Callies stated based on Engineer Landini's report there was rationale for limiting the expanded width of Glen Road to 20 feet of driving surface. The primary goals of the project were to resolve drainage concerns, to install water, and to plan for the future property owners as well as the existing property owners. She commented she had received emails from property owners stating there had been past instances of major road repairs where watermain was not installed at that time, only for the road to be torn up at a later date to install watermain; she did not want that to occur again. She stated the three roads needed to be reconstructed, but there was not point in doing so if the drainage issues were not going to be resolved. Callies questioned the statement in Engineer Landini's report that stated no-parking restrictions would need to be established on Glen Road if the driving surface were widened to 20 feet. Director Brown stated although there were a number of City roads that did not have no-parking restrictions posted but yet SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 10 of 13 they were less than 20-feet wide, when a road was reconstructed to have a 20-foot-wide driving surface the restrictions would have to be posted. Councilmember Turgeon stated there were newer studies that indicated if cars were parked on narrower roads traffic speed was slower; therefore, she was not support of no-parking restrictions until it became an issue. Engineer Landini stated if Council were to consider continuing this item to a future meeting, it was imperative that Council decide what the width of the roads should be so the appropriate exhibits could be prepared. Director Brown stated the width of Amlee Road was 25 feet, the width of Glcn Road ranged from 16 - 20 feet, and the width of Manitou Lane was 21.5 feet. Councilmember Woodruff stated he also was concerned about the impact oCwidening Glen Road to a 24- foot-wide driving surface; he did not like the thought of 74 trees being removed. 13ecause he did not have enough information regarding the impact of a 20-foot-wide driving surface, he did .not have a comment on what he would support at this time. Engineer Landini stated reducing the driviu~ surface to 20 feet wide would still significantly impact the Glen Road properties and the number of trees that would have to be removed. Woodruff stated Glen Road was added to be considered as part of this project in Spring 2007 because of public comment. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the stormwater improvements and watermain installation could be limited to Amlee Road and Manitou Lane. Councilmember Turgeon stated a lot of stormwater flowed from Glen Road to the Amlee Road area. Director Brown stated in the project area there were three major drainage concerns (there were less significant concerns also) -the low lying area along Glen Road, the rear yards between Glen Road and Amlee Road, and the area north of Amlee Road. The Am1ee Road and Manitou Lane area drainage issues could be resolved without addressing Glen Road provided they included resolving the rear yard drainage issues. The closest connection point for City water was at the intersection of Couxtty Road 19 and Glen Road; the way to extend City water to Amlee Road and Manitou Lake would be to come down Glen Road. It may be possible to extend City water down the LRT trail from County Road 19, but that would be an expensive engineering effort, and there was not a lot of benefit to the City to install ~--vatermain on the LRT trail where it wouldn't be used. Councilmember Turgeon commented if watermain was installed along Glen Road even though the Glen Road property owners did not want City water, the property owners would still be assessed for the installation: Also there was no option for the Amlee Road and Manitou Lane property owners to have access to City water without extending it down Glen Road. Councilmember Callies stated if the number of trees that would have to be taken out on Glen Road to widen it to either a 20-foot-wide or 24-foot-wide driving surface would be the same, then maybe the wider surface should be constructed for safety reasons. Councilmember Wellens noted he was not in support of watermain installation along Glen Road. He stated he would support the Glen Road driving surface being widened to 20 feet of driving surface and the other two roads retaining their current width. He then stated if the City could not obtain the necessary easements, then the project should not move forward. There was lengthy ensuing discussion regarding road surface width alternatives, the need easements, and the installation of watermain. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 11 of 13 Council directed Staff to pursue obtaining temporary construction easements and permanent easements based on Amlee Road retaining its current width of a 24-foot-wide driving surface, Glen Road having a 20-foot-wide driving surface, and Manitou Lane retaining its current width of a 22-foot-wide driving surface. It was assumed all three roads would have edge control. Council was made aware the changes would result in additional expenses from WBS for revisions. There was consensus to continue this item to a September 10, 2007, work session. Walt Knutson, 24820 Glen Road, stated if Council was discussing widening Glen. Road to a maximum of 20 feet wide, either the road surface should be less than 20 feet with no edge control, or the road surface should be less than 20 feet with edge control. He also thought Glen 'Road wasn't considered to be included as part of the project unti12007. Wally Piroyan, 24845 Glen Road, stated at the July 18, 2007, public information meeting it was confirmed that the way the project was proposed for Glen Road the project's construction impact area would be 30 - 40 feet wide based on the right-of--way and the power lines if the road surface was to be widened to 24 feet. Director Brown confirmed that figure. Mr. Piroyan commented to date there had not been any discussion with regard to what would happen to the. power lines (e.g., would they be placed underground). He then stated the photo rendering that had been. done did not adequately portray the impact of removing 75 - 125 trees. He questioned who would be legally responsible if the roads were reconstructed to a width less than the 24-foot standard. He also questioned what happened to the idea to bring in an arborist to discuss the impact on the trees. Engineer Landini stated no property owners signed to participate in that at the public information meeting; he commented they could still sign up for it. Director Brown explained the Fire Code specified a 20-foot minimum clear driving surface; edge control would be outside of that. The common standard that was used carne from the Minnesota Department of Transportation -the standard stated a minimum width of 11 feet per lane of driving surface and edge control would be outside. of that. The City's standard was two twelve-foot-wide driving surface lanes plus edge control. He noted that although the. agencies tended not to use the word "shall", the 12-foot wide Lane standard was the standard used in the couirts, Elizabeth Van, 24174 Aimee Road, stated Amlee Road was currently 25 feet wide, and would be reconstructed to have a 24-foot-wide, driving surface. She questioned why the City wanted to take 12 feet of her yard for an easement. Director Grown explained the current Amlee Road cul-de-sac averaged a diameter of 54fe.et and the paved surface was 47 feet; the cul-de-sac would remain about the same width as it was. The edge control was outside of the paved area. Also, a temporary construction easement was needed for grading. Ms. Van stated she would lose trees because of that, and she questioned if the removal of existing trees and hushes along Amlee Road would exacerbate the existing drainage concerns. Ms. Van also questioned' how the existing drainage concerns would be resolved. Ms. Van then questioned how the wetland damage which resulted from stormwater being conveyed to it would be addressed. Mayor Lizee stated Ms. Van could attend the September 10, 2007, work session if she wanted to ensure her concerns would be addressed. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City could not address the wetland area without approval from other authorities. Mayor Lizee stated the original scope of the project was to address drainage concerns in the area. Richard Eng, 25170 Glen Road, stated the Lyman property was beautifully wooded. He questioned why the City had not learned from the County Road 19 intersection project and the resulting drainage issues behind the American Legion. He questioned if the City could partner with Hennepin County to resolve SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING August 13, 2007 Page 12 of 13 the drainage issues in the proposed project area; building another drainage pond would not solve the issue. Mayor Lizee stated the Gideon Glen project located on the west side of County Road 19 was a work in progress. The wetland area was working. The Council had received an update on the wetland in 2006, and would receive another one in 2007. B. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Polymerized Emulsion Asphalt Pavement Coating Engineer Landini explained the Polymerized Emulsion Asphalt Project would be a test of a new product to supplement the City's tools to maintain street quality. The streets chosen for the project were Old Market Boulevard and Smithtown Circle. Oid Market Boulevard was a higher traffic street with a good foundation. Smithtown Circle was chosen so the product would be tested on a cul-de-sac that had a solid foundation. The low quote for the project was from Bergman Companies h~corporated; the quote was $32,289.05. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had sent staff an email questioning there selection of those two roads. Old Market Road was rated a seven which indicated it was one of the better City roads. Smithtown Circle was rated a four. He also questioned why Yellowstone Trail between Lake Linden Drive and Country Club Road or Cathcart Drive were lion selected. Director Brown stated staff responded to Councilmember Woodruffs questions earlier that day. He stated the product was very effective at sealing up die road surface after it had been patched. He explained the test roads would have to be able to be closed to traffic for 24 hours for the product to cure yet fire access had to be maintained to the area during that time. Another constraint for the test was the surface of the test road. could not be too deteriorated. In addition, it was suggested the product be put down before September because of weather temperature. fluctuations. The edge control on Old Market Road would make the application of the product easier, and the road was a high traffic road. He stated staff could have. chosen Yellowstone Trail but it had just been sealcoated, and it had not considered Cathcart Drive.. Councilmember Woodruff' stated he was not suggesting staff select other test roads; he viewed the discussion asan educational process for Council. Wellens moved, Callies seconded, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 07-053, "A Resolution Accepting Quote and Awarding contract for 2007 Polymerized Emulsion Asphalt Project." Motion passed 5/0. 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Administrator Dawson stated the group that was established to discuss an interim funding proposal. for Southshore Center activities and expenses in 2008 met that morning. All of the cities' councils had approved the proposed concept (which had been discussed at the August 6, 2007, special Council meeting), and all wanted clarity the funding was for 2008 only. The Deephaven Council added another condition; the condition was to address the "Shorewood option" to purchase the Center in the 1996 cooperative agreement. Deephaven would not approve the concept without that condition in it. PAYABLES APPROVALS For 08/27/2007 Council Meeting r ~~ Prepared by: ~ ~- `A` Date: Michelle T. Nguye r. Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: /~~-- = -~ Date: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by: ~ T Date: Crai [~awson, City Administrator ~/~ 2 ~- . ;,= d ~,~ PAYROLL APPROVALS For 08/27/2007 Council Meeting Bonnie Burton, Finance Director ~:: Approved by: ~ _ ~, ~ _ ~ ~ - Date: Crai Dawson, City Administrator ,~_: ~ ~~ P ,~® ~. CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY SPACE TO GREGORY AND LORRAINE SCOTT WHEREAS, Gregory and Lorraine Scott (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 28100 Woodside Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as; "Tract A and Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1515, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have applied to the City for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of additional garage space, the area of which, when added to the area of existing accessory space on the property, will bring the total area of accessory space on the property up to 2140 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Code requires a Conditional use Permit for the construction of accessory space exceeding 1200 square feet; and WHEREAS, the Applicants request was reviewed by the Ad Hoc Committee for . Nonconforming Accessory Buildings at a meeting held on 18 June 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 14 June 2007, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 17 July 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 August 2007, at which time the Planner's memorandum, the minutes of the Ad Hoc Committee, and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located in a R-lA/S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contains approximately 84,650 square feet of area. ,~? L 2. The total proposed accessory space (2140 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure {2956 square feet on main level alone). 3. The total area of accessory space does not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area for the R-lA/S zoning district in which it is located (4000 square feet). 4. That the design and materials of the proposed attached garage are consistent with the architectural character of the existing home. The subject garage complies with all setback requirements for the R-lA/S. zoning- district. 6. The boathouse located on the west end of the property does not comply with current setback requirements from Lake Minnetonka. 7. The Ad Hoc Committee established to review nonconforming accessory structures has recommended that the nonconforming boathouse has architectural, cultural or historical value, specifically: a. The structure is a well-known landmark, as noted in ll~pls St. Paul magazine. b. The property was formerly occupied by a family heavily involved in the Girl Scouts of America movement. c. The pagoda style, the roof support system as described by the owner, and the method of construction exhibit the distinguishing characteristics of and architectural style. d. The architecture of the structure is innovative for the area. e. The structure was built in approximately 1910. CONCLUSION A. The application of Gregory and Lorraine Scott for a Conditional Use Permit as set forth herein above be and hereby is granted. B. This approval is subject to the following: The attached garage will be used strictly for purposes of a residential nature. 2. The Applicants are hereby advised that the City Code provides specific regulations relative to home occupations and any future use of the garage for other than allowable residential purposes would have to comply with such regulations. 3. The Applicants shall enter into a maintenance agreement with the City, suitable for recording, setting forth standards for the maintenance of the nonconforming boathouse. -2- C. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Applicants with a certified copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SHOREWOOD this 27th day of August 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -3 - Cf'f'Y OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Public Works Director FROM: James Landini, City Engineer -, DATE: August 17, 2007 RE: 6105 Church Road Lot 1, Block 1 John Pastuck Addition Easement Vacation Mr. Pastuck has requested the City of Shorewood to vacate the drainage and utility easement within Lot 1, Block 1 in exchange for another drainage and utility easement on the same lot.... The City Council adopted the final plat under resolution 03-109 in December of 2003. Attachment 1 is the exhibit showing the existing and proposed drainage and utility easement. Exhibit A is the legal descriptions for both easements. The exchange of easements would enlarge the buildable area of the lot and allow construction of a different shaped home than originally planned. The exchange is similar in land area, and works with the site topography. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution vacating the drainage and utility easement contingent upon recording of the new drainage and utility easement. ,:~ I4 tw a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER cITY of sxoREwooD RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION APPROVING EASEMENT VACATION AT LOT 1, BLOCK 1 JOHN PASTUCK ADDITION WHEREAS, Notice of Public Hearing on the proposed vacation of certain drainage and utility easements on Lot 1, Block 1 John Pastuck Addition in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was properly posted and published in the Excelsior/Shorewood edition of the SLTN SAILOR NEWSPAPER on the 9th and 16th day of August, 2007, and WHEREAS, the Council of the City Shorewood heard all interested parties on the question of vacation at a Public Hearing on the 27th day of August, 2007, in the Council Chambers at the City Ha11. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, that the drainage and utility easements described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be and hereby are vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is directed to notify the County Offices in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of August, 2007. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk ~EMARS- GABR/EL LAN (lIIYR,INC. 3030 HARBOR LANE NO., SUITE 111 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 Phone 763-559-0908 Fax 763-559-0479 Proposed Drainage and Utility Easement A drainage and utility easement over, under and across that part of Lot 1, Block 1, JOHN PASTUCK ADDITION, which lies within a 22.80 foot strip of property, the centerline of which is a line drawn from a point on the northwesterly line of said lot 1, distant 82.4 feet southwesterly of the most northerly corner of said Lot 1, to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. Description of Easement to be Vacated: That drainage and utility easement over and across Lat 1, Block 1, JOHN PASTUCK ADDITION, as dedicated on said plat, being witnessed an said plat by a width of 24.75 feet, as measured clang the northwesterly line of said l_at 1, a distance of 90.12 feet along the northeasterly line of said easement and a distance of 101,94 along the southwesterly line of said easement. Exhibit to t a -~~ f ~ -- °A/osP NoNherty line of Got > f ' e ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ati6 ~, "~ ~° ,, e'` s`°°a & ~~• ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ! ~~ ~ ~ ~` / ~ ~,d pG~t~L ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~... ~.~ 1 Pt Ito be ° e~ .~ ~ ~ °~ ~ `"`~- ~ _ vtheoater~ Cvrn~e~ ot_~,._„Lot ~~d - so EaS ~ /q, ~ ~ x f ~ ~ p/ $y~ ! /° ~ - ~ r 'dw ~n ° r ~ " ~" y ~ /° ~v d' / °e ~ f gg {+ P 5€ @ { b y ;.J f k ) i i t ~~~ 5^ ~ P y~ , ,. ({ i ..«...=.m Attachment #1 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version CITY OF SIIOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2007 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CfIAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, and Ruoff; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Meyer APPROVAL OF MINUTES 17 July 2007 Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 17 July 2007 as presented. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -SETBACK VARIANCE AND VARIANCE TO EXPAND A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE Applicants: Craig and Sandra Erickson Location: 4715 Lakeway Terrace Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:02 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an August 27, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen reviewed the criteria for granting variances which were as follows: 1. Circumstances must be unique to the property • The owner faces problems that other owners in the zoning district do not • The possibility of the variance establishing a precedent for other properties must be considered. 2. The applicant must demonstrate "undue hardship" • The property can not be put to a reasonable use • Plight is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the owner (or previous owners) ® The variance should not alter the essential character of the locality • The variance must meet all three of the above 3. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute hardship 4. The burden of proof is on the applicant 5. The City may attach reasonable conditions CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 2 of 12 Director Nielsen explained Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway Terrace, had requested arear-yard variance to build a larger deck at the rear of their house. The property was located in the R-1D/S, Single Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contained approximately 15,750 square feet of area. Nielsen reviewed a property survey showing the location of the existing home including a rear room addition and an existing deck, a site plan showing the applicants' proposed deck location, a proposed deck plan view, and the proposed deck elevation view. Nielsen noted that this property was the subject of a previous variance in 1990. He commented that a copy of the staff report for that application had been provided to the Commissioners. He then explained in that case the previous owner of the property had a 20-foot x 32-foot deck that encroached into the rear yard setback. That owner was granted a variance to construct a 20-foot x 20-foot porch over part of the deck, leaving a 12-foot x 20-foot deck on the north side of the deck. The Ericksons now proposed replacing the existing deck with a lower level deck that would be 30 feet long, with one end that is 24 feet wide and the other end 15 feet wide. A landing approximately 5 feet x 10 feet would connect the porch area to the deck. The proposed deck would be 20 feet from the rear lot line instead of the 35 feet required by the Zoning Code. The variance, if granted, would increase the nonconformity of an already nonconforming structure. Nielsen stated he distributed a document to the Commissioners from the applicants stating how their request complied with the criteria for granting of variances found in the City's Zoning Code. With regard to the analysis of the nonconformities, Nielsen stated the applicants' request involved expansion of the nonconformity of the subject home beyond the variance that was granted for the property in 1990. The proposed deck would be 20 feet from the rear lot line, almost three feet closer than the existing nonconforming part of the building. He explained Section 1201.03 Subd. l.k. of the City's Zoning Code stated: "That such expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located." Nielsen then stated that the applicant requested a variance to accommodate the larger proposed deck. He explained that Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the City's Code provided criteria for consideration of variance; all the criteria must be met in order to make an exception to the law. He reviewed how the applicants' request failed on more than one of the criteria. 1. There was nothing physically unique about the applicants' property that necessitated a variance. A large deck could be built on the south side of the porch. 2. The provisions of the Zoning Code did not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in their zoning district. They already had a 12-foot x 20-foot deck, and they could have a much larger one. 3. The previous owner had a very large deck, but chose to cover much of it with a porch. 4. In light of the ample room in which a deck could be built on this property, and the variance that had already been granted for the property, the applicants were able to make very reasonable use of their property. Nielsen stated because the applicants' request did not meet the criteria for granting of variances, Staff recommended that the setback variance and variance to expand a nonconforming structure, be denied. Nielsen stated Craig and Sandra Ericlcsan were present this evening. Mr. Erickson highlighted some of the items in the document submitted by his wife and him stating how they thought their request complied with the criteria for granting of variances. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 3 of 12 - Their property had several unique characteristics. The location of the existing house was 53 feet from the street, which made it nonconforming; that location created a significant limitation for the use of the back of the property. Locating the house that far back on the property created value for the neighborhood in "maintaining continuity," but it put the property at a disadvantage to be fully utilized and that demonstrated hardship. They requested the same. consideration granted to the previous owners in 1990 be applied to the new variance request. He noted the variance granted in 1990 also restricted new construction on the front side of the house. Because they were constrained on building new structure, including a deck, on the front of the house, they feet it would be appropriate to be allowed expand the use on the back side of the property; that use would be the same or similar use of their property as was their neighbors. The back of their property was a triangle shape; the south corner, which was the larger of the corners, was heavily wooded and steep. - The deck doors from the existing enclosed patio structure lead out to the north. Building to the south as suggested was not a practical solution; because of the setback, they would not even be allowed to construct a walkway around the sun room to a south deck. - Building a deck on the south of the sun room would require the removal of several large oak trees, which add significant value to the home and add visual appeal to the neighborhood. - The 20-foot variance that they requested was in line with the 20-foot variance granted to neighboring properties directly to their north and their immediate neighbor to the north. - Many of their surrounding neighbors had expressed support of the pro}ect; they were not aware of any neighbors that had expressed issues about the request. - The proposed deck would be unobtrusive with a low profile, and it would be barely visible from any other property. Building a deck on the south back side of the property would be visible by multiple houses in the neighborhood, and from their vantage point would be an eyesore. Mr. Erickson thanked the Planning Commission for considering their request. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:13 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Mr. Erickson stated they had started to replace the old deck with a lower level deck (thinking it was a patio which would not be attached to the home and would not require a permit) before he realized they needed a permit. Some of the frame for the new deck had been installed and platform boards were lying on top of the frame. Gagne was bothered by the fact that the applicants were requesting a permit after they started work on the new deck. Ms. Erickson also stated she was not aware they needed a permit. Mr. Erickson stated they stopped construction as soon as they realized they needed a permit. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Erickson stated the construction that had been done already on the new deck was consistent with the plan that was submitted. In response to another question, Mr. Erickson stated the structural reason to extend the deck was to be able to add stairs. Mr. Erickson commented they had owned the property for four years. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 4 of 12 Chair Schmitt stated he could appreciate why the Erickson's wanted to do what they proposed; but the city had a set of rules that had to be followed and legally an applicant had to prove hardship for a variance to be granted. Schmitt also stated the City's Code specified the expansion of nonconforming structure could not increase the nonconformity, yet the proposed deck would do that. Schmitt then stated the previous owner created the situation with the house location when the house was built. Mr. Erickson questioned if the setback requirements were less when the house was built. Chair Schmitt stated he could not speak to the past; but the applicants' request failed on more than one of the variance criteria. Gniffke moved, Hutchins seconded, Recommending Denial of a Setback Variance and Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure for Craig and Sandra Erickson, 4175 Lakeway Terrace. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -C.U.P. FOR TWO HOUSES TEMPORARILY ON ONE LOT AND ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicants: John and Kristi Marquardt Location: 5985 Afton Road Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:24 P.M. Director Nielsen stated John and Kristi Marquardt owned the property at 5985 Afton Road. He explained the subject property was zoned R-lA, Single-family Residential and contained 40,204 square feet of area. The Marquardts wanted to live in their existing house on the property while their new home was being constructed. Once the new house was completed, the old house would be demolished. At staffs direction, the Marquardts applied for a conditional use permit; the City's Zoning Code limited the number of single- family dwellings on a site to one. Nielsen explained the proposed building plans included attached garage space that, when combined with the utility shed on the north side of the lot, exceeded 1200 square feet of total accessory space. For this the Marquardts had also requested a conditional use permit. Nielsen stated in the past the City had granted variances allowing property owners to keep an existing house on the property while a new house was under construction. The Code was amended in 2000 to allow for such requests by conditional use permit. Nielsen reviewed how the Marquardts' request complied with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) of the City's Zoning Code which limited the number of single-family dwellings on a site to one. Keeping an existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new house. In this case the existing home was nonconforming with respect to R-lA setbaclc requirements; the house was only 35 feet from Afton Road and 40 feet from Cathcart Drive, both of which setbacks should be 50 feet. The new home would be situated in the center portion of the lot and it would conform with all R-lA setbacks. Although some trees would be lost to construction, the proposed home would be situated to minimize removal of existing trees on the property. One particularly excellent tree would be saved - a large maple to the west of the house would be protected. The tree CITY OF SIIOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 5 of 12 preservation and reforestation plan called for this tree to be root-pruned prior to excavation. There were two trees at the northeast corner of the new home that are shown as being saved. Because of their close proximity to the new house and the substantial grade change planned for that area, it was unlikely those two trees could survive. The applicants' landscape architect should address how those trees might be protected, or realistically if they should be removed. Tree replacement would consist primarily of nine evergreen trees along the Afton Road side of the property and three sugar maples -two on the east side of the lot and one in the southwest corner of the property. 2. There must be some assurance that the existing home would be removed upon completion of the new one. This would be resolved by the requirement of an escrow, sufficient in amount to guarantee that the house would be removed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide bids for the demolition of the existing house. The applicants would then be required to provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the bid to guarantee removal of the older house and restoration of the site. The applicants may consider moving the existing house off the site. If they chose to move the house, ahouse-moving permit, subject to Planning Commission review and Council comment, must be obtained. The approval must have a time limit. The Code allows the builder six months to complete the new home. On some larger or more complicated homes, the six month limit has been found to be a bit restrictive. It would be likely the applicant would have to request an extension; that request should be made prior to the end of the six months. Nielsen then reviewed how the Marquardts' request complied with the four criteria listed in Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.4.(4) of the City's Zoning Code for granting a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. The total area of accessory space (1304 square feet) would not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (5606 over two and one-half stories). 2. The total area of accessory space would not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-lA zoning district (.10 x. 40,000 square feet = 4000 square feet). The proposed garage and the existing shed would comply with the setback requizements of the R-lA zoning district. Existing and proposed landscaping would be adequate to soften the larger garage space. 4. Because the garage would be an integral part of the house, materials and design were not considered to be issues. In fact, the garage would be split into two elevations, facing east and south. Nielsen stated staff recommended approval of the Marquardts' request subject to the following: The applicants' landscape architect must submit recommendations relative to the two trees located at the northeast corner of the new home. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 6 of 12 The applicants must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older house. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house will be removed and the site restored. 4. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within six months of the applicant receiving a building permit for the new house. The applicants must work with the City Engineer to ensure the fill would be properly graded and the effect that grading would have on the trees, and to demonstrate how the drainage would be contained as it flows to the northwest corner of the property. Nielsen stated John and Kristi Marquardt were present this evening. Mr. Marquardt stated they would make a concerted effort to minimize the amount of fill and to preserve as many trees as possible, and they would replace any trees that had to be removed. He then stated it would take longer than six months to build the new house. He explained if they chose to relocate the existing house, weight restrictions would prohibit moving the house during the winter months. He also stated they would comply with the City Engineer's recommendations for grading and tree preservation. Seeing no one present to comment on this case, Chair Schmitt opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:43 P.M. Chair Schmitt questioned if the C.U.P. could be granted for nine months. Director Nielsen stated that could be part of the motion. Schmitt suggested the demolition bid should also include the cost to restore the site the existing home was on. Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Recommending Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Two Houses Temporarily on One Lot and for Accessory Space Over 1200 Square Feet for John and Kristi Marguardt, 5985 Afton Road, subject to Staff recommendations and the demolition bid including the cost to restore the site the existing house was on, and the C.U.P. would be valid for nine months. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen stated the City was not overly concerned about the type of fill used to restore the site the existing house was located on. Nielsen then stated the fill area at the site of the existing house would be noted on the property files the City maintained. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -SETBACK VARIANCES Applicants: Thomas and Patricia Scherber Location: 5080 Shady Island Trail Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. CITY OF SIIOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 7 of 12 Director Nielsen explained the City had received a complaint alleging that Thomas and Patricia Scherber, 5080 Shady Island Trail, had added fill and paved their driveway over their property line onto an adjoining residential lot (which was owned by the Shady Island Home Owner's Association). The complaint also cited a small utility building and various construction materials that had accumulated on the property over the years; a large boat and trailer occupy the newly enlarged driveway. Upon inspection of the site, the complaint was found to be accurate. The owners of the property were sent a zoning violation notice. The same notice was sent to the Shady Island HOA. Nielsen went on to explain that the Scherbers' attorney subsequently appealed to the City Council for additional time, suggesting that his client may have a claim for adverse possession. Mr. Scherber then contacted staff about the possibility of applying for a variance. The City Council granted the property owners 30 days of additional time, in which they were to either file claim for adverse possession or apply to the City for a variance. They did apply for a variance that would allow them to have their driveway extend up to the property line instead of the five-foot setback requirement. They also asked for afive-foot setback variance to place their 8-foot x 12-foot shed five feet from the property lines in the southwesterly corner of their lot instead of the ten-foot setback requirement. Nielsen also explained the subject properly was zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contained 15,616 square feet of area. The driveway currently extended onto the property to the southwest of the subject site. According to the applicants' surveyor, existing hardcover on the property was 36.4 percent of the total lot area. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen related that during a phone conversation Mr. Scherber stated they needed room to get out of their garage. Nielsen stated the distance between the garage and the property line was 38.8 feet. With afive-foot setback they have 33.8 feet. The City had a policy which required end-loading garages to have at least 25 feet of room for a vehicle to back out. Most often that type of design would include a small flared-out area to back into, which the Scherbers could do. With regard to the criteria for granting variances per Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the City's Zoning Code, Nielsen stated there was nothing unique about the lot and the current situation was brought about by the owners' own action. In addition, the property was already well over the 25 percent hardcover maximum set forth in the City's Code. With regard to the shed, Nielsen stated if the shed were located such that it lined up with the northwest edge of the existing black top next to the garage, an approximate two-foot setback variance would be required. There were only six feet between the ten-foot setback and the garage and the shed was eight feet wide. The shed could not be partially placed on the driveway in order to be in compliance because the garage door went to the corner of the building. Nielsen stated that based on the analysis, Staff recommended the variance for the driveway be denied and a two-foot setback variance be granted for the shed to allow the shed to be relocated to line up with the northwest edge of the black top. Nielsen stated Ms. Scherber was present this evening. Ms. Scherber stated the shed had been in its current location for over fourteen years, but they would be willing to move the shed to the suggested area. She also stated she thought the original driveway was on the property line; but they did add the small portion to the driveway that apparently crossed over their property line. After discussion and based on the location of the pillars at the end of the driveway, she decided the original driveway may have been in compliance and the part of the driveway that was added CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 8 of 12 and was not in compliance could be removed. Therefore, there would not be a need for a setback variance for the driveway. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. Dennis O'Hagen 5100 Shady Island Trail, stated the Scherbers had a three car garage and the black top should extend 34 - 35 feet from the garage door to the property setback; he thought that distance should be adequate to back out of the garage and then pull forward out of the driveway. He also thought there was enough area to park cars away from the garage doors on the driveway. He stated the Scherbers generally own up to four vehicles (cars and trucks) as well motorcycles, trailers, boats, snowmobiles, etc. All of those items do not fit in the garage at the same time. At times many of those items are parked such that they are in his sightline to the woods at the Shady Island HOA. He stated from his vantage point the original driveway was in compliance with the setback requirement. He then stated he objected to a variance to the setback requirement for the driveway. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M. Chair Schmitt clarified that it was his understanding that staff was recommending a 2-foot setback variance for the shed, and the driveway would be brought into conformance. Chair Schmitt stated he did not think the applicants had satisfied the hardship criteria for granting a setback variance for the shed; an applicants' inability to prove hardship had been one of the reason for recommending denial of another a variance request earlier in the meeting. He suggested the setback variance for the shed be recommended for denial to be consistent with other actions the Planning Commission had taken. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Ms. Scherber stated the shed was used for storage. He then questioned what the hardship would be. In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, Director Nielsen explained the reduction in hardcover that would be realized from bring the driveway into compliance would be minimal. Once the driveway was brought into compliance the City had no leverage to ask that the driveway be reduced in size to reduce the amount of hardcover. Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Recommending Denial of the Setback Variance for a Shed, and Acceptance of the Applicants Decision to Withdraw the Setback Variance Request and to Bring the Driveway into Compliance. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. 4. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -C.U.P. AMENDMENT UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUS Proposer: City of Shorewood Location: 4580 Enchanted Point Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 8:08 P.M. Director Nielsen reviewed the history of the case. He stated the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club (formerly lrnown as the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club) was located at 4580 Enchanted Point. The UMYC currently existed as a nonconforming use in the R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 9 of 12 district. The City initially granted the club a "special use permit" as a sailing yacht club in 1969. That approval allowed the club to dock or moor up to 30 sailboats and two power boats. The City amended its Zoning Ordinance in 1973 to allow "yacht clubs" as conditional uses in residential zoning districts. In 1977 the UMYC applied for and received a conditional use permit, which was renewed in 1978. In 2006, the City received resident complaints that the Yacht Club had begun renting out slips for power boats. The City cited the Club for expanding or intensifying a nonconforming use, and commenced enforcement action. The action was dismissed in district court because the most recent C.U.P. resolution did not reference "sailboats". The City had since proposed correcting the 1978 C.U.P. to accurately reflect the UMYC's application and the City record. The City Attorney agreed with taking that approach. Nielsen stated the City's records contained a long and clear history of the UMYC operating as a sailing yacht club. He commented the Planning Commission had been provided with a list of documents that reflected that intended use. The documents included: - The 1969 resolution approving a special use permit, among other restrictions, limiting the UMYC to 30 sailboats and two power boats. - A docking plan submitted fora 1976 docking license. - A page from the UMYC's application to the LMCD for a dock license in 1977. - The 1977 UMYC application to the City for a conditional use permit for a sailing yacht club. - The UMYC's 1977 dock permit request. - The Shorewood City Council minutes from June 27, 1977, which reference the Planning Commission recommendation that the same conditions imposed in the 1969 special use permit be established. - Resolution No. 30-78, approving a conditional use permit for the Yacht Club. It is the same as one adopted in 1977. The reference was inadvertently not included in the resolution. - A letter from Commodore Skip Jewett showing that as recently as November 1992, the Yacht Club still portrayed itself as for sailboats only. The letter was part of an application for rezoning which was ultimately denied. Nielsen noted the City had received .anonymous complaints since the UMYC stared renting dock slips to power boats with regard to the noisy activities and some overnight use (which was prohibited by the C.U.P.). The City had also received a document from a property owner which expressed support of the direction the City proposed taking. Nielsen stated staff recommended the City consider a revised resolution clarifying Resolution No. 30-78, and patterned after the 1969 approval, limiting the use of the facility to 30 sailboats and two power boats for the use of the Club. Nielsen then stated the UMYC had taken issue with the City's proposed approach; the UMYC thought it had the right to dock any type of boat it wanted to. Also, the UMYC did not think it had been given enough notice of this Public Hearing. The notice of the Public Hearing was published in the official newspaper for the City, as well as in the Laker newspaper. The UMYC's Commodore and its attorney were each mailed a copy of the notice eleven days prior to the Public Hearing. Because of UMYC's concern about notification, Nielsen stated staff recommended the Planning Commission take public comment at this Public Hearing, and then take formal action to continue this Public Hearing to a September 4, 2007. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 10 of 12 Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:15 P.M. Scott Brown, 4560 Enchanted Point, stated he lived next door to the UMYC. He commented he had found out about the Public Hearing from a member of the UMYC Board ten days ago. He explained he had sailed with the UMYC since 1990; he had been a member of its Board and held various UMYC Board positions; and, he still thought very highly of the UMYC. When he was considering purchasing his property, he reviewed the UMYC's files to do research on the history and workings of the UMYC. He stated there was a great deal of information that supported the efforts of the UMYC's founders, the City, and the property owners to establish a "sailing club" in a residential area. The UMYC was a member of both the Inland Lake Yachting Association (ILYA), and the ILYA was a member of the US Sailing organization. He stated after he and his wife purchased their property, they assumed the role of liaison between the UMYC and the nearby property owners. When they first took occupancy of their home they helped address what the neighbors perceived was a "drug peddling operation". They also spent weeks cleaning up the UMYC property at their own expense because they liked the UMYC and because of their location. He explained he was asked to return to the UMYC Board in either 2003 or 2004 which he did decline. He stated he did attend a Board meeting during January of that year where funding was discussed. At that meeting he said he stated to the Board that they were all aware that the UMYC made it very clear to the City that it was a "sailing club only"; and the response from the Commodore was "the city could pound sand". From his vantage point, the UMYC did not charge enough rent for its boat slips but it did have a tax issue. He explained sailors come to the YMYC on a Saturday morning, they rig their boats, they sail, they return, and then leave. After that the power boaters come with groups of people for a long day of socializing, and often by the end of the day they are loud and not behaving appropriately. He commented the power boaters who rent UMYC slips don't pay the fees the UMYC members pay. He stated he had conveyed his dissatisfaction with the power boater's behaviors to John Barlow and Joel Neuman. He explained during the summer of 2007 an individual urinated on his lawn and made inappropriate comments to Mr. Brown's wife. Ms. Brown called numerous individuals at the UYMC about that situation, but no one responded and said they would resolve the problems. He stated there were times when there were multiple jet skis on the UMYC property, grills on the dock, large amounts of alcohol being consumed, and yet no UYMC members were present. Mr. Brown clarified he was not opposed to the UYMC as a sailing club and sailing was a wonderful sport; but there was difference between the UYMC considering itself a marina for profit and it being considered an organization with a piece of land where people come to enjoy the sport of sailing. David Olivers with the law firm of Lindquest and Vennum PLLP, stated he was there in place of Jack Strothman (the UMYC's principal attorney on this matter). Mr. Olivers stated the issues raised by Mr. Brown were outside of the scope of the item on the Planning Commission's agenda. The issue at hand was the City's request to amend a conditional use permit that had been in effect for 30 years; the amendment would correct an error in the C.U.P. He stated because of the passage of time that would be an illegal act for the City to take. He went on to state that after the C.U.P. was granted in 1977 and 1978 the City had not addressed the error in the C.U.P. The City did charge the UMYC with a criminal act, and tried to hold the UMYC accountable by fining it or putting members of the UMYC in jail. The Court dismissed the action because the most recent C.U.P. resolution did not reference "sailboats"; he stated the Court stated "boats were boats not sailboats". Mr. Olivers explained in a submission from Director Nielsen dated August 1, 2007, there was no evidence included that had not already been submitted to the Court when the Court first considered this matter. Mr. Olivers stated Planning Commission had the opportunity to distinguish between boats and sailboats; the Commission did not include that distinction. Mr. Olivers stated in a 1992 letter from Commodore Skip Jewett, which was part of an UMYC rezoning application (which was ultimately denied), the UMYC had been willing to limit the scope of its slip CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 11 of 12 rentals to sailboats. With regard to hardship, Mr. Olivers stated the UMYC maybe suffering some issues as far as membership goes. He referenced an article in the August 5, 2007, Star Tribune newspaper which stated there were statistics that indicated that "the number of sailboats were down 38 percent and power boats had taken over as the boat of choice of all types"; "this was going to prove a financial hardship to the Yacht Club as we progress down the road". Mr. Olivers stated the C.U.P. was granted under the auspices of allowing the UMYC to dock boats in its slips. Mr. Olivers then stated "boats are boats". Mr. Olivers commented Mr. Strothman would likely attend the September 4, 2007, Public Hearing if there were to be any future correspondence between the City and Lindquist and Vennum. James Thibault 4565 Enchanted Point, stated his property was located across from the UMYC. He explained that he and his wife had provided the City with a written document stating their support for a revised resolution clarifying Resolution No. 30-78 such that the word "sail" would be added to the front of the word "boat". He highlighted their comments in their document. They stated that by adding the word sail the resolution would be consistent with the application made by the UMYC on April 25, 1977, the discussion and recommendation made by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1977, and the discussion and action taken by the City Council on June 27, 1977, and on July 25, 1977. They also referenced the UMYC's April 25, 1977, application for the conditional use permit which stated the UMYC property would be used for a sailing yacht club and the club would not have substantial or unduly adverse effect upon adjacent property, and the UMYC may develop dockage and/or mooring facilities for 34 sailboat slips or lift spaces. They also referenced the minutes of the May 26, 1977, Planning Commission meeting where stated the application was for 34 sailboat slips and 2 slips for Yacht Club Committee boats. Mr. Thibault stated that he and his wife thought adopting a new resolution clarifying Resolution No. 30-78 to be consistent with the City's records and the approval motions by the Planning Committee on May 26, 1977, and Council on July 25, 1977, was the right, legal and ethical action to take. Bill Zucco 4485 Enchanted Point, stated his family had been at that location since 1918. He commented that he had attended the 1969 meeting and all subsequent meetings regarding the UMYC property and its use. He stated he was fairly versed with what went occurred and with what the intent was. There was never any doubt that the UMYC was intended to be a "sailing club". He then stated the property owners made a deal with the City in 1969 for the UMYC property to be used as a "sailing club", and a "deal was a deal". The City should correct the error. Scott Colesworthy 5480 Howards Point Road, stated he was currently a UMYC Boardmember. He then stated he heard a different version of the incident on the Browns' property. He also stated he had heard the individual who had their boat at the UMYC was asked to leave the UMYC, although he was not sure that had occurred. Libby Larson 4545 Enchanted Point, stated there had been unpleasant incidents by many of the power boaters and their friends during the day and evening at the UMYC. She commented many children live or visit the surrounding area. She stated there was a difference between sailboats and power boats. She noted that she had taught at the UMYC and was a sailor herself, and members of her family were members of the UMYC. She stated she would like the UMYC to stay as a sailing club. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:38 P.M. Gniffke moved, Geng seconded, Continuing the Public Hearing to a September 4, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7 August 2007 Page 12 of 12 Wallace Larson 4545 Enchanted Point, questioned why the Public Hearing was being continued. He suggested the agreement that the UMYC property would be used for a sailing club should be enforced, and the resolution should be clarified now. Chair Schmitt stated the Planning Commission was not trying to avoid making a recommendation. The Public Hearing was continued because of the UMYC's concern with too short of notice for the Public Hearing. The City also needed time to respond to legal information received from the law firm of Lundquist and Vennum. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:42 P.M. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there would be continued discussion of Planning District 6 at the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for August 21, 2007. 7. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Ruoff reported on matters considered and actions taken at a July 23, 2007, Regular City Council Meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). • SLUC No report was given. • Other None. 8. ADJOIT.RNIVIENT Gagne moved, Gniffke seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 7 August 2007 at 8:56 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder CITY OF ~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 3 August 2007 RE: Marquardt -C.U.P. for Two Houses on One Lot/Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO. 405(07.10) BACKGROUND John and Kristi Marquardt own the property at 5985 Afton Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). They wish to keep the existing home on the property while their new home is being constructed. At staff s direction they have applied for a conditional use permit that is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on 7 August 2007. The subject property is zoned R-lA, Single-family Residential and contains 40,204 square feet of area. The property is currently occupied by the Marquardts' existing home and a small shed (see Exhibit B). They intend to live in the existing house while a new home is being built. Once the new house is completed, the old one will be demolished. Proposed building elevations for the new home are shown on Exhibits D and E. The proposed building plans include attached garage space that, when combined with the utility shed on the north side of the lot, exceeds 1200 square feet of total accessory space. For this they have also requested a conditional use permit. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Two Houses on One Lot. Shorewood's Zoning Code limits the number ofsingle-family dwellings on a site to one. In the past, the City had granted variances allowing property owners to keep an existing house on the ., S. pO PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER #S.n Memorandum Re: Marquardt CUP 3 August 2007. property while a new home is under construction. The Code was amended in 2000 to allow for such requests by conditional use permit. Following is how the Marquardts' request complies with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) of the Code: Keeping an existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new house. In this case the existing home is nonconforming with respect to R-lA setback requirements. The house is only 35 feet from Afton Road and 40 feet from Cathcart Drive, both of which setbacks should be 50 feet. The new home will be situated in the center portion of the lot and conforms with all R-lA setbacks, as illustrated on Exhibit B. Although some trees will be lost to construction, the proposed home has been situated to minimize removal of existing trees on the property. Exhibit C is the tree preservation and reforestation plan for the project. It is worth noting that one particularly excellent tree will be saved - a large maple to the west of the house will be protected. The plan calls for this tree to root-pruned prior to excavation. There are two trees at the northeast corner of the new home that are shown as being saved. Given that they are in very close proximity to the new house, and that a substantial grade change is planned for that area, we are skeptical that these trees can survive. The applicants' landscape architect should address how these trees might be protected, or realistically if they should be removed. Tree replacement consists primarily of nine evergreen trees along the Afton Road side of the property and three sugar maples -two on the east side of the lot and on in the southwest corner of the property. 2. There must be some assurance that the existing home will be removed upon completion of the new one. This is resolved by the requirement of an escrow, sufficient in amount to guarantee that the house will be removed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide bids for the demolition of the older house. The applicants will then be required to provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150 percent of the bid to guarantee removal of the older house and restoration of the site. They are considering the possibility of moving the existing house off the site. If this is their choice, ahouse-moving permit, subject to Planning Commission review and Council comment, must be obtained. 3. The approval must have a time limit.. The Code allows the builder six months to complete the new home. On some larger or more complicated homes, this limit has been found to be a bit restrictive. It is recommended that. if it is necessary for the owner to request an extension, it should be made prior to the end of the six months. B. Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet. Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code contains four specific criteria for granting this type of conditional use permit. Following is how the applicants' proposal complies with the Code: -2- Memorandum Re: Marquardt CUP 3 August 2007 The total area of accessory space (1304 square feet) does not exceed the total floor area above grade of the principle structure (5606 over two and a half stories). 2. The total area of accessory space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R-lA zoning district (.10x. 40,000 square feet= 4000 square feet). The proposed garage and the existing shed comply with the setback requirements of the R-lA zoning district. Existing and proposed landscaping are considered adequate to soften the larger garage space. 4. Since the garage is an integral part of the house, materials and design are not considered to be issues. In fact, the garage is split into two elevations, facing east and south. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Marquardts' request subject to the following: a. The applicants' landscape architect must submit recommendations relative to the two trees located at the northeast corner of the new home. b. The applicants must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older house. c. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicants must provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house will be removed and the site restored. d. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within six months of the applicant receiving a building permit for the new house. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Joe Pazandak John and Kristi Marquardt -3- ,o° 00'8 1 M..00. L LOOS O ¢ U~ OO m d m m _ c~ z hG~~' m q no °"~ W z a ~~^. s v M M // I `~~ N x m m /i1 ~ x x ~a~ // x w N - - msy m ~~/' I I ~ ~;~ m~ ~ o °i a J mF I m~ mR mF ~R °' /~~ i l of o x ~ i I `.. '~ I ~-- sz x , o~' o I m m~ cur', l Z j '~o Y Y ~C2~ } x I - ~ mO I aao in m ~~rn w x x ~'- - __--- =wp II ~Z 1p~. W pJ mFW l i x mO ~ x m m m .C.: 1/// N I ~ °' ~~\ ~ m m ~ x x O l m °' ~5 O M ,~ m °' °' m M^ 0'OZ ~~'~~ ° c~µ', --- ---- OOSIT--- f£~bZx\ ~-r-- _ m o o N o w f""' x m ii f i, rx ~~ ~` f'S la e I r3 x x as am ~ I ~ I «.,~ m~ m ~ ~°' m/•~f AVm3nlaa a~ a ~ Q x i x j .n ~° i `.,,.m \~ \m ~~ lNI i m oasodoad ~ I Q ~° 8;0 ~ ' I l I d~ ~~ ~ o.L9"ZZm i"\^ m a e Q m e Z I m `--- '° mo ~ _ \p~~ ~3ovav~ N r. m~ o0 m --. S 1 x~ e / ~\ =----- ---- Z z x v Q o ,~~ \;, I ~, ~ o ~i\ oosi oos ¢ w w \ \ I ~ I O ~ r m ^ X Nw ~o /I'~m m o rn~~ ~ m m N~z\t~ o ~o i ' Q =Z 11 Q~ °~d ~ w O ~ IUD 7 - ~' o.°' \m Y~.O M i ~o j x O i W w o ~ cc~'~ N ~ ° O °'- L'6Z - I OO~Z s\m ,--~~ I m r- w .N p a ~ m~.~ I ~ ~~l~.I O m ei o O ~ o m m x '° oo~sT"~ ~oo~a;N~ m Eg~sz~ ~ ~~ I I~ m Zw A M / i IWi z ~~rYi i YY~ retry. ¢ zW ~ m m m ~ ~~ Q m / i , I I ma mR ~ °~ ~x N / (~ O b~ x ~°~ O I sm ~g~g++ ~ _ ~ ~¢ n o ~ wow ¢ mo ~~Nrr ~ °¢ x m o_ m ~ I m m r; o, ~ o ~ ¢a OL eF nH ~~ m /- .-I O m~ ~ a ?~ ° 4- Z ~,' r I rn <N ~N hN N J ¢ ~ i~. m L - - -~-"„ ~-i -~ - m~ -a F-~ ter, _ ~ ~= F - Iw m ° W :~., N _ K ~ ~i L F ¢ ~ ~l W Z N °' m 00'891 M„00,11.005 ~I ~ sz m I K o v- °' x °' C}" ° _ o ~ O i ° vl x m '-I ° In z ¢ +' w a °°5w ~ °' /S~ Z ° x o.~ ~~v= O ¢ w ~~~^ L U N z _ ~ ~j ~ ° O ¢~ ~ F ¢ N - Oma E m ~ O F=- ~ U W G° Oa ~ ¢ ~ ° O W=i ~ w ~ ° Z ~ ~' Q ~-' ° °y ~' w ~ O W Q ° O ~ z Z~ m a0 ~'v" M (V uai o ~ ~ 4 ~ Z ¢ 3 o O~~ ¢ O Z OF ~ a v'. L~., C)", z F ~_ O O f- W 3 .. .. ~ ~? p w ~ ~ N Z >O~ _ n- o: OnrvK t-~ra r4 W oo° oa oN io ° J ° woo z s O Z ° L.L m%~~ I- W `m" z o In ® F O N t~ 3~ w aoa~ °a~m <° ~~~ ~~~^ oz ~ ° w o w - -_ a U ~ ~Z° ¢~ oz z° ~ ° ~ mod' ° u V ~ 3 < F- J w Q Q = VI ~° N N d'id' ~I d-°r m~ o~N -oow Q W ~ a ~ O~N¢ NoJN II d ~~d - 3 > ~ w win ~.>W.I ~~ ~N M o II II o ~ _ _ ~ O Z a o 0 0 0 ~ ¢ w oli taw oa ~o w, ° ° Z O~Z YZ oa O 3 a¢¢Q d¢uQ _z~ wo - N ~ o N °ooo°° ° O W ro U~ ov=i = ~ ww w¢ - °arc a ~ o ~ w U w O a oawxw z a ¢3 ~ a~a zm ~~ ° m = 3 a ~ Q LJ j -. in ° °ooo~ In I-o=~ °z°z z z z z z ~~° %o O W n. Jxa° w ~=N° Z (n Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY xf3 .ux_uNo ~ a ~ z ° z n O ~Fw a ~w _ ~ - w - w ~ <~ ` ~ ~ ~ a CO cD ~~< ° N ~ ~ ~ ~ m u ~ d' N d' N c0 f~ mO~ cfl r u a _ z ~ z< w a ~ ~ ~ ~= ~»~ ~ li ~~~~ - - ~~ '` m ~~~ - ~ .'. ~ ~ 0~~''~~'I ~V, OO II,OCS o ,, . aG r ~ ~ ~ ~ yy ~ ~ ~~ y ~ .~ ~ M M ~./~ ~ /\ ~o mr mr ~ ` ~ I (mOl ~ mr mr \ , I ~n SZ mr mp m -.-.-,~ . r ~ y , w ~ . ~ R(lI CJ ~ W _ 2 ~ O~ 2 O it _~ w ~~ cn w r O1j U ~aa~ mi-w \ N ~ / ~~ 7 r 1 _ Z N ' o f S ~ m~ o L() ~~ ~ cn p I a'- ~ ~ ~ 2 m L ~ N a0 w / O ~~ ~'.° ~ O ®® ~ y.~.~ O m~ QO'OZ i U ~ r7 i ` 00'Sl £S_'trZ -A z N __ . O \ 9 , ~ r AtlM3/'40 w „ mvmi a3soao ~. ~~ q U _ ir] .t ~ 4~oL9'ZZ"~ ''Z .~- ~~ r ~3~ ' t+J ~ \n N ~^ n ~u 00'Zl P ® , ® ~ Yr o t OU li a = _ Q G ~ \ U~ D G q Z~ ? W ~1 . ~n am O Z \\ d,2 " w ~ f ~ . ~ r~ w ^ 6 ~ L GZ -~ ~ n \ \ \ ' ` ~ ~ / q FC 9 00'Sl '"00'Rk~ 8F'RZ ® c~ ~ ~- w ,w i 9'Fb \ rJ~ ~ % _ J w N ~ ~~-tea V 0 G ° ° M Ci) 1 i ~ p~ W O] vrv =,~ II ~ ~~ ~ O J ~~ Z Q J .C O) i ~c x ~ ~w I ~ W m u n U ~rwi Ol rn en ~+ t~~ w~ c~ c m ~ u '° o ric cm' ^ ¢ I ~ z~_ O -~ 7_ W mn r r ~ ~ .o a a u i .~ n ~Jn r an inn mn i F- Z U p i ~ w ~-m O ~~ - ~ m~ ~ ~ UGC ~ U 1r -- I O ~ -- z I a ~ ~ L 1a00~ ~ o sz UO'gS L P,~ 00 wz ~ o „ , ~~o o q F ~a¢ ~ i_(_l F- W U ~ O~X Z I- w ~F ~ ~o w~ M1 ~W< ~~ z odN LL 5 ~ zoo ~ i;- Q O< w ~¢ <<~ w~~ wF'~^ waLL < ~o~~ ~NZ o6W m$ ~ wo i$~"' woa z~so ~ ~ ~'F r~ d~~aF =~ 'N"oo H~ ~~ ac w~ xa rca° F i° uw ~: r~m~> ww~ ~°x< m ~G < wO z~~ ov~i °o ~~ ~~ c°~$ S$`~o ~i Aga ~N= ~~ ~. U ~~~ ~w D O: z 30 ~<s Q~~ w zF u< r oo c~a3 ~z~ oo ,~~; aN~ >y~~ ~wo m ~2 m~~"vi °~w 3~Nw -w~ ~4 °g Wi=ox Fw` r~mz a~z '"~ ~~<~~ ~~o iQO~ 60~ a~ ~E ~~~~~ SN ~W"= ~€~ z -3 z z~ 2J~2 _w~ w~3~ ~~ - dF <~~cDi~ ac~¢ •=3u< i~< nw at i~d any - ? ~ i ~=U e u ~' U=3 ~ ¢ ~ ~j o U i~ N~o O WS+ a~..~ O.: w ~ _ V~ ~=m ~~ 6 U i ~~ N<o LL~ ~ ~ ~ o~F _ ~~'" D ~ _ ~~~ a W~uu <a N 'gym w <~ ono <w ~ ,~ o o i ~ w "°a °~w J~o °zr a ?i __ aU o o~ $o a ~~€i iw x h i w~ Y oo ~ ~a ~z ~o w~OZ w~ m z ~5~ _ m~ a: < < z° o~~ ° zLL ~o ,~ ~~r a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s==o ~~ -~ s w _~~ w ~ ~ N ~ <~ o ~°~ mo " ~~ u &~m ~~~ ~ ~ ~x ~~~~ w w<~w °S" v of Exhibit C TREE PRESERVATION/ ~~,~ Exhibit D BUILDING ELEVATIONS ront an ng t sl e ~~ ~a ~~ ~. _. ~ ~~ 1'~ ~~ ' ~ i `~ 1j ~~ I E r , .~ 1 ~~ .,~e, ~~ ~~ r~.F ,,, ~~µ ;a o. o I ~ ^~ I;~~~ ~ ~ ~ „11~I~~ ~ ~~ ~I~41 ° ~1t~ ~~ l~ ~I Ir~~ l I ~ ~' r :Ir .~ I .: ~. DD DD Exhibit E BUILDING ELEVATIONS ac an e t sl e CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT FOR JOHN AND KRISTI MARQUARDT WHEREAS, John and Kristi Marquardt (Applicants) are the owners of real property located at 5985 Afton Road in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described as: "Lot 5, Block 1, Afton Meadows, Hennepin County, Minnesota."; and WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to live in the existing house on the property while a new house is being constructed on the same lot; and WHEREAS, Shorewood's Zoning Code limits the number of homes on asingle-family lot to one, except by conditional use permit, and whereas the Applicants have requested such a conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 3 August 2007, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on 7 August 2007, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Ha11; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 27 August 2007, at which time the Planner's memorandum, and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the City staff; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Property is located in an R-lA, Single-family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 40,204 square feet of area. 2. The property is currently occupied by asingle-family dwelling and one outbuilding. 3. The new home will comply with all setback requirements of the R-lA zoning district. CONCLUSION A. The Applicants have satisfied the criteria for the grant of a Conditional Use Permit under Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) and Section 1201.04 of the Shorewood City Code. B. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the Applicants' request for a Conditional Use Permit to keep the existing dwelling on the property, while a new home is being built, subject to the following conditions: The Applicants must provide an estimate from a licensed contractor of the cost to remove the existing dwelling. From this estimate the City will require a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150% of the estimate to insure that the structure will be removed within a specified time. 2. The Applicants shall provide the cash escrow or letter of credit referenced in 1. above to the City at the time a building permit is issued for the new dwelling. The Applicants must use the Conditional Use Permit by 27 August 2008. The existing dwelling on the property shall be removed from the property within nine months of the time that a building permit is issued for the new dwelling, or by 31 May 2008, whichever is later. D. That the City Clerk furnish the Applicants with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of August 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK -2- CITY F SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 2 August 2007 Erickson, Craig and Sandra -Setback Variance/Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure 405 (07.09) Craig and Sandra Erickson have requested arear-yard variance to build a larger deck at the rear of their home at 4715 Lakeway Terrace (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). The property is located in the R-1D/S, Single Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district and contains approximately 15,750 square feet of area. The existing home with a rear room addition and deck are shown on Exhibit B. The applicants' proposed deck location is shown on Exhibit C. A plan view and elevation view of the deck are shown on Exhibits D and E. It is worth noting that this property was the subject of a previous variance in 1990. A copy of the staff report for that application provided as Attachment I (copied in yellow):. In that case, the previous owner of the property had a 20' x 32' deck that encroached into the rear yard setback. He was granted a variance to construct a 20' x 20' porch over part of the deck, leaving a 12' x 20' deck on the north side of the deck. The Ericksons now propose to replace the existing deck with a lower level deck that is 30 feet long, with one end that is 24 feet wide and the other end 15 feet wide. A landing approximately 5' x 10' connects the porch area to the deck. The proposed deck would be 20 feet from the rear lot line instead of the 35 feet required by the Zoning Code. The variance, if granted, would increase the nonconformity of an already nonconforming structure. .. ~-~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~8 8. Memorandum Re: Erickson Variance 2 August 2007 The applicants have not provided a request letter stating how their request complies with the criteria for granting of variances found in the Zoning Code. A note on their materials list simply states: "This addition is intend(ed) to remove a higher deck and replace it with a lower patio for added privacy for homeowners & neighbors". ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Nonconformities. Most zoning ordinances contain provisions that address. nonconforming structures. These are structures that were built before current regulations were in place. Shorewood's original zoning requirements simply prohibited the expansion of nonconforming structures. While they were "grandfathered in", they were not allowed to be expanded or extended in any fashion. In the mid 80's, the City relaxed these provisions for single-family dwellings. Nonconforming, single-family dwellings were allowed to be enlarged or extended, provided that the new construction complied with zoning requirements. This included upward expansion as well as outward expansion. Section 1201.03 Subd. l.k. states: "That such expansion does not increase the nonconformity and complies with height and setback requirements of the district in which it is located." The applicant's request involves expansion of the nonconformity of the subject home, even beyond the variance that was granted in 1990. The proposed deck will be 20 feet from the rear lot line, almost three feet closer than the existing nonconforming part of the building. B. Variances. In order to accommodate the larger deck, the applicant has requested a variance from the requirements of the Zoning Code. One of the very first things the City considers in evaluating variances is whether or not the work can be done without a variance. In this case there is very ample room on the south side of the porch for a deck of the size proposed by the applicant. With respect to privacy, this can be easily accomplished with fencing and/or landscaping. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the Zoning Code provides criteria for the consideration of variances. All of these criteria must be met in order to make an exception to the law. The applicants' request fails on more than one of the crieteria: 1. There is nothing physically unique about the applicants' property that necessitates a variance. In fact, as mentioned above, a large deck can be built on the south side of the porch. 2. The provisions of the Zoning Code do not deprive the applicants of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in their zoning district. They already have a 12' x 20' deck, and they could have a much larger one. -2- Memorandum Re: Erickson Variance 2 August 2007 3. The previous owner had a very large deck, but chose to cover much of it with a porch. 4. In light of the ample room in which a deck can be built on this property, and the variance that has already been granted for the property, the applicants are able to make very reasonable use of their property. RECOMMENDATION The applicants' request does not meet the criteria for granting of variances. As such it is recommended that the setback variance and variance to expand a nonconforming structure, be denied. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Craig and Sandra -3- v o~ a ~- on ~ ~ ~ \. ='~ 0 N O _®w ~ m~ ~~ m { ~mm ~~~ ~~ :~ .~. ~o a ve ~iL is3w~ =~ ~~ ~~ m V '.: i' e~ eP~~ ,,,, ~~o . .. ~ (I\I . ~2 / ~. .:. : 1 c6 c O N G G J `W i J C6 N ~L U Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Erickson setback variance ~/ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ebb ¢9 ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rc ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ m ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~~~ ~ mmm~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~'~~ e ,~ ',~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ///~/ ~ ~ // as rrvaanens _-- l H rc 0 i a', lVlinne~onica, lV~~a. 5343 Tel. ~4~-7~®~ /"~J' CfEG'ft POC'G ~t .•/~ ~ 685 ~ ~ 20 50 .E r `.<,~ _ ~ t ~l ~p ~-r BB,, ^^ ,-' X200 ~i ~8 _ ' X o• , r l ~t~ ~~2r4...... p~ Ql ~ ` NI ( -f . ' /~ , \ Vj V V ~ ~... I,n^ ` ~j~V G _ ~ ~ ~ ~V • \ ~ ~ z° 22.8_ _ N .;~,•~ p- P ~ O J ' Q ~ O r\ ..rte ,t ;!~ 'O~ ,~ s ~ ~~ .cQ . _' tit .4 ~ :a /2 ~! l --4~ 0 ~,¢ i w o, o' ti l \ , ~~ _ _34.4 ~ _ ~ \ ~ ..~ ~ - ,~Sx ~~,~ ~ .Y: \. ••~. e o ~ io \ ..~ o ~° o °9~q, i ~ \ ~o.o~-- ~°qi .A° ~ ~ North ~,~ t ~ '~, ~ 1!' -'30~ ~ ~ ..-•~ ~6 o NKAWOOD ESTATES. ron monument found. ExhibitB ron monument set. _ PROPERTY SURVEY Shows existing addition and deck PERMIT APPLICATION (pending variance approval) Description: Raised Deck Removal, Low Patio Installation w/stepped landing Name/Address: Craig Erickson 4715 Lakeway Terrace Shorewood MN, 55331 PURPOSED CHANGES i, .,' ~ 1 ~ ~ ~~ mac` , .~ ~ ~ UI ~ {~~` ~~_, i i ; ' ~ s s ~s.o ~~ ~~ a ~~ ~ s, d'.._ ~ ~ `~' i ' . ~ .~:~.~ 10.0 .~ . ~.oz 8 ~." ~' °~~ ..._ ~. ~ ~ ~` ~ dB iJt ~~E~~ P ~I a ,. l a2' r.~ o ~~ ~4~ t ~ ~f39-b~ a~ •~ ~°~ If ~,. .:~ ~: Q ~ ~ ' ~. ~o.o ,~ a 4'~~ o ~Y ~~ _e ~ ~ ~! ~~~.~ ~ 3 I ,'~ ` ~,T '' d O.f-c ~~, Purposed New Patio Purposed New Landing ~~ ~~ Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN Proposed deck shown shaded ~~ ~ ~ ~ak~w~y T~r~~~~ ~~~~~~~~d (~, ~~~~1 _____6= ~e~~ _-_ -_ ~ L Exhibit D PROPOSED DECK PLAN PERMIT APPLICATION (pending variance approval) Description: Raised Deck Removal, Low Patio Installation w/stepped landing from existing room to lower patio Name/Address: Craig Erickson 4715 t_akeway Terrace Shorewood MN, 55331 ELEVATION ~' 8" rise 22.. 30 ft. Purposed New Patio Purposed New Landing Existing Deck Exhibit E PROPOSED DECK ELEVATION July 31, 2007 City of Shorewood ~~ cla Planning Department ~ 5755 Country Club Rd Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Sirs/Madams: ~, `~ Regarding the request for a rear yard setback variance for a patio addition by: Craig & Sandra Erickson, 4715 Lakeway Terrace PIN 26-227-23-11-0039 I am a resident of Lakeway Terrace and I have viewed the Erickson's Back Yard and discussed with them their intent to improve their property with the additional patio space. !approve of the changes that they plan for their property and hope that the planning department will approve the Setback Variance request by the Ericksons. If you would need any additional feed back from me, please feel free to contact me at 952-474-5963. ashell Shorewood, MN 55331-9367 952-474-5963 ~~~.~:.a .~*xy S if ,' + .: 7a ; h tiw .. u1e_ ~.~,.:: +~,'y3fi'' ~'~~ t` . ~, 4y TTT MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF MEMORANDUM S HORE~~O DD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612? 474-3236 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COULICT_L Zi'RONI: BRAD NlELSEN DATE: 28 MAY 1990 RE: HARRIS, TOM - SETBACK VARIANCE FILE NO.: 405 (90.09) BACKGROUND Mr. Tom Harris has requested a setback variance to add a three-season porch at the rear of his home, located at 4715 Lakeway Terrace (see Site Location rnap -- Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to build the porch over 20 feet of his existing 20' x 32' deck (see Exhibit B). The property is zoned R-1D, Single-Family Residential and contains approximately 15,750 square feet of area. The rear yard setback for the R-"1D district is 35 feet. As shown on Exhibit B, the northeasterly corner of the proposed porch is 27 feet from the rear property line, requiring a variance of eight feet. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Aside from wishing to build over his existing deck, Mr. )-tarris points out that his northern neighbor's screen porch is only 20 feet front the rear lot .line. Section 1201.03 Subd. 3.d. of the Zcning Ordinance provides for such situations in front yards, allowing for an average setback where one or more of the adjacent structures is closer to the property line than the required setback. If this concept were applied in this rear yard situation, Mr. Harris' porch would be only one-half foot from the average line created by his neighbor to the north and the required setback (20' + 35' = 55' - 2 = 27.5') A Residential Community on Labe Minnetonl<a's South Shore Attachment I Re: Harris, Tom Setback variance 2~3 May 1990 Another factor worth considering is the larger than required front yard setback c>f Mr. Harris' home. Instead of 30 feet, his house is 53 feet from the street right-of-way. It appears that the house was located far enough back to maintain continuity along the street. In light of the preceding, it is recommended that the variance be granted subject to a condition that in the future the house will not be extended on the front side. This condition not only ensures that neighborhood character will be maintained but that the applicant will provide the minimum amount of green space prescribed by the ordinance. F3JN : ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Tom Harris ~ - ~:. 'o:• GOVT LOT 1 ~S ~•~~-~ ~-~----- 1463. 10 RCS -•-•~ •-. (18) ( , 116 ,}~ ,~a+ ~ ~~~ (19} ti'~\ ' AO P • R . ~~ :. '. (1} 117 ~ (42} 147 4 I I .C.ZB• 5 7 ----....... '' >o_-. ao Ila °° ` 17z .'lo.7a ~ WOODNAVEN PL CITY OF DFEPH ~ 1N-s5 - ~ ---"'~~ 103 '"•IO 1 tPiAT FIND ~ i C) ~ 119.x- ( I _ AA (n1 fnI (c ~n pn ff~~tttt • i- 1 1-21-69 Y 5t /~ 51 (54) i , 24' ~' _ 13 (a7) ° CaV~ ~Uo~ UU® ~ ~ 10Zi U `5JU ~' b0a.p.~1.''0'~~ 4 4i ~ , ..~ LOi '^ oo '~- L,C~. /` i ~ iR.\9 (5) ~ ` D 1 519• w (48) ~? ~ 3 ....110..: a9 ~ ~a.Ofi B V 5 F (7) _ H ~9. R.Z107.Oa ~ .fib (3) J ~ ~. , ."f~•a9\o'~~ ~•3~ '/:~~s.9is ti N (246} ~ ~ ~ (221 (4) ty F 5~,0~ ,• 'TIa•s %; x(20) z ~ ~ ~•3a. 425 ~~ (a3)~, ~ e e ~~ pF \9 ..:~ -_ •°~ ;-. ~~• .. .• (44) •0~,.:r:^~ ~ ~.... x(23) ~~ as \.~ `j P ~ / ~ 2 (10) i, ~~~ (`2 O 15•' ~. ' 14 9~q8 9 .~ S ~ 622\~2 ~~`\ ~ D / !os X15 ~O `~~,~~ ~ 23 J`° ~ '•13.34 ~ .(\ ~ ~ ` ~~. ~ / it Q t~ ~•••, (17)x•_.. "9 ~ ^~e ~~~~,(Z3) "=$ ~ ~ 22' ~ s~ :~ '. , ~ (121 97.5 •' .. ••.•25.5 vi , ~ p'i. '~' ,~'~ `~~ 1 95.25 ~ .oi ~`=' ~ ti`s ~ h5 5 •,~, (63) Doti,; (16) 97 ~ (13)- y~~°''%(24)_ ~ (40)'_ _- r , pp~ \ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~, /° ti° ~_ '~ (25) .~', h~ ~ `x;!02, es - - - - 14_ - 105 ~ l L `'r 1y 7 ~:~~: `:;'''? ( 18) ' ~ ~ ~1 ~'@ - , ~ '~ `~' ~ ~~, 626) ,g .,3~ i~ .. • os 1:: is ~' C e ~ 's' ''o ~ ) a3= ~ 9 $ a ,~\; 9,5 104.97 • ~ , '~ 190 e5 1 . (36} 0+~ ;•. ....... 420.28. EAST ......... /~///~~~\ ~\.-; \06. ~9 !r,.-. 0 \ ~, . Z` . ~' _ _ _ _ _ '•'~ ~'Q~ c --- ---- ~ f~ t1~97.09-0-~ ~'i- - 203.62-5- ~ "~ 6a ~ 10 ~(~ 16 .'' ?,,,mod IF L~ I~ W ~}, 1~ ® ~ Y'•;~ \~ ~ _ ~`g(2oe•a ys- (35) ~ Tre ` _' ~e\ ~ ~~1• `,x,(31) i~ 99.45 ^' • 9 ~ ,. ~ .... 147 ... or . - - EAST _I 3 , , '~•~ ~ ..... `~•~ ) ~ (33) (5Z) s ~ ... 746.3 ~~-z,._(32 0 142. 66 •. 128.82 ~ ..... I5± ~r ~•I 1 ~ 14 - ' . ~i o ~' FERNCROFT LA t3•n'~' ~ ~^ RUSTIC WAY ~ 219 ~s: ~ zV. 3 3 102. 55 ~ 10[• 55 31. ~ ~ w 16 < ~~ I ~ f.~~3. 13 Er•Si (88) '~ ~ (74) r. s, 233.22 w (65) `~ ~ 252.4 -+•. ~ 6 cc = :!I. ,105.76[= !, 216.09 2 f (8) zs °' ~ ^' Gi!' 0 0 (73)765 ;. (66) '~ 222.89 ~ 3 ~~ SI 25.9•..).....10_ 6 3 3 `~ ~', j, '~ 7 108.26 '.108.26 v~, (~ ~, } (72) Ia 8 ~~..3 " ~ ~ 226.29 4 ~~ 42 (75) °' ,~ 4 `:5 ~ c~iU 110.34 `~ ~u03s ~ 76 5 0, o~ (I9) 565.5"'~_: .. .,.!I. I7 , 13 g 4 - -229.69 35 ' ' 21 !, 7 (71) \(b7) 112.43 R Ii2.43 ~ 233.09 6 K~ 18 i = p~ \•„'. - 1 ~1a.54 ~ -Tr.3z ~ ~ .`236. a9 7 °' 19 ,", Exhibit A ))11~ ~ a '~•6') ST_TE LOCATION ~I1665 ~ i1~ ,' ~ v ~ 239.9 ;) <~ II ;p i?~ v of 9 :,~ ~s .~ Harris Setback Variance 10 ~ ;,` ~ ! _ 227.4: o - \~ ,,,Q~ .•" 3 !s..r. 118.76 g n8.76 W o _ 10 1 { '~' <~ I• a (20) ~ 9 ~ d . '_ L_L_ _c ~ T. -. • i v i 1 _~i0 4 j ~ o ; n ..~ '.o 61541 •oo I 4~i. I SURVEY FOR: TNC~MAS H. HA 12.1215 Prepared By: " SCHOEL~ & MADSON, 1NC. Engineers • Surveyors • Planners • Soils Testing 10550 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 Tel. 546-7601 ~--Screen Poch "~4-685 ~. ~2~ so ~ V ~ Q ~r ~t O V-r 20 ..~~ ~ /,. `j V / .. ~ Q ,. ' ~ ~ ~ 5 3 ~ ' u ~ ~o- I ~ 2 6 o I p: ~ Q ~^ '~ ~ ~ A ~ G, • ~ ~ e 1 ~ h ~ ~~ ~,!' • o ~ 2 ~ ~' ~ t rE>1C l i ~ ~ Q CS S V ~~ ~ T.o_ ~...,~ Q Ql .• S \ gas ~ ••'yp ~~~-~ ~ . ~~~•~ •~ • \ i ~ O tic a se \ s W lo.o~.-~•••• ~y i \ Aoh ~ ut \ c~, I tf i ~ 4~~ ...•; ~..,~~~ o i •o i i ~ DESCRIPTION: ' Lot 20, Block I, TONKAWOOD ESTATES. GENERAL NOTES: I, • -Denotes iron monument found. 2, o -Denotes iron monument set. Exhibit B W >--z ~~ (~ 3 ~W^ ~~ O (ZQO ~_I3 = W ~~ ~--~0 Ot`~-= 1-vC~ C~ O Z Q J z cn W Ln ~ ^m^' L ~ U W t1J ^ [`~- z z W m m m N Exhibit C REAR F,LEVATION D m Q7 cv v- Z 3 Q z W O ~ ~ 0~ ~ ~-- U l~ W ~ ^ C\J [`E-- ~ ~ Z W ~l \~ Exhibit D SIDE ELEVATIONS THOMAS H. HARRIS 4715 l.akeway Terr. Excelsior, MN 55331 1~ __ , f ,~ d ~. ~~ ~ ~~- , ,~ ~ ~ r s; . . :~ ~ , . , ~ r ,. ' ~ _ ~' b , ~ ; . ° " ., ~3', ~ : ~. ; ., ,. - - ; , r y ~' t - t,~ ~ y' M ~ e I ~ ~ f i i _... Y« ~ " • i i f, ! ~' t i ~ r c ....:.. _, I ., 1. ~ ~ r ~ !- r p (i r ~ ; ,F...., '~... -; i r Y ~~ f': f '4 ~~ ~ f~ Y~ ,~ ~ .. ,~ ~a -_, - .-_, . _ ._ ___. _ _._y, a~ ~ ~~~~~ /~ f /f7 r J Exhibit E NEIGHBOR SUPPORT LETTEP. Dated 16 April 1990 ~"~-^ ~ l 6~' ~ ~ ~ l 1 ~ c h ~~ fQJ' v~ d~.~l{~ ~4r~ ~ ,.a-fs e... r j~(~~]].N~ f'~ !_~'i v'~_j,J' u<~~x.i /':~*~-'~.~ ~Ci'',~n~~'~ ~°Y!'i4t 3'~ ~ ~~ t r~- ~ y Y"> j / ~ ~ ._~. :, ~„ ~ . {'t ~,rJ t/i <.; Vii/ ~``~ r,. J ~. ~~,. ~ l` ~ ~~_, ~`4 ~. ~ ~.-`~ 1 ~ /+,...-~.~ 1 'y..- ~~`~ ~3 '~' ~ G'L,( l.':~~ ~ .4;,; d'~v''~ pI'~iL ~ t? ~ti- ~ ~':Y-;,_~ ~,l ~j'~~ r' 1.,, i (( p ~- ~ 4 L"r jf ~ ,,~ {{ // ~. _ J (r~ w l ~. ,; ,; p J J ~I f ~` ~ / ~ ` f ~ `/ ~ r~ ~ l L; ~ ~,;` 1. i .l~ ,l {'`. ~ .,~ 'C%~ ;.,~f(~.!~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ - . ~ _ !V/`~a jti`, ~ ~ '~~i, ~ f, ' ~;, ~,~'~. C ~ ~.~~. l ,f ''~~ fd ii ~yt~ L~~~ t ~-'~ +j' ~,, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r' i tv~ ~~1 !i e '??-.-r ;~r (~, r ~; st~~~~ g ~ U. > { i Exhibit F NEIGHBOR SUPPORT LETTER Dated 2.5 May 1990 -D-R-A-F-T- CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO CRAIG AND SANDRA ERICKSON WHEREAS, Craig and Sandra Erickson (Applicants) are the owners of the home at 4715 Lakeway Terrace, which property is legally described as: "Lot 20, Block 1, Tonkawood Estates, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and WHEREAS, the Applicants propose to demolish an existing deck at the rear of their home and replace it with a larger, lower deck, the location of which deck does not comply with the setback requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code, and the Applicants have therefore made application for a variance; and WHEREAS, the Applicants' request was reviewed by the City's Planning Director, whose recommendations are set forth is a staff report, dated 2 August 2007, which staff report is on file in the Shorewood City Hall; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 7 August 2007 and, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested variance; and WHEREAS, the City Council at their regular meeting held on 28 July 2003 reviewed the material submitted by the Applicant, written and oral public testimony, the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the Planning Director's staff report, dated 27 August 2007, which report is on file in the Shorewood City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT The Applicant's property is located in an R-1D/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district in which building setbacks are required as follows: Front: 30 feet Side: 10 feet Rear: 35 feet 2. The Applicants' house is located 27 feet from the rear property line and the existing deck is located 22.8 feet from the rear property line, making it a nonconforming structure within the R-1D/S zoning district. The Applicants' property contains 16,194 square feet of area. 4. The Applicants' property was granted a setback variance in 1990, allowing a 400 square- foot room addition to be constructed over an existing nonconforming deck at the rear of the home, leaving a deck that measures 12' x 20'. The Applicants' have begun work, for which no building permit has been issued, to demolish the existing deck and replace it with a larger deck that is 30 feet long, with one end that is 15 feet wide and one end that is 24 feet wide. 6. There is ample room on the south side of the home to add on to the house or build a larger deck, within the buildable area of the lot. 7. The Shorewood Zoning Code imposes restrictions on the enlargement, extension, or structural alteration of nonconforming structures, providing that any expansion of such structures does not increase the nonconformity and complies with setback requirements of the district in which it is located. CONCLUSIONS A. The variance requested by the Applicants constitutes a significant deviation from the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. B. The Applicants' property can be put to a reasonable use under the conditions imposed by the Shorewood Zoning Code, particularly in light of the previously granted variance. C. The Applicants have not met the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood City Code and have failed to establish any undue hardship as defined by Minn. Stat. Section 462.357, Subd. 6(2). D. That the Applicants' request for the variance set forth above is hereby denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of August 2007. CHRISTINE LIZEE, MAYOR ATTEST: CRAIG W. DAWSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK CITti nF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 August 2007 RE: Scherber- Setback Variances FILE NO.: 405 (04.22) BACKGROUND Earlier this year our office received a resident complaint, alleging that the owners of the above-referenced property (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached) had added fill and paved their driveway over his property line onto an adjoining residential lot. The vacant lot. is owned by the Shady Island Homeowner's Association. The complaint also cited a small utility building and various construction materials that had accumulated on the property over the years, and that a large boat and trailer occupies the newly enlarged driveway. Upon inspection of the site, the complaint was found to be accurate. The owners of the property were sent a zoning violation notice. The same notice was sent to the Shady Island HOA, since it is the owner of the vacant lot and ultimately responsible for it. The Scherbers' attorney subsequently appealed to the City Council for additional time, suggesting that his client may have a claim for adverse possession. Mr. Scherber then contacted staff about the possibility of applying for. a variance. The City Council granted the property owners 30 days additional time, in which they were to either file a claim for adverse possession or apply to the City for a variance. They have now applied for a variance that would allow them to have their driveway extend up to the property line instead of the five-foot setback required by the Zoning Code. In their request letter ~a M® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~` 8. C.. Memorandum Re: Scherber Variance Request 2 August 2007 (Exhibit B) they also ask for afive-foot setback variance to place the shed five feet from the property lines in the southwesterly corner of their lot. The shed measures 8' x 12'. The subject property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains 15,616 square feet of area. As shown on Exhibit C, the property is occupied by the Scherbers' home, with an attached garage. The driveway currently extends onto the property to the southwest of the subject site. Building and driveway setbacks are illustrated on the survey. According to the applicants' surveyor, existing hardcover on the property is 36.4 percent of the total lot area. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The criteria for granting variances is found in Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The applicants' request letter (Exhibit C) does little to explain how they feel their request complies with the Code. In a phone conversation, Mr. Scherber simply indicated that they need room to get out of their garage. The distance between the garage and the property line is 38.8 feet. With afive-foot setback they have 33.8. To put this in perspective, we require end-loading garages to have at least 25 feet of room for backing. Most often this type of design would include a small flared-out area to back into, which the Scherbers can do. It is questionable how the application complies with the criteria. Specifically, there is nothing unique about the lot, and the current situation was brought about by the owners' own action. In addition, the property is already well over the 25 percent hardcover maximum set forth in the Zoning Code. With respect to the shed, there is room elsewhere on the site to accommodate it in compliance with setback requirements. If any variance is to be granted, it should be the minimum possible. For example, if the shed were set at the northwesterly edge of the driveway, the variance would be down to two feet. In light of the preceding analysis, it is difficult to recommend in favor of the variance request. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane Thomas and Patricia Scherber -2- ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ s o ~ o °- +~ ~ w~ v ao d as ~-~ G ~. ~ ~ cn a ~ U.~ 0 U snw~ =a t, z ~ ~ y 3 N V' .lOb/{S u°> N ~~~~Q~ 7 O O 1 ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ U ^^,, '~ O~ W ~ ~~O P2 ~~VS ~O ~ 30 v 9 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Exhibit A ~` ~ SITE LOCATION ~ .~ `~ Scherber variances -~ ~ ~ ~ City ~f Shorewood 5575 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 To Whom It May Concenl: We request a variance to put a driveway on the property lot lint. Also, to place a shed within 5 feet of the property lot line. Thank you . Tom and I'at Scherber 5080 Shady Island Trail Mound, Minnesota 553b4 Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Southwesterly line to an intersection with the Southeasterly line of the Northwesterly 8.00 feet of said Lot 5; thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly line f the Northwesterly 8.00 feet a distance of 131.67 feet; thence Southwesterly to the point of beginning, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 'SCOPE OF WORK: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. Iii 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the corners of the property. 4. While we have shown the boundary of the property as an extension (dashed) of the original lot lines from the original shoreline shown on the plat to the ordinary high water mark, there are legal questions, that only a court can decide, on how the property the lots in this plat gain as the lake recedes should be divided among the lot owners. If this is of sufficient interest to warrant the expense and time involved in a legal proceeding, you could consult with an attorney about the procedure to get a court to resolve this question. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: " "Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 923 5, set, unless otherwise noted. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. ~~~ J es H. Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 IMPERVI®US S~IRFAC'ES AREAS INSQUARE FEET) T0~°AI I ERV'IOt1S C'E 5, 61 0~ IOT 15, 616 EO ®~`I VOUS 36® 0 Wood privacy fence / /. ~~ Found 1/2" , ~/ ~ ~~~SSS 0 o ~'iy~. - food' Lotd~ev2~~~ <\ `ak -. ~ , \ aaaordF/era ~\ n9 t~ `~~~~ \~ ,'~l~ 84 h~~~® s JZ~ aha creek ~ y S 9 apex 2~0 ~lStr,~ Fk/st/~9 Res/ae tae Exhibit C PROPERTY SURVEY CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY C<_UB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 August 2007 RE: McMasters -Extend Extension FILE NO. Property(4530 Enchanted Point) Mr. John McMasters was granted a deadline extension to correct code violations on his property at 4530 Enchanted Point. He called earlier this week to advise us that he was not going to make the new 22 August deadline, and asked for additional time. Staff will inspect the property on Monday, prior to the Council meeting. If a good faith effort appears to have been made, we recommend that the deadline be extended to 4 September, after which the matter will be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution. If you have questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Cc: Craig Dawson Tim Keane i-®a® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~8~ CI'T'Y OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952} 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Celebrating 50 Years • 1956 - 2006 MEMORANDUM Date: August 22, 2007 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: Bonnie Burton, Finance Director/Treasurer Lawrence A. Brown, Director of Public Works Re: Authorization to Purchase: Computer Network Server Installation CC: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator The City's main network server computer is scheduled for replacement in 2007 and a proposal for same is attached for Council review and approval. The current network server was installed February 2002, and has given the City good service. Its useful life is nearing an end and hardware and software upgrades are required prior to installation of the new financial software package scheduled for October. The City has standardized on Dell equipment and the proposed hardware is a Dell PowerEdge machine with a tape drive back-up system. The specifications are robust enough to handle current and anticipated software requirements. The City's computer consultant coordinated with the financial software vendor to assure configuration compatibility and coordination amongst the various systems. Staff recommends a professional installation by the City's computer consultant due to its familiarity with the City's current systems and because it is imperative that the new system be set up quickly and efficiently to minimize down time. A September installation time-frame is anticipated. A proposal and quote was requested recently from the City's computer consultant, Techies Outsourced IT (formerly the Geek Squad). The quote is attached for the Council review and contemplates $14,580.12 for hardware and software, and $4,912 for estimated labor, for a total of approximately $19,500. The 2007 City budget allocates a combined cost of $17,000 for this purchase. The remaining cost ($2,.500 - 3,000) could be allocated from the General Fund balance or from the Public Facilities (soon to be renamed Office Equipment and Technology) fund. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council authorize purchase and installation of computer network equipment, as proposed. C ®s ~®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER till 9 ~ p-~, ~- - ~ ~ ~ . ~, ~''~, '~ L~ isc3T rtv ~ 1 / ~ 1660 South Hwy 100, STE 102 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Account Manager: Shane Quinters Direct: 952-351-9444 Fax: 952-653-1610 Purchase Order #: 070817-CoS Labor Cost ~1 _l h ti'ti f tic~'ra l S,a ~ I,~,,,.; ~ ,,,,, r ,,,.,,, Client #: 37829 Client Name: City of Shorewood Address: 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone #: 952-474-3236 x223 Sales Tax Rate 6.65% PO Date: Expiration Date: 17-Aug-07 8/22/2007 Description Qty Price Ea. Total Cost Server Setup 1 $660 $660 Server Application Install (Antivirus, Backup Exec, Exchange,Laser Fiche, Billing App) 5 $329 $1,645 Data Transfer 1 $329 $329 Network Workstation Reconfiguration 16 $100 $1,600 I/O Device Istallation 3 $164 $492 Estimated Labor Subtotal (including sales tax) $4,912.00 Product Cost Description Qty Price Ea. Total Cost DELL PowerEdge 2950 (Rackmouni Server) 1 $4,999.00 $4,999.00 * Intel Quad Core E5335 Xeon Processor * 4.OGB of DDR2-667 (4x1GB) DIMMs * (qty 2 x 146GB SAS 15k) in RAID-1 (OS) * (qty 4 x 146GB SAS 15k) in RAID-10 (Data) * Dual Gigabit NICs and 16X DVD-ROM Drive * Redundant Power Supplies and Rapid/Versa Rails * 3 Year NBD, 5x10, HW-Only Warranty Service DELL Tape Drive Solution (Rackmount) 1 $2,299.00 $2,299.00 * PowerVault 114T, LT02-L Tape Drive * 39320A SCSI Controller and SCSI Cable * 10 pack of LT02 Tapes, Rapid Rails for DELL Rack * Symantec BackupExec v11d for SBSuite (OEM) * 3 Year NBD Onsite M-F, Sam-6pm Warranty Software and Peripherals: DELL PowerConnect 2724 - 24port Gigbat Switch w/ Syr 1 $279.00 $279.00 Internal PCI Fax Modem from USRobitics 1 $112.00 $112.00 MS Small Biz Server 2003 R2 Premium w/ SA and 5 CALs 1 $1,809.00 $1,809.00 5-pack SBS Prem '03 CAL Add-on w/ SA 3 $738.00 $2,214.00 Symantec Anti-virus Ent Edition License w/ 1yr Support 20 $85.00 $1,700.00 Thawte SSL Certificate - 2yr. 1 $259.00 $259.00 Product Subtotal $13,671.00 Product Total (with sales tax) $14,580.12 The undersigned individual/company agent agrees to purchase the following service from Techies OutsourcedlT. By signing this agreement the purchaser is authorizing Techies OutsourcedlT to proceed in providing the service and hardware at the stated amount. Techies OutsourcedlT requires a payment of 100% of product cost to process the order. Labor will be extended at Net 14 terms. Client: City of Shorewood ~~ Authorized Signature Date Bonnie Burton Name and Title Check# and Amount NOTE: The prices reflected in this purchase order are guanteed for 5 days, if expired this purchase order will need to be updated. PowerVaultT`" 114T LTO-2 PV114T, LT02-L Tape Rack Enclosure, 1 Drive Qty1 Module Description Id PowerVault 114T PV114T, LT02-L Tape Rack Enclosure, 1 Drive 1 Controller Card and SCSI 39320A SCSI CNTRL Card and Cable for Tape Drives, Cables Supported on 9G Servers 9 Tape Backup Software Symantec Backup Exec v11d Small Business Server Suite 25 Rack Rails RAPIDRAILS FOR DELL RACK 27 Hardware Support Syr BASIC NBD: L1 Hardware Queue, Next Business Day Services Onsite M-F Sam-6pm 29 Tape Media LT02, Formatted Tape Media Cartridge, 5 Pack 36 PowerEdge 2950 Qty 1 Quad Core Intel® Xeon® E5335, 2x4M6 Cache, 2.OGHz, 1333MHz FSB, No Operating System Module Description Id PowerEdge 2950 Quad Core Intel° Xeon° E5335, 2x4MB Cache, 2.OGHz, 1 1333MHz FSB Operating System No Operating System 11 Additional Processor Single Processor only 2 Memory 4GB 667MHz (4x1GB), Dual Ranked DIMMs 3 TCP/IP Offload Engine groadcom TCP/IP Offload Engine Not Enabled 6 Enablement Riser Card Riser with 3 PCIe Slots 7 Primary Hard Drive 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 3.5-in HotPlug $ Hard Drive Primary Controller PERC 5/i, x6 Backplane, Integrated Controller Card 9 Floppy Drive No Floppy Drive for x6 Backplane 10 Mouse No Mouse Option 12 NPtwnrk AdantPr Waal Fmher)rlPri Rrnadcnm® NPtXtrPmP II 57~R (;i~ahit 13 Ethernet NIC CDf DVD Drive 8X DVD-ROM 16 Bezel Rack Bezel 17 Backplane 1x6 Backplane for 3.5-inch Hard Drives 18 Documentation Electronic Documentation and Open Manage CD Kit 21 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 3.5-in HotPlug 2nd Hard Drive 23 Hard Drive Hard Drive Configuration Integrated SAS/BATA RAID 10, PERC 5/i Integrated 27 Rack Chassis w/Sliding Rapid/Versa Rails and Cable Chassis Configuration 28 Management Arm,Universal Hardware Support Services 3Yr BASIC ENTERPRISE SUPPORT: 5x10 HW-Only,4hr 5x10 29 Onsite After Diagnosis Installation Support No Installation Assessment 32 Services Redundant Power Supply with Y-Cord for PowerEdge Power Supply 36 2950 4th Hard Drive 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 3.5-in HotPlug 51 Hard Drive 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 3.5-in HotPlug 5th Hard Drive 52 Hard Drive 6th Hard Drive 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 3.5-in HotPlug 53 Hard Drive 146GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 3.5-in HotPlug 3rd Hard Drive 54 , . Hard Drive , Additional 200 GB / 400 GB LTO Ultrium 2 Data Cartridge - 5-Pack PowerConnect 2724 24-Port Gigabit Ethernet Web-Managed Switch with 3-Year NBD Advanced Exchange Service Qty 1 Qty 1 a higher Exchange it~l~tt33 resul# than bath P anc .. veil raises tine bar tivith its latest Exchaanga massaging server I~erformz~nce for duaE processor savers l~he Pc~werEdCie 2950 acltit~~Jed e~ result of T%,7E1f) ~/11~183 The high parfor~~nre in this f~enchrrtark is the rest;it of systert~-(:vide irnprcvements in ilo arcC~itecitare, men~~~ry sper3c{. processor techrlc~logy a~;var~cas anc! high-perff~rn~ance harri drives In a rack-~~ptirrtized 2tJ fc)rr~~ factor. the D~~U' ~' Po~.ver- Evrie}e`°` 2`~i;~i; Yerver rielivers an axcollnrjt haiar~G;e of otastancling perfarrnance. availability and flexi(~iiity for ,~rat~ring r~nt~rtorie ir~frastruct~ir;; applir~,tu~ns a, vdeil as ~.~eh; messaging, clat<adase arlri file,'print rnnsoliclation ~ ~,1. C ing Dual . xsor Microsoft Exchange Pe foe In June of 2006, the Dell PowerEtlge 2950 recorded higher Exchange performance than all previous submissions from Dell, HP and IBM in the MMB3 Benchmark for a dual processor server. The MMB3 benchmark is designed by Microsoft®to measure the relative performance of servers running the Microsoft Exchange®messaging application. As more and more organi- zations rely on groupware and messaging applications to drive their business, the performance of a server running Microsoft Exchange is of critical importance. System Processor No. of Processors Speed Result re d' ~ ~ f. ~u Hewlett Packard ProLiant Dual Core Opteron 4 2.4GHz 12,000 DL585 IBM System x 3650 Dual Core Xeon 2 3.OGHz 11,600 Hewlett Packard ProLiant Dual Core Opteron 2 2.4GHz 11,000 DL385 Hewlett Packard ProLlant !Dual Core Opteron 2 2AGHz 10,652 ' 'BL25p Source: Source: Top Microsoft MMB3 single-node benchmark results from Dell, HP, and IBM as of 6120/2006. See http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/evaluation/performance/default.asp for current results. The PowerEtlge 2950 server includes several high performance features designed specifically to drive higher performance for business critical applications such as Exchange that are critical to businesses. High Performance and AvaiCabi#ity to Max'smize Up#ime The Dell PowerEtlge 2950 server supports up to two of the latest dual-core Intel Xeon proces- sorsand the Intel 5000X chipset. The 2950 with these latest Intel dual core processors has shown dramatically increased performance and performance/watt versus previous generation PowerEtlge servers using Intel Xeon dual core 2.8GHz processors). With the new capability to support eight 2.5" SAS drives, the 2950 also provides enough room to stripe data onto multiple drives for high performance in demanding environments. Additionally, exceptional memory throughput and capacity is achieved with as much as 32GB offully-buffered DIMM memory. The server includes PCI Express technology for excellent I/O throughput, and TCP/IP Offload Engine (TOE) which offloads the TCP/IP processing to a dedi- cated processor on the embedded NIC's for CPU performance gains. And with features like hot plug power supplies/fans, RAID configurations with battery backed cache, and an internal tape drive option for local data backup, the Dell PowerEtlge 2950 helps ensure your data is pro- tected and accessible. About the MMB3 Benchmark The MM63 benchmark is designed to mimic the workload requirements of the typical email/ messaging user. Results should be interpreted as a benchmark for messaging throughput and should not be confused with deployment recommendations. Factors such as backup/restore, topology and other issues should be considered when planning a deployment. Results are based on the MM63 benchmark results posted at http://www.microsoft.com/ exchange/evaluation/performance/default.asp. 1 Pertormance results: SPECjbb2005 benchmark, Dell Labs, 12/05 and 4-5/O6, PE2950 w/2 dual core Intel Xeon 5080 (3.73Ghz) processors, 8G8 533Mhz FBD memory, 1x SATA 80GB/7.2K rpm HDD, W Indows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition OS, us PE2850 w/2 dual core Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz processors, BGB 400Mhz DDR2 memory, tx SCSI 36G8/15K rpm HDD, Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, SPt OS. PerformanceM/att results: SPECjbb2005 benchmark, DeII Labs, PE2950 wl2 dual are Intel Xeon 51fi0 (3.OGhz) and 5080 (3.73Ghz) processors, 4GB 667Mhz and 533Mhz FBD memory, 2x SAS 73GB/15k rpm HDDs, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition O$ versus PE2850 w/2 dual core Intel Xeon (2.BGhz) processors, 4G8 400Mhz DDR2 memory, 2x SCSI 36G8/15K rpm HD's, Windows Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition OS. Ac[uaI performance and power consumption will vary based on configuration, usage and m~nufacludng variability. DeII is not responsible (or errors in typography or photography, Dell, the Dell Logo and PowerEtlge are trademarks of Dell Inc. Microsoft and W indows are registered trademarks o(Microsoft Corporation. Intel is a registered Trademark and Xcon is a trede- mark of Intel Corporation. Other trademarks and trade names may be used in this document to refer to either the entities claiming the marks and names or their products. DeII disclaims proprietary interest in the marks and names of others. ©COpyright 2006 Dell Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of DeII Inc. is strictly forbidden. For more information contact DeII. June 2006. / 1 DELL POWEREDGE ~ • • • • • • • • • • •-- 2950SERVER • • • • • •• •• • • • • • In crack-optimized 2U form factor, the Dell's Innovative 9th Generation PowerEdge Servers Dell`" PowerEdge" 2950 server delivers Through innovative hardware design, software commonality and continued focus on fewer system updates, Dell's 9th an excellent balance of outstanding generation PowerEdge servers help reduce the complexity involved in managing data, whether you are a large enterprise or performance, availability and flexibility a small business. These servers are designed to aDell'"-developed Behavioral Specification that defines consistent hardware layout and user interaction across all server models in this and future PowerEdge generations. Plus, a shared master system for growing network infrastructure image with 1950 and 2900 enables updates to BIOS, system drivers, firmware, operating systems and applications from one applications as well as web, messaging, easy-to-copy template for simplified software management. Featuring the latest Intel' Xeon~ processors, the 9th generation database and file/print consolidation. PowerEdge servers offer the power and performance you expect from Dell. Dell PowerEdge 2950 Packs Flexibility and Storage Capacity in 2U Format The Dell PowerEdge 2950 Server offers configuration flexibility in a 2U chassis for organizations that require space-conscious internal storage capacity rather than an external storage system. Six internal hard drive bays provide up to 4.5TB' of internal storage helping to conserve valuable data center space while supplying enough storage space to accommodate growing applications. Designed to help organizations keep up with changing requirements, the server includes several embedded functions, like dual Gigabit NIC's and integrated SAS storage controller, which allows three available PCI Express'" slots. These enable flexible expansion to support a wide variety of data center workloads. High Performance and Availability to Maximize Uptime The Dell PowerEdge 2950 server supports up to two of the latest Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors and the Intel 5000X chipset. These latest processors provide increased performance and performance/wattZ. With the new capability to support eight 2.5" SAS drives, the 2950 also provides enough room to stripe data onto multiple drives for high performance in demanding environments. Additionally, exceptional memory throughput and capacity is achieved with as much as 32GB of fully-buffered DIMM memory. The server includes PCI Express technology for excellent I/O throughput, and TCP/IP Offload Engine (TOE) which offloads the TCP/IP processing to a dedicated processor on the embedded NIC's for CPU performance gains. And with features like hot plug power supplies/fans, RAID configurations with battery backed cache, and an internal tape drive option for local data backup, the Dell PowerEdge 2950 helps ensure your data is protected and accessible. Manageability for fieduced Complexity The Dell PowerEdge 2950 server is equipped with a Baseboard Management Controller (BMC) that includes a complete set of tools that monitors server hardware, alerts you when server faults occur and enables basic remote operations. For environments with servers located in secure data centers or in sites with no IT staff, Dell offers an optional feature for PowerEdge servers, the Dell Remote Access Controller (DRAG). Operated through aWeb-based graphic user interface, DRAG can enable remote access, monitoring, troubleshooting, repair and upgrades independent ~~ _ _ of the operating system status. Common software with the same family of PowerEdge 9th generation servers ;~~~+ `r:: ::::::::::::::::::::::~ :? ;;I ~ further helps simplify management. Plus, the Dell Behavioral Specification means one familiar platform for less complex deployment, management and serviceability as well as lower Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) over multiple Dell PowerEdge 2950 generations of PowerEdge servers. ~~~ _~ .............................. ~~"""""' ~ """""'~ DELL POWEREDGE 2950 SERVER ~~@ L ~'1 ii~J~~iE1S1 ~'s~~ m"~9~~E SE?~1,'1~~°~ FEATURES DELE" POVVEREDGE`" 2950 SERVER Dell brings pure execution to I7 Services. The planning, Form factor 7iJ rack height implementation and maintenance of your IT infrastructure deserves nothing less. Variability in execution can compromise Processors Up to two Quad-Core Intel Xeon 5300 sequence processors at up to 3.OGHz; user productivity IT resources and ultimately your reputation. Up to two Quad-Core Intel Low Volt Xeon 5300 sequence processors at up to 2.D GHz; , , Up to two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5100 sequence processors at up to 3.OGHz; Ey leveraging our heritage of process driven excellence, Up to two Dual-Core Intel Low Volt Xeon 5100 sequence processors at 2.33GHz; or Dclt Services can deliver a smarter way. Up to two Dual-Core Intel Xeon 5000 sequence processors at up to 3.OGHz Front side bus I,Itt~l Xe~m l0 SP<~uer, e Dual Indap~rnir~nt li)56MI h or 133?Mi h; We don't claim to do everything. We focus on I't infrastructure Inh,l Xeon ~10i1 Sequ nee Du~+l Intlof,l n~lent 1[hSE fAHz of i333fv1f iz; Intel Xeon bOdO Sc~uel~,a Dual Independent GGliolhz services. And we take a customer led approach, grounded in the philosophy that you know your business better than Cache Intel Xeon 5300 Sequence: 2x4MB; am~one. That's why Dell does not try to take key business Intel Xeon 5100 Sequence:4MB; decisions out of your hands, or lock you into more than you Intel Xeon 5000 Sequence:2x2MB need. Instead, we apply ourworld-class process management Chipset hitel 5000?: and "no excuses'" culture to deliver what customers today most need - Ilexibility and repeatable quality. ThaCs absolute Memory Up U '~%~~~h I F ~U DIfv4 1 I I'I <laJf.lh ~ idiBil6h l L' 4CN Fully Huf(cr I Dlf.l'es FBDI n execution. That's Dell. mah~ ed p< n °f~11;< i I,( nv11 it i/0 slots I h ae E(;I slats, either Pi :o riser wittl three F(;I Cxf re ,~ slots loin x1 ~xy connc+.tor) adJ hvo;c8) nr t~ ~o PCI a 64 bit/1 "dMl Iz and oste FLI Ezpre~s x8 slot Assessment, Design and Implementatimt Services 17 departments are continually challenged to evaluate and Drive controller 4 poi SAS 5 i u ~t r1~aterl r 1a ccn;ioll~ r pi Pal)1 implement new technologies. Dell's assessment, design and RAID controller Option~ll'iHCi/lintegmtP<ISASrSAIAriaughteraanlcontmllzr.viih756MRcexhe, implementation services can restructure your IT environment I'FHC de/L`C, PERC!v%e afiapter to enhance per'forrnance, scalablliry and efficiency while helping ro maximize your return on invesunent and minimize Drive bays 3 hard drive base options: 8 x 2.5" Hard Drive Option: 2.5" HD Option: up to 8 SAS HDs (10K1; disruption to your business. 4 x 3.5'" Hard Drive Option: 3.5" HD Option: up to 4 SAS (10K/15K) or SATA p.2Kl drives; 6 x 3.5" Hard Drive Option: 3.5" HD Option: up to 6 SAS (10K/15K) or SATA 17.2K1 drives; F~ripheral bay options; Fbppy Drive, DAT72 Tape Drive (not available with 6x3.5"" hard drive basal; Deployment Services Slim optical drive bay with choice of CD-ROM, DVD-ROM or Combo CD-RW/DVD-ROM Systmn deployment is a necessary evil that plagues nearly Maximum internal storage Up to 4SIB siz I'.~06D hot-plug SATA IZ2 K HI'iv1! every organization. You must deploy new systems to help improve performance and meet user demand With Dell's Hard drives[ 2.5" SAS hOK RPMI: 36GB, 73GB; deployment services, we help simplify and speed up the or 3b"" SAS hOK RPMl:73G6, 146GB, 300GB, or 4000B; or 3.5" SAS 115K RPMI: 36GB, 7368, 146GB; deployment and utilization of new systems to maximize optima or 3.5"" SATA p.2K RPMI: 80GB, 160GB, 2506B, 500G6, 750GB SATAU throughout your IT environment. External storage SAS, SCSI and fibre channel stooge systems Asset Recovery and Recycling Services Tape backup options Internal: PV100TIDAT 721with muitibay External: PowerVault DAT 72,1107,114T,122T,124T,132T,136T,160T and ML6000 Proper disposal, reselling and donation of computer equipment is a time-consuming task thatrypically falls to the bottom of Network interface card Dual embcvidedCroadcunr" NeUarame li" 6/OG G 1bir Fttlenmt NIC wilh f tll poor and Inad Dell simplifies the end of life processes for many IT to-do lists b I-rr ing I OF if CPIP O(Ilo ~d Eryinel supported on iv'i~;rosofT Windu s Salver 1003, SPl or . hiy ter ~,vith Scalable Nelworkinp Pack IT equipment in a way that can maximize value for customers. Power supply AC configuration with standard single or redundant 750W hoi-plug auto-switching universal 110/220V AC power supplies Training Services DC configuration with redundant hot plug -48 to -60 V20 A DC power supplies Arm your employees with the knowledge and skills they need Availability CCC ADD memory, SD7C, Spare Dank; hot-plug hard drives, opUOnal hotplug redundant to he as productive as possible. Dell offers comprehensive peyver suppli s door clnnrrlrled NILs wish failover and load bahecing support; optional training services which include hardware and software PFRC5/i intt~ldted dauythterrard cola ollena~ith rsttt.ry-back 1 c ruse; hot plug redundant training, as well as PC skills and professional development coo{Ing; fool I chzvssls; fibre and SCSI ~Justel 'u,lport; validatoo for D~II/CMC SAN classes. With Dell training you can help improve system Video Emb Idrrl d I I F ~ lIC{l e W ~,'~i[3:rtuiuiy reliability, maximize productivity and reduce end user requests and downtime. Remote management Standard L'asahuard Management Controller with L'v!PI 20 _~upp~; t; optional DRAGS for adVallCHd f;apc t11htIP,S Systems management Dell Upe.n~'planage" Enterprise Support Services With Dell, you can get maximum performance and availability Rack support 4pgst (Devi r t .kl Z-post and 3rd pa~NV~i`YI rails, ~I ding rai(sauilCable fvlm igementAm~ of your Dcll server and storage systems. Our Enterprise Operating systems Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2, Standard, Enterprise and Web Edition, x64, Support services offer proactive maintenance to help Standard and Enterprise Edition; prevent problems as well as rapid response and resolution of Microsoftw Windows' Storage Server 2003 R2, Workgroup, Standard, Enterprise Edition; problems when they do occur. We have built a robust global Red Hat"' Linuxx Enterprise v4, ES and ES EM64T; SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9 EM64T infrastructure that offers multiple levels of enterprise Support for systems throughout your infra s[fu Ctu re. 'for hard drives, GR means 1 billion bytes, actual capacity varies with preloadetl material and operating environment and will be less. 'This term does not connote an actual operating speed of 1 Gb/sec. For high speed transmission, connection to a Gigabit Ethernet server and network inirasVt>cture is required- Dell is not responsible for errors in typography or photography. Dell, the Dell logo anti PowerEtlge are trademarks of Dell Inc. Imel is a registered trademark and Xeon (s a trademark of Intel Corporation. PCI Express is a tradem ark and PCI-X is a registered trademark of PCI-SIG- Other trademarks and trado names may be used in this document fD help you got the mOSt from your Dell Sy Stems, to refer to either the entities claiming the marks and n ames or their products. Deli disclaims proprietary interest in the marks and names of others. ©Copyright 2007 Dell Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any manner w hatsoever without the express written permission of Dell Inc. is strictly forbidden. for more information contact Dell. vi s it www. d C I LC 0 rn/s c rule e s. Jury 2007. Kolar_ AZG- Services vary by region, ~` rn~tnrvr~,~. ~:{ al. C Ot11 Tt}TAL QUOTE AMOUNT: $6,9$4.30 Prt;•duct Subtotal: $6,477.00 Tax; $429,30 ~ Shipping & Handling: $87.00 Shipping Methgd: Next Day Total Number of System Groups: 1 ~,!.J {'~ i GROUP: 1 QUANTITY: 1 SYSTEM PRICE: $5,953.00 GROUP TOTAL: $5,953.00 Base Unit: PowerEdge 2500,P3,1GHz,256K Cache (220-1492) Processor: Information,No Second Processor (311-1193) Memory: S12MB SDRAM,133MHz,2X256M8 DIMM,for Deil PowerEdge 2500 {311-6570) Keyboard: QuietKey Keyboard,104 Key, Gray,6 Pin,Factory Install {310.4100) Monitor: No Monitor Option (320.0058) Hard Drive: 18GB 10K RPM Ultra 180 SCSI Hard Drive {340-1937) Hard Drive Controller: PERC3•D1,728MB,21ntemal Channeis,lMth Documentation, for Deli PowerEdge 2500 {340-248.5) Floppy Disk Drive: 3.5 in,1.44MB,Floppy Drive,forDeli PowerEdge 2500 {340-2557) Operating System: MS Small Business Server 2000 with 5 Clients {420-0286) Operating-System: Deli OpenManage Kit,32-Bit (310.1261) Mouse: Logitec System Mouse,Gray, Servers (310-3776} NIC: Onboard NIC {460-6604) Modem: S6K PCI Modem,v1.0,for Deit PowerEdge Servers,Factory Install (313-0369} TBU: PowerVault 100T,DDS4,20/40G, Tape Backup,No Controller, tntemat {340-2669) GD-ROM or DVD-ROM Drive: 24X 1DE CD-ROM,for Deli PowerEdge (313-8993) Speakers: 1X6 Backplane Hard Drive, (1 in Oniy),for Deil PowerEdge 2500 (311-0578) Documentation Diskette: No Hard Copy Documentation (310-1989} Additional Storage Products: 18GB 10K RPM Ultra 160 SC51 Hard Drive {340-1937) Factory Instatled Software:. Veritas Server,Power Suite (420-2833) Option 1: C4,MR5lN,for Deii PowerEdge 250D {340-2578) Option 2: Tower Chassis,for Deil PowerEdge 2600 (310-0841) Service: Type 2 Contract -Same Day 4-Hour 7x24 Parts and Labor OnSite Response, Initial Year (900-6350) Service: Type 2 Contract -Same Day 4-Hour 7x24 Parts SLabor On-Site Response 2YR Extended (900- 6352) Service: Premier Enterprise Support -Software Support Quan#ity 3 Resolutions {960-0227) Installation: On-Site Installation Declined (900.8997) Misc: Redundant Power Supply, 2+1,2 Cords PE2500 {310-5086) '; Misc: 18G610K RPM Ultra 160 SCSI Hard Drive (340-1937) Contract Code 92-00151 For Order Processing to add line item to quotes on F9 Screen {480-5933} SOFTWARE & ACCESS©RIES Product Quanti#y Unit Price Tota! Small Business Server 2009 CLT ADD4N 3.6 DMF 5PfS {458635-4} 2 $2bg,Qp ~S1SA7 i t Number of S ~ A Items: 1 S&A Total Amount: $518.00 TOTAL QUOTE ANtOUNT: $6,984.30 Product Subtotal: $6,4?1.00 Tax: $426.30 Shipping & Handling: .$87.00 Shipping Method: Next day Total Number of System Groups: 1 -SALES REP: KRISTIN KELSEY PHDNE: 800-98'1=335a Email Address: Kristin_Ketsey@Dell.com Phone Ext: 43285 For your convenience, your sales representative, quote number and customer number have been included to provide you with faster service when you are ready to place your order. You may afro place your order online at www.dep.comlquote This quote is subjec# to the terms of the agreement signed by you and Dell, or absent such agreement. is subject to the applicable Dell terms and conditions agreement. Prices and tax rates are valid in the U.S. only and are subject to change. All product and pricing information is based on latest information available. Subject to change without notice or obligation. LCD panels in Detl products contain mercury, please dispose properly. Please contact Dell Financial Services' Asset Recoverv Services 4roup for EPA compliant disposal options at US_DFS AssetRecovery~delLcom. Minimum quantities may apply MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Craig Dawson, City Administrator Larry Brown, Director of Public Works FROM: James Landini, City Engineer DATE: August 23, 2007 RE: Accept Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for the Shady Island Bridge With the recent collapse of the I-35W Bridge, it is sad to say that many across the nation have had to learn that each agency, city, county, state, perform annual bridge inspections. The inspections completed for the recent collapse have been at the forefront of the media coverage and are still under investigation. It is very unfortunate that this even occurred, and that the public learned of the need for bridge inspections through this. This does however underscore the need to perform these inspections, and the need to keep up with all infrastructure maintenance requirements. Every year at this time, the City has, and will continue to perform the inspections required for the Shady Island Bridge, located between Shady and Enchanted Island. A site location map is included at Attachment 1, for reference. Attachment 2, is the proposal from WSB and Associates -Structural Division, for inspection of the subject bridge. This proposal is based upon 6 hours of inspection and 3 hours preparation of the MNDOT report and 1 hour for a summary report to the City of Shorewood. This proposal will examine the structural integrity of the bridge, any known or apparent defects and the conditions of the abutments and channel characteristics. On larger bridges under water SCUBA inspectors are required to inspect the channel conditions. This bridge is of the size and nature, that this is not required. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds it to be in order. Inspection reports will be filed with the City and the State of Minnesota. Recommendation Staff recommends that a motion be passed accepting the proposal for Professional Engineering Services with WSB and Associates, Inc. .a r 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®~ ~ Shady Island Bridge ~E~ ~~C ~ ~ ~ ~ H T H '~ I s H `~ ~ I o H I 1 ~ n2. ~D~ 5. Shady Island Bridge I . NO SCALE . _ -~.; .. ~I~..:_ uy Bridge Inspection Shady Island Bridge SHOREWOOD, MN PROJECT LOCATION ATTACHMENT 1 DATE :08.23.07 ~' ~cQ WVL.r Infrastructure ^ Engineering ^ Planning ^ Construction & Associates, bic. August 22, 2007 Mr. James Landini, P.E. City Engineer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Bridge Inspection Proposal Dear Mr. Landini: 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite #300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 On behalf of WSB & Associates, Inc. (WSB), I am pleased to submit this proposal to provide professional engineering services as they relate to bridge inspections in the City of Shorewood. There is one bridge for which the City has inspection-reporting jurisdiction. This bridge is due for inspection as required by MnDOT. WSB & Associates, Inc. is proposing to provide the following scope of services: 1. Bridge Inspection: We will perform the bridge inspection and submit an inspection report to MN/DOT. A Professional Engineer with bridge inspection experience will perform the work as required by MN/DOT. In addition, a letter report will be submitted to the City outlining the results of the inspection. The proposed work will be completed within two weeks after the notice to proceed. WSB will complete the above scope of services on an hourly basis with anot-to-exceed cost of $1,170. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (763) 287-7192 with any questions or comments. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. :=~-~~~ Barritt Lovelace, P.E. Senior Structural Engineer cc Dave Hutton, WSB & Associates, Inc. Attachment #2 sm \\SHOREWOOD I\Company\Pacific Data\User Data\Engineering\2007\2007 Bridge InspectionV'ROP Ibrown 082207.doc