The URL can be used to link to this page

102797 CC Reg AgP - .,.. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDA Y, OCTOBER 27, 1997 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1 . CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Dahlberg ~ Stover McCarty ~ O'Neill Garfunkel B. Review Agenda 2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES City Council Regular Meeting Minutes October 13, 1997 (Att.-#2 Minutes) 3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Approve a Temporary Sign Permit for the Southshore Senior I Community Center (Att.- #3A - Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Friends of the Southshore Senior Community Center Location: 5735 Country Club Road B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Final Plat (Att.- #3B - Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Charles Oberg Location: 5590 Christmas Lake Point 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5 . PARKS - Report by Representative Report on October 14, 1997 Park Commission Meeting (Att.-#5 Draft Minutes) 6 . PLANNING - Report by Representative A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Denying Concept Plan Review of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing (Att.-#6A Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: 25600 Highway 7 & 6140 Eureka Road B. A Motion Regarding an Amendment to Gideons Woods P.U.D. Agreement and Protective Covenants (Att-#6BPlanner's Memorandum & Petition) Applicant: Gideon Woods Homeower's Association Location: Common Area of Gideon Woods P.U.D. C. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Zoning Amendment Relative to Signs (Att.-#6C Planner's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Friends of the Southshore Senior Community Center Location: 5755 Country Club Road CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - OCTOBER 27,1997 PAGE 2 OF 2 D. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Zoning Amendment Relative to Signs (Att.-#6D Planner's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) Applicant Howard's Point Marina E. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Text Amendment Relative to Signs (Att.-#6E Planner's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) Applicant Lutheran Church of Our Savior Location: 23290 State Highway 7 E. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a c.u.P. for an Institutional Wall Sign (Att.-#6E Planner's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) Applicant: Lutheran Church of Our Savior Location: 23290 State Highway 7 F. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding a Simple Subdivision (Att.-#6F Planner's Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) Applicant Stan Taube Location: 27280 Edgewood Road 7. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING - CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSESSMENTS FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS - MARSH POINTE (Att.-#7 Proposed Resolution) 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ACCEPT A QUOTE TO CLEAN SOUTHEAST WATER TOWER (Att.-#8 Engineer's Memorandum & Proposed Quote) 9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING FUND RAISING OPTIONS FOR FOURTH OF JULY CELEBRATION (Att.-#9 Administrator's Memorandum) 10. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED BOARD (Att.-#10 Administrator's Memorandum) 11. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE. PURCHASE OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT (Att.-#ll Staff Memorandum & Proposed Resolution) 12. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE TREE POLICY BY REFERENCE PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES FOR VIOLA TIONS AND DISCUSSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS (Att.-#12 Proposed Ordinance) 13. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring B. Report on Shoreline Messages Received (Att.-#13B Staff Memorandum) 14. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS 15. ADJOURN SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att.-#15) .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1201 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1: read: Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.d.(2) of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to "(2) Except as provided in paragraph (5) below all nonconforming and prohibited signs created by this Ordinance except those signs exempted by State statutes shall be removed or brought into conformity with this Ordinance within the following time periods:" Section 2: add: Section 1201.03 Subd. l1.d. of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to "(5) Notwithstanding provisions to the contrary within this Subdivision, nonconforming off site directional signs located on public rights-of-way may continue upon a finding by the City Council that: (a) The sign is reasonably necessary to provide direction to the business which is advertised by the sign. (b) The sign (or a substantially similar predecessor) has been at the location for at least 20 years. (c) The sign has not represented a safety hazard or an obstruction to ordinary roadway maintenance activities. The Council may condition such permission upon the owner of the establishment entering into an agreement with the City addressing matters including liability, indemnity of the City, circumstances calling for removal of the sign, permit fees, and other matters deemed appropriate by the City. In lieu of permitting the existing sign to remain at its existing location the City Council may authorize the location of a substitute sign in the existing location or a different location." Section 3: to read: Section 1201.03 Subd. l1.e.(1)(b) of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended "(b) Institution Signs: One (1) freestanding sign not to exceed twenty (20) square feet in area. Such freestanding sign may be indirectly illuminated and shall not exceed a height of eight feet (8') above grade. Freestanding signs located adjacent to intermediate or minor arterial streets, as identified in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan, may be internally lit. In addition, one (1) wall sign may be allowed by conditional use permit, subject to the following: . 1. The total area of signage, including the wall sign, shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the building silhouette as viewed from the street. 11. The wall sign may be indirectly illuminated." Section 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OTY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, this 26th day of October, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk -2- OCT. -n'97(MON) 16:20 OLSON/US SET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P. 001 FAX Olson. Usset, a.nd Weingarden Suite 310 4500 Park Glen Road St. Louis Park. Minnesota 55416 Date 10/27/91 Number of pages including cover sheet G To: From: Jim Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood Paul A. Weingarden Attorney at Law Phone Phone (612) 925-6888 exL 112 Fax Phone (612) 925.5879 Fax Phone (612) 474-0128 cc: REMARKS; o Urgent 18I For your review 18I Reply ASAP o Please comment The enclosed constitutes the response of Eaglecrest Northwest to the proposed Resolution denying our concept plan. Please make a copy of this correspondence and submit it to each member of the Council at the meeting to be held this evening. This is to become part of the record in the event of further review. If you will not comply with this request. please contact the undersigned immediately. cc: Clients John Dean The Infonnation Contained In This Facsimile Message Is Privileged And Confidential And Is Intended Only For The Use Of The Individual Or Entity Named. Any Dissemination Of This Communication By Anyone Else Besides The Named Recipient Is Strictly Prohibited. If You Have Received This Communication In Error, Please Notify Us OCT, -2r 97(MON) 16:21 OLSON/US SET p, A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.002 OLSON, USSET & WEINGARDEN P.L.L.P. ATIORNEYS AT LAW PAm.. A. WElNGARDENO DAVID J. USSET THOMAS B. OLSON" DENNIS E. DALEN OMSBA o.rti&.d RnIl'mpaty Sp:cioliol "MSBA cmifim Civil Tri.. Spctillldl SUITE 310 4500 PARK GLEN ROAD MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 TELEPHONE (612) 925-6888 FAX (612) 925-5879 LEG....L ASSISTANTS BONNIE TRONNBS KIM FORTIN DEBBIE BAKKE LAURA DE PETRA KELLY OLSON CAR.lUE BARREtT OURFD..ENO. 10729 October 24, 1997 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: We are in receipt of your proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions for the Resolution denying the Concept Plan for Shorewood Senior Housing (Eagle Crest Northwest, Inc. planned unit development). We have reviewed the document and find it replete with factual inaccuracies and misstatements concerning the project and, most surprisingly, an apparent misunderstanding of the requirements necessary at this stage provided by the City's own ordinances. To be specific, our objections are as follows: Finding 3. (Unit NUmbe~) Prior to the last hearing, Eagle Crest met with your Planner to discuss lot density and wetland requirements. At that time, it was communicated that the maximum number of units proposed for the site was 68. This information was also communicated to the City Council at the last hearing. Thus, the factual finding of BO proposed dwelling units is inaccurate. Finding 4. (Private Road) The issue of the inadequacy of the 20 foot private road has never been raised by either staff or the Council prior to the resolution. If it is unacceptable, we will increase its width. This is normally an issue that is addressed at the Development Stage. Finding 5. (Eureka Road) The applicants have no problem in dedicating an additional 13.5 feet of right of way to bring Eureka Road into compliance with City standards. Again, this issue can easily be discussed after concept approval. OCT. -n' 97(MON) 16:21 OLSON/US SET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 P.003 Page 2 October 24, 1997 Pinding 6. (Park Dedioation) This Finding is inaccurate. We have already advised the City that we do not need or intend to trade property in order to meet park dedication requirements. This issue is normally addressed at the Development Stage at which time we will meet your standards in all respects. Finding 7. (Setba~~B) At 68 units, we will meet all necessary setbacks and road requirements of the City. If additional requirements are necessary, Eagle Crest is prepared to meet them. Again, the issue is premature. Finding 9. (pire Protection) The statement that current water supply is not adequate to meet fire protection needs is a gross misstatement of fact. In truth, City staff has advised that fire protection compliance would require either installation of a sprinkler system in the units or agreeing to sink an additional well. We have agreed with this requirement. Another premature issue. We have no specific disagreement with Findings 10, 11, 12 or 13. We would note, however, that the City's own zoning ordinance permits senior housing as a conditional use with a maximum number of 108 units at this site, 58 percent mOre than requested by Eagle Crest. Moreover, the City has identified this site as one of three preferred sites for the development of senior housing, and you have entered into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council to support the same type of senior housing that has been proposed. To now suggest that this site does not meet the requirements of your zoning ordinances is totally inaccurate. Finding 1.4. Subparagraph a and b. (Supportive Servioes) The City has not identified any deficiency relating to supportive and service facilities for senior housing. These units will be occupied by a maximum of two persons 62 years of age or older. They will not require any more fire or police protection than a single family development would require (and will be paying taxes for such services as well as contributing to the school system which they will not use) . Most occupants will have one or two cars maximum parked 1n the garages. Where necessary, visitors can park in the driveway. On street parking will be as limited by City ordinances. Eagle Crest will meet all requirements for OCT. -27" 97(MON) 16:22 OLSON/USSET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 Page 3 October 24, ~997 utilities, parking and access as required by City ordinances. Again, this issue is usually addressed at the Development Stage. Subparagraph c. (Transitions) The property is to be used for residential purposes of the same basic density as single family housing. It has appropriate buffers to the west and north (the Freeman Park ball field and wetlandl, and similar uses to the east; to the south is State Highway 7. The statement does not specify what negative economic, social or physical impacts will occur to adjoining properties nOr offer any evidence in support. Factual findings without evidence are meaningless. Subparagraph d. (Lot Size) Citing the comprehensive plan statement on lot size and density is meaningless without standards. Taken literally, the Council could decide lot density and size for any given project simply by using their "good judgment", Without adopting a standard (which is established by your zoning ordinance) any such decision would be arbitrary and capricious. Eagle Crest met your green space requirements, lot size requirements, etcs. What is left? Subparagraph e. (High Density) Eagle Crest disputes this is high density housing. Approximately 30 percent of the units will be occupied by a single individual and the remainder by two people. Several of the units will be vacant during the winter when the occupants "snowbird". IF THIS PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED AS 22 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AS PERMITTED BY YOUR ORDINANCE, THE DENSITY, (PRESUMING A HU'SBAND, WIFE AND TWO - THREE CHILDREN) WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THE NUMBER OF ELDERLY PERSONS THAT WILL BE PRESENT WITH 68 UNITS OF SENIOR HOUSING. Moreover, we are dealing with senior citizens, not families with young or teenage children. Most of the seniors will not be working and, as our traffic study indicates, there will be no increase in the number of traffic trips generated by this project as compared to 22 single family homes. As such, there is absolutely no factual evidence supporting this Finding. P. 004 OCT.-27~97(MON) 16:22 OLSON/US SET P.A. TEL:612 925 5879 Page 4 October 24, 1997 Finding 15. Subparagraphs a and b. (Pire Protection - Roads) We have already indicated that we will increase the width of the private road to meet City requirements. This is a Development Stage issue. In commenting on your Conclusions, Eagle Crest Northwest does not believe that there is any basis in fact upon which to draw the conclusions as presented. For the purpose of thoroughness, we will address each one in kind. A. (Park) We have no intentions of trading a portion of the property for a portion of Freeman Park. This is a completely erroneous statement which does not reflect the last proposal of the developers. In any event, this is an issue which can be resolved at the Development Stage. B. (Traffic). Since the property is currently vacant, if it were developed as 22 single family lots, there would be an increase in traffic. As the traffic study submitted by the applicants suggest, the number of vehicle trips for the project is similar to single family use. Further the trips generated by senior citizens would not be during peak traffic times. THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL WHICH womn SUGGEST ANY OTHER CONCLUSION. Once again, this is an issue that can be addressed at the Development Stage. C. (Private Road) As stated, the 20 foot wide private road will be expanded to meet City requirements. Another Development Stage issue. D. (Setback) We will meet all necessary setbacks for Eureka Road. Once again, this is an issue which is normally reserved for the Development Stage. E. (Fire) City water is appropriate for fire protection with the addition of sprinklers or an additional well, which Eagle Crest Northwest will provide. F. (Comprehensive Plan) As discussed earlier the comprehensive plan statements are factually inaccurate or represent general policy statements without reference to any applicable standard without a factual basis or have been prematurely raised at the Concept Stage. P. 005 OCT. -17" 97 (MON) 16: 22 OLSON/US SET P. A. TEL:612 925 5879 Page 5 October 24, 1.997 The Resolution as drafted is merely a subterfuge for the obvious: three members of the Shorewood City Council are willing to violate Eagle Crests rights, in an effort to satisfy neighborhood opponents which reminded them continually of their campaign pledge to restrict high density housing, while ignoring the zoning ordinance as currently written. It is this type of egregious and irrational decision making which results in disrespect for the rule of law and distrust by those people who appear before the Council. The Mayor said it all when he advised that he had no intention of following the law as written because he did not agree with it. This type of reasoning is not only arbitrary and capricious, it violates Eagle Crest's rights under federal and state law. Your planning staff supported the project. The planning commission voted unanimously in favor of the development after reviewing your comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. Eagle Crest urges you not to adopt this resolution - either return the issue to the Council for further hearings or approve the application at the Concept Stage and deal with substantive issues at the Development Stage. If you pass this resolution as written, my clients will be forced to explore their options. PAW; lld Enclosures P.006 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 4 B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Concept PlanDnw 0 f Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Communi! dAFT Applicant: Eagle Crest Northwest Location: 25600 Highway 7 & 6140 Eureka Road Mayor Dahlberg stated, "To start this out, I have a couple questions I just want to ask Jim and John Dean about. Jim, the new Council was in the process of actually reviewing and rewriting the Comprehensive Plan, and as a matter of fact, I think we had just gotten on to senior housing last spring, I can't remember if it was Mayor June. I remember that Jerry had highlighted a bunch of things in the Comprehensive Plan and that section as well, and we were going to go over it. Since the new Council is in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan, I can only assume it is still appropriate for anyone who wants to come in and make an application, to do so. In any event, is that correct?" Administrator Hurm replied, "Yes, that is correct." Mayor Dahlberg continued, "That application, until the final is actually rewritten, would be under that plan?" Administrator Hurm stated, "Yes." Mayor Dahlberg said, "So, let me ask you this John. Obviously, changes in policy take place in cities, is it possible for a city to get sued on the basis of adopting essentially a policy with regard to something like PUDs or high density policy?" City Attorney Dean replied, "That is a fairly general question, so I will give you a general answer. Yes. It can happen, certainly." Mayor Dahlberg asked, "So anybody can drag us into civil court no matter what obviously, it could be over policy, it could be over anything else?" City Attorney Dean answered, "Sure, typically you don't get sued over policy per say, but if you make a decision that someone views as being harmful to their interests, then you get dragged into court. So the policy is normally the first issue, then it is over the rules and regulations. In furtherance of that policy, whether the rules and regulations are applied or misapplied, that gives rise to a trip to court. " Mayor Dahlberg continued, "But all of our lawsuits are based on that essential position, right? I mean, every lawsuit is based on the idea that somebody is disagreeing with the policy that has been adopted. " " Established 1948 '0 IS ~ ~ n \\:7-~ ,'~ iii:- 'I' IU( 11 i !un\ SEP t til997 Ill; , u u 351 SECOND STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 KELLY LAW OFFICES MARK W, KELLY WILLIAM F. KELLY (1922-1995) ?1____ (612) 474-5977 FAX 474-9575 September 3. 1997 Clarence Clofer American Legion Post 259 24450 Smith town Road Shorewood. MN 55331 Mr. Jim Herm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood. MN 55331 . Sandra Langley Greenwood City Clerk/Administrator 22025 Cottagewood Road Deephaven, MN 55331 Mr. Craig Dawson City Manager City of Excelsior 339 Third Street Excelsior. MN 55331 Mr. Patrick Wussow City Administrator City of Tonka Bay 4901 Manitou Road Tonka Bay, MN 55331 Re: 1998 Fourth of July Celebration Dear City Administrators and Commander of American Legion Post: . Since 1987, I have been involved with the Fourth of July celebration here in Excelsior and each of your cities and the American Legion Post has been integral in supporting that continuing celebration. This year's event was the best attended ever. The event, however. is unique amongst those sponsored by the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce insofar as there is no practical way to charge admission or sufficiently fund the event through the sale of permits to sell goods. Consequently. the Chamber of Commerce has relied on your Cities and the American Legion's donation (approximately $6.500.00 total), that of general public cash donations (approximately $2.500.00), contribution from the Chamber of Commerce foot race (approximately $1,500.00), and miscellaneous Chamber funding deVices $2,500.00. The remainder has been donations from local area businesses. Financial support from local area businesses. however. has grown difficult to obtain. This area. unlike our neighboring community of Chanhassen. does not have a retail and industrial base which can be tapped for considerable financial -#9 ., . . KELLY LAW OFFICES -2- contribution to offset the cost of the fireworks display and the attendant. police, sanitation and music expenses which total approXimately $18,000.00. The Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce faced with two years of deficits in conjunction with this event will be taking under consideration whether or not the Chamber should withdraw as the fmancial underwriter of the event. ObViously, the Chamber of Commerce cannot afford to sustain repeated losses in conjunction with this community-wide celebration. The Chamber is of the opinion that this event is valuable to the community and serves families, business and the general image of the area as a whole. The ownership of the event, however, needs to be broadened and a new fundraising committee established that will bring renewed energy to the problem of funding the event. Given that your community or organization has taken a particular and consistent interest in supporting the event, the Chamber requests that you consider appointing a representative to a new governing body for the management of the Fourth of July celebration. This committee should be selected and organized not later than December 1 st so as to proVide adequate time to make the solicitations and plans for the 1998 event. We, therefore, ask that you consider two courses of action: 1. Agreeing to increase your own funding of the event for 1998; and 2. Show your support for the event by naming a person or persons from your community or organization to organize and meet the fundraising needs necessary to hold this event. We, at the Excelsior Area Chamber of Commerce look forward to hearing from you on this issue. Your reply not later than October 10th would be most appreciated. Thank you for your consideration. - Sincerely, Zn:~ 1997 Fourth of July Co-Event Chair MWK/ tas cc: Karen Frazier President. Chamber of Commerce CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1100 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS that the City Code of the City of Shorewood is amended as follows: Section 1. Section 1103 is added to Chapter 1100 as follows: Subd. 1 - Purpose. It is the policy of the City to recognize and preserve existing natural resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded character of the area, the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits, including: stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of stormwater runoff, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy conservation through natural insulation providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and conservation and enhancement of the City's physical and aesthetic environment. The purpose of these regulations is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or construction would adversely effect the City's existing natural resources. The regulations also recognize that despite the best efforts of the City and developers and property owners, trees will occasionally be lost in the development and construction process. In such instances, these regulations will require replacement of trees. Subd. 2 - Regulations. In furtherance of the purpose of this section, the City Council shall, by resolution adopt and may, from time-to-time, amend resolutions providing for tree preservation and replacement in situations involving development or construction. Subd: 3 - Penalty. Enforcement. Failure to comply with the provisions of such regulations shall constitute a violation of this Code; and the City shall proceed to enforcement either in accordance with Section 104.02. Section 2. This ordinance is effective the date following its publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota this 27th day of October, 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ~/;L CITY OFSHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1997 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. AGE.NDA 1. CONVENE WORK SESSION A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 2. ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGETS FOR THE YEAR 1998 3. REVIEW OF 1998-2002 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 4. ADJOURN . . MEMO TO: FROM: Date: RE: MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128 www.state.net/shorewood cityhall@shorewood.state.net Mayor'!11. Councilmembers Al ROlek~ Hurm October 21, 1997 1998 Draft Utility Fund Budgets - Work Sessions Tuesday, 10/28 at 7:30 p.m. Enclosed for your review please find drafts of the 1998 Utility Fund Budgets. These documents will be discussed at the workshop on Tuesday night. The documents consist of budgets for the Water Operations and Debt Service Funds, Sewer Fund, Recycling Fund and the Stormwater Management Fund. The Water Operations fund anticipates very little change from the 1997 budget. There is no major maintenance required to the system, and operating costs are anticipated to be similar to this year in most respects. The exeptions to this are in the areas of staffing, where Larry anticipates more personnel time to be devoted to water operations, and in capital outlay, where a new well building for the Badger well is proposed. This building was budgeted for 1997; however, the project was not undertaken and has been rebudgeted for next year. The Water Debt Service Budget anticipates revenues from special assessments, the City of Victoria, and a transfer from the Water Operations Fund. These revenues are expected to exceed the required debt service for the year. The excess revenues will be held in reserve for future water debt service needs. The Sewer Fund budget anticipates the initiation of two new programs for 1998. First, a program aimed at the reduction of inflow and infiltration (1 & 1) into the sewer system. The major components of this program are the preparation of an 1 & 1 plan, cleaning and televising sewer mains to find 1&1 problems and repairing them, and the sealing of sewer manhole covers. The goal of the program is to ultimately reduce the amount of flow being treated, thereby reducing our sewage treatment costs. The second program would set a goal of refurbishing our aging lift stations at a rate of two stations per year over the next several years. These new programs account for the most significant growth in the sewer budget for next year. The water and sewer funds also budget for depreciation of capital assets within the systems. Although depreciation is a non-cash expense and does not affect cash flow, it is important to recognize it as a real operating expense for these systems. No increase in water or sewer rates has been included in the budget for the coming year. Costs associated with capital improvements will be borne from the available fund balances of these funds. The expenses of the Recycling Fund will increase in 1998 due to the renewal of our contract with the recycler. The present contract expires at the end of 1997, and the costs of recycling A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore are anticipated to increase by 20 to 40 cents per month per household. This increase, coupled with a decrease in funding for the program from Hennepin County, will require an increase in the monthly fee to residents to $1.50 per month from $1.00 per month in 1997. This amount was anticipated in budgeting the revenues for 1998. In addition, the annual fall leaf drop-off site has been financed from this fund and is budgeted the same way for next year. This will be funded from available fund balance, resulting in a decrease in the fund balance at the end of 1998. Continuation of this program and its funding in the future may be something the Council wishes to address. The Stormwater Management Fund budget includes an. increased effort toward small drainage projects and repairs. In addition, the preparation of a comprehensive stormwater management plan for the City has been rebudgeted in 1998 from 1997. We invite your feedback on these issues in addition to your comments on the budget items. Please review the document and feel free to call us with any questions you may have. If you have any other issues, we can research them and hopefully have some answers by meeting time. . . . . FUND: Water MISSION: To provide a safe, clean, uninterrupted supply of drinking water to all City residents connected to the City water system. SUBFUND: Water Operations FUND NO: 60 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Responsible for operation and maintenance of five (5) well systems, including all pumps and well houses, maintenence of water tower and treatment plant, and extension of new watermain and construction of new water facilities, as necessary. OBJECTIVES: - Supply a safe, clean uninterrupted source of water to all connections - Explore possibility of interconnecting with other communities HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: Estimated water sales based on quarterly billing at a rate of $1.45/1,000 gallons Connection and permit revenues estimated based on 50 new homes Interest income Antenna Rental on Water Towers Transfer from Park Capital Fund Expenses: Staffing: .10 Senior Accounting Clerk .30 Light Equipment Operator .10 Receptionist/Secretary Supplies/Materials: Office Supplies, including billing forms and postage Maintenance contracts for computer hardware and software Chemicals for water treatment Support Services: Engineering Contract with Munitech for system maintenance Insurance on water system Water testing Water system analysis Charges & Fees: Sales Tax on commercial water sales State surcharge of $5.21/year on all connections Capital Outlay: Replace Badger Well Building Other: Water Purchased from other communities Meter purchases Well utility charges Transfer to Water Debt Service Fund Depreciation (Non-cash expense accounts for future system replacement) 154 FUND: #60 FUND: Water Operations DEPT # 80 BUDGET Actual Actual Budget YTD Sept Annual Proposed Adopted ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 Est-97 1998 1998 REVENUE Charges for Service 198,236 283,829 207,750 125,420 242,000 236,250 0 Misc. Revenue 45,324 84,552 55,500 58,334 74,000 60,900 0 TOTAL REVENUE 243,560 368,381 263,250 183,754 316,000 297,150 0 EXPENSES Staffing 5,823 5,679 10,824 10,131 11,181 19,637 0 Supplies/Materials 12,035 14,189 17 ,000 20,611 24,500 19,100 0 Support Services 81,351 62,703 64,650 51,927 60,778 63,550 0 Charges & Fees 5,753 6,944 6,350 3,391 6,710 6,900 0 Other 59,041 82,143 64,100 47,666 69,450 68,600 0 Capital Outlay 0 0 60,000 0 0 120,000 0 Transfers 451 10,726 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 . Depreciation 79,617 80,649 130,000 0 130,000 130,000 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 244,071 263,033 392,924 173,726 342,619 467,787 0 SERVICE INDICATORS: Miles of Water Line 15 16 16 No. of Connections 899 980 1,030 No. of Hydrants 163 220 220 Avg Daily Consump- gals 310,000 330,000 335,000 Water rate/1000 gals 1.45 1.45 1.45 FUND EQUITY IMPACT: Beginning Fund Equity 2,689,728 3,540,467 4,425,815 4,425,815 4,425,815 4,399,196 4,399,196 Revenues 243,560 368,381 263,250 183,754 316,000 297,150 0 . Expenditures (244,071 ) (263,033) (392,924) (173,726) (342,619) (467,787) 0 Add to/(Use of) Fund Equity (511 ) 105,348 (129,674) 10,028 (26,619) (170,637) 0 Contributed Capital 851,250 780,000 Ending Fund Equity 3,540,467 4,425,815 4,296,141 4,435,843 4,399,196 4,228,559 4,399,196 STAFFING: Sr. Acctg. Clerk .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 Lt. Equip. Oper.lForeman .25 .10 .10 .10 .10 .30 Secretary/Recept .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 155 FUND: Water MISSION: To provide for the retirement of debt incurred to construct water system improvements. SUBFUND: Water Debt Service FUND NO: 60 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Responsible for the accumulation of resources for the retirement of Water Fund debt, and for the periodic payment of principal and interest. OBJECTIVES: . HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: Property Tax Levy for Debt Service Special Assessments on Water Improvements City of Victoria Payments Interest Income Transfers from Water Operating Fund Expenses: Staffing: . Supplies/Materials: Support Services: Charges & Fees: Capital Outlay: Other: Debt service payments. Principal and interest 156 FUND: #60 FUND: Water - Debt Service DEPT # 80 BUDGET Actual Actual Budget YTD Sept Annual Proposed Adopted ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 Est-97 1998 1998 REVENUE Property Tax 17,506 16,304 0 0 0 0 0 Special Assessments 97,000 301 ,483 258,417 151,788 300,000 265,000 0 Misc. Revenue 0 0 63,630 96,565 96,565 54,521 0 Transfers 0 0 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 0 TOTAL REVENUE 114,506 317,787 362,047 288,353 436,565 359,521 0 EXPENSES Staffing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Supplies/Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Support Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other - Debt Service 18,001 88,300 244,191 244,334 244,334 308,382 0 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 18,001 88,300 244,191 244,334 244,334 308,382 0 SERVICE INDICATORS: FUND EQUITY IMPACT: . Beginning Fund Equity 495 97,000 326,487 326,487 326,487 518,718 518,718 Revenues 114,506 317,787 362,047 288,353 436,565 359,521 0 Expenditures (18,001) (88,300) (244,191 ) (244,334) (244,334) (308,382) 0 Add to/(Use of) Fund Equity 96,505 229,487 117,856 44,019 192,231 51,139 0 Contributed Capital Ending Fund Equity 97,000 326,487 444,343 370,506 518,718 569,857 518,718 STAFFING: 157 FUND: Sanitary Sewer MISSION: To provide a safe, sanitary sewer service to all City residents SUBFUND: Sanitary Sewer DEPT NO: 61 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Major activities include maintenance of sixteen (16) lift stations, and cleaning, televising and repairing sewer mains to control inflow and infiltration. Sewage treatment is performed by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and is provided for in this area. OBJECTIVES: - Work with MCES to correct inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer system - Work with MCES to reduce sewage treatment costs to the City HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: . Quarterly Sewer service charges at $65.00 per quarter Interest revenue from investment of Sewer Fund cash balances Other permit and connection fee revenues estimated based on 30 new homes . Expenses: Staffing: .10 Senior Accounting Clerk .20 Light Equipment Operator .10 Receptionist/Secretary Supplies/Materials: Office Supplies, including billing forms and postage Maintenance contracts for computer hardware and software Support Services: Contract with Munitech for system maintenance Sewer Main Cleaning Inflow & Infiltration Control Insurance on sewer system Legal & engineering services Utilities Travel & seminars Charges & Fees: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services service access charges ($950 per new connection) Charges for sewage flow into City of Excelsior trunk mains Metropolitan Council Environmental Services sewage treatment charges Capital Outlay: Transfers: Depreciation (Non-Cash Expense accounts for future system replacement) 160 FUND: Recycling MISSION: To provide weekly pickup of recyclables to all City residents; provide for the annual pickup of household and yard wastes SUBFUND: Recycling FUNDNO: 62 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Weekly pick-up of newspaper, corrugated cardboard, recyclable plastics, glass and metal, and other recyclable materials. Includes annual City curbside pickup of large household items and brush, and operation of an annual brush/leaf composting drop-off site. OBJECTIVES: - Continue weekly pickup of recyclable materials - Hold curbside pickup of household and yard wastes in the Spring of the year - Provide a leaf and yard waste disposal site in Fall of the year . HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: Revenues: County Aid is a Hennepin County grant Charges for Service includes City Clean-up fees and a City Recycling Fee of $1.50 per month per household Tranfers/other includes transfers, interest income and revenue sharing from the Recycling Contractor Expenses: Staffing: Miscellaneous staffing for City Clean-up and Yardwaste Disposal . Supplies/Materials: Office Supplies Support Services: Recycling contract with E-Z Recycling - $2.15/householdlmonth for 2,400 households City Clean-up costs 162 FUND: #62 FUND: Recycling DEPT # 84 BUDGET Actual Actual Budget YTD Oct Annual Proposed Adopted ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 Est-97 1998 1998 REVENUE County Aid 21 ,788 21,590 21,000 21 ,501 21,501 20,400 0 Charges for Service 20,130 48,945 50,410 31,794 46,560 63,700 0 Transfers/other 6,477 550 800 521 0 800 0 TOTAL REVENUE & 48,395 71,085 72,210 53,816 68,061 84,900 0 OTHER SOURCES EXPENSES Staffing 924 726 825 907 907 952 0 Supplies/Materials 0 0 0 2,031 0 0 0 Support Services 68,846 70,221 71 ,180 51,167 71,790 85,040 0 . Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 69,770 70,947 72,005 54,105 72,697 85,992 0 SERVICE INDICA TORS: Avg. mo. participants 5,000 5,000 5,000 Avg. mo. tonage 50 50 50 FUND EQUITY IMPACT: . Beginning Fund Equity 44,445 23,070 23,208 23,208 23,208 18,572 18,572 Revenues 48,395 71,085 72,210 53,816 68,061 84,900 0 Expenditures (69,770) (70,947) (72,005) (54,105) (72,697) (85,992) 0 Add to/(Use of) Fund Equity (21,375) 138 205 (289) (4,636) (1,092) 0 Ending Fund Equity 23,070 23,208 23,413 22,919 18,572 17,480 18,572 STAFFING: 163 FUND: Stormwater Management SUBFUND: Stormwater Management MISSION: To provide proper surface water and ground water management throughout the City. FUND NO: 63 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITY: Activities include maintenance of storm sewer system, including cleaning of catch basins, dredging of drainage ditches and retention ponds, and minor repairs to system problem areas. Provides partial funding for larger subwatershed drainage projects. OBJECTIVES: HIGHLIGHTS/COMMENTS: . Revenues: Stormwater Management Utility Charges Misc. Revenue includes interest income and other misc. revenue Transfers from the General Fund Expenses: Staffing: .05 Senior Accounting Clerk .10 Light Equipment Operator/Foreman Supplies/Materials: . Drainage Correction/Maintenance Materials Support Services: Engineering Contractual Services for drainage correction Capital Outlay: Preparation of a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan 164 FUND: #63 FUND: Stormwater Management Utility DEPT # 85 BUDGET Actual Actual Budget YTD Oct Annual Proposed Adopted ITEM 1995 1996 1997 1997 Est-97 1998 1998 REVENUE Charges for Service 44,336 44,491 44,300 21,674 44,300 44,300 0 Misc. Revenue 4,740 4,449 3,000 7,439 9,500 7,500 0 Transfers 10,000 110,000 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 0 TOTAL REVENUE & 59,076 158,940 57,300 29,113 63,800 61,800 0 OTHER SOURCES EXPENSES Staffing 10,548 1,360 7,907 1,451 1,994 8,273 0 Supplies/Materials 6,838 0 6,000 130 3,000 10,000 0 Support Services 13,716 13,674 6,100 12,044 14,850 16,250 0 . Charges & Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Capital Outlay 0 0 188,000 0 0 90,000 0 Transfers 0 39,808 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 31,102 54,842 208,007 13,625 19,844 124,523 0 .."'" SERVICE INDICATORS: FUND EQUITY IMPACT: .' Beginning Fund Equity 73,278 101 ,252 205,350 205,350 205,350 249,306 249,306 . '''.,', Revenues 59,076 158,940 57,300 29,113 63,800 61,800 0 Expenditures (31,102) (54,842) (208,007) (13,625) (19,844) (124,523) 0 Add to/(Use of) Fund Equity 27,974 104,098 (150,707) 15,488 43,956 (62,723) 0 Ending Fund Equity 101,252 205,350 54,643 220,838 249,306 186,583 249,306 STAFFING: Sr. Acctg. Clerk .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 Lt. Equip. Oper./Foreman .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 .10 165 MAYOR Tom Dahlberg ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel t t.f, i . .....;. ~::-" . ?r -1 ,ti',,* ;(;, ~!: } ,~ ;; ~.t; : 4j:J ~ ~. ~ i ~ i i: i . !: , , ~.. 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128 www.state.netlshorewood cityhall@shorewood.state.net Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Meeting Monday, October 27, 1997 #,,1....h , I. ;', /v' /I Agenda Item #3A: The Friends of the South Shore Senior Community Center are sponsoring a boutique and benefit dinner for which they would like to notify the public by means of a temporary sign. The proposed portable sign along County Road 19 complies with the requirements of the City Code and approval is recommended. The sign would be displayed between November 3 and November 9. Agenda Item #3B: Dr. Charles Oberg and three of his neighbors were granted preliminary plat approval in July to rearrange the lot lines between their properties to reflect existing use of the properties and eliminate driveway easements on their lots. The proposed resolution will approve the final plat for this project. Agenda Item #6A: As directed by the Council at the 13 October meeting, a resolution which denies approval for concept plan of a planned unit development/conditional use permit for Eaglecrest Northwest has been prepared. Passage of this resolution requires a simple majority vote. Agenda Item #6B: The Homeowner's Association of the Gideon Woods P.D.D. has requested an amendment to the Development Agreement which would extend the deadline for removal of an existing billboard on the commons of Gideon Woods. They would like to billboard to remain for an additional 5 years beyond the lease termination date in order to collect the rent for the sign. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends denial of this request. Agenda Item #6C: The Friends of the South Shore Senior/Community Center are requesting an amendment to the sign ordinance so as to allow institutional signs to be lit internally (versus indirectly). The proposed amendment is in the packet. The Planning Commission voted 4/1 to recommend approval of the amendment. Agenda Item #6D: The Howard's Point Marina has an off-site sign (at the intersection of Smithtown Road and Howard's Point Rd.) which gives direction to the Marina. This sign was recently the subject of a neighborhood complaint. An amendment to the sign ordinance is enclosed in your packet which, if approved, would help regulate existing off-site signs in the public right-of-way. The Planning Commission voted 4/1 to recommend approval of the amendment. Agenda Item #6E: The Lutheran Church of Our Savior located, on Highway 7, would like to place their name on the south-facing wall of their building and have requested an amendment to the sign ordinance to allow them the additional square footage. The proposed amendment requires the request to be processed as a conditional use permit. The two requests are being proposed simultaneously. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of both requests. Agenda Item #6F: Mr. Stan Taube is requesting approval of a simple subdivision to split one lot from his property. The proposed lot meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed resolution approves the request. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Executive Summary - City Council Meeting of October 27, 1997 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #7: At 8:00 p.m. there is a public hearing to hear the objection of Lundgren Brothers concerning their watermain assessment for Marsh Pointe Development. A copy of their written objection is included in the packet. After giving them an opportunity to be heard, staff and Legal Counsel recommends the Council pass the resolution as presented. Agenda Item #8: This item is consideration of a motion to accept a quote for cleaning of the southeast area water tower. The City has received several complaints with regard to it's appearance. In addition, it was part of Sprint PCS contract to pay $3,500 to the City of Shorewood to power-wash the tower. The quote received is for the amount of $3,480 which is within the amount received from Sprint. A motion of accepting the quote and awarding the contract to the fIrm Tight Rope is recommended for approval by staff. Agenda #9: In the packet you will fInd a memorandum listing several options to consider in helping to fInd funding for the Fourth of July fIreworks. Agenda #10: The resolution in the packet prepared for Council consideration recommends the reappointment of Woody Love on the Minnehaha Watershed District Board of Managers. Agenda #11: The memorandum enclosed in the packet explains the needs analysis and revised recommendation on computer equipment and upgrades necessary for the City Hall offices. All but a small portion is accounted for in budgeted line items. The remaining is recommended to be taken from contingency. A resolution identifying the line item transfers will be available to you at the Council meeting. . Agenda #12: Consideration of an ordinance adopting the Tree Policy by reference in our code and providing for violations was deferred from the last Council meeting so there would be more time for discussion. We also would like the Council to discuss the concept of administrative sanctions or penalties. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDA Y, OCTOBER 13, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS SOUTHSHORE SENIOR CENTER 7:30 P.M. 1. MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT Mayor Dahlberg called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Dahlberg; Councilmembers Stover, McCarty, O'Neill and Garfunkel; Administrator Hurm; City Attorney John Dean; Planning Director Brad Nielsen Review Agenda B. Mayor Dahlberg read the Agenda for October 13, 1997. Administrator Hurm clarified Item 3C to be a Motion to Reject All Bids for the 1997 Street Overlay Project. Mayor Dahlberg requested Item 3B be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered as Agenda Item 9.5. The Agenda for October 13, 1997, was approved as amended. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A . City Council Informational Meeting Minutes - September 15, 1997 McCarty moved, O'Neill seconded approving the City Council Informational Meeting Minutes for September 15, 1997, as amended on Page 8, change "October 13, 1997" to "September 24, 1997." Motion passed 4/0. (Mayor Dahlberg abstained.) B . City Council Work Session Minutes - September 15, 1997 Garfunkel moved, O'Neill seconded approving the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes for September 15, 1997, as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 1, Sentence 1, change "sewer and water" to "road construction and water"; Note that the first question in bold was not discussed. Motion passed 4/0. (Mayor Dahlberg abstained.) C . City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - September 22, 1997 McCarty moved, Stover seconded approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes for September 22, 1997, as amended on Page 5, Paragraph 1, Sen~ence 2, change "Mr. Kelly's land" to "Mr. Freeman's land"; Page 6, Paragraph 5, Sentence 4, change "gaited" to "gated"; Page 9, Paragraph 6, Sentence 1, change "in marked" to "is marked." Motion passed 4/0. (Mayor Dahlberg abstained.) 3. CONSENT AGENDA Stover moved, McCarty seconded approving the Motions on the Consent Agenda and adopting the Resolutions therein: :jtd.- REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 2 A. A Motion Accepting a Proposal for Professional Services Regarding Boundary Markers on City Property North of Silverwood Park B. A Motion Adopting A Resolution Making Budget Transfers" * * THIS ITEM WAS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED AS ITEM NO. 9.5 ** C. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97 -82, "A Resolution Rejecting the Bids for 1997 Street Overlay D . A Motion to Approve a Sign Permit Applicant: Crosstown Sign (on behalf of Rapid Oil) Location: 19465 State Highway 7 E. A Motion to Approve the LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage and to Not Waive the Monetary Limits F. A Motion Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-83, "A Resolution Making an Appointment to the Shorewood Parks Foundation" . G . A Motion to Approve a Contract with Senior Community Services for Cleaning Services H. A Motion to Approve a Contract with Senior Community Services for Skating Rink Supervisory Services Motion passed 5/0. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 5. PLANNING - Report by Representative Commissioner Turgeon reported on the matters considered and actions taken by the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 7, 1997, (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Turgeon explained the Commission made its decision regarding the request of Eagle Crest Northwest for concept plan approval based upon the current zoning ordinances. She noted two paragraphs had been added to the proposed resolution which she believed to be arbitrary and capricious. In addition, they contradict the references made to specific building ordinances. Commissioner Turgeon explained the Commission based its recommendation upon Section 1201.03 Subd. 7. She pointed out there are other conditions which follow as well and went on to enumerate those conditions. . Commissioner Turgeon noted the elements of the concept plan which represent the immediately significant elements for City review and comment include the overall maximal PUD density range, general location and extent of common open space, general location of residential and nonresidential land uses, staging and time schedule of development, and other special criteria for development. Commissioner Turgeon stated in evaluating the request, the Council is to determine the relationship between the proposed development, the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance. . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Turgeon referenced cases where cities have been involved and found to be arbitrary and capricious in its decision on conditional use and land use issues. Commissioner Turgeon commented the developer has submitted his proposal in good faith and concurrent with the City's zoning guidelines. She asked that the proposal be considered based upon staff, Planning and Park Commission recommendations as well as the ordinances which currently exist. A . A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision Applicant: Location: Peggy Greer, represented by Michael Greer 6045 Chaska Road Stover moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97 -84, "A Resolution Approving a Simple Subdivision for Peggy Greer, 6045 Chaska Road. " Motion passed 5/0. B. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Regarding Concept Plan Review 0 f Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Community Applicant: Location: Eagle Crest Northwest 25600 Highway 7 & 6140 Eureka Road Mayor Dahlberg noted the Council is in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan and began considering the issue of senior housing last spring, however, it would be appropriate for anyone wishing to make application to still do so. That application would be considered under the terms of the current Comprehensive Plan. Mary Lou Swenson, 24745 Amlee Road, spoke in favor of the development. She noted the senior residents are the people responsible for building the City of Shorewood to what it is today, including the schools, parks and churches. She stated the seniors want to stay in the city they helped build and where they go to church, shop, doctors' offices, and socialize. Ms. Swenson felt housing at a reasonable cost should be made available which would allow the seniors to remain in the city. Mrs. William Seamans, 20 Lilah Lane, Tonka Bay, spoke in favor of the development and complimented the developers on the proposed project. She recalled this particular piece of property was considered a prime area some years ago for a senior housing development. Leyla Graupmann, 23240 Park Street, stated the builders have answered all of her questions. She has observed other developments by this applicant and was in favor of them. Ms. Graupmann also felt the units to be reasonably priced. Alice James, 6110 Tee Trail, explained she is fairly new to the community and was excited about the proposed units and is looking forward to the units becoming available. Bud Koch, 22845 Murray Street, also spoke in favor of the project. Mr. Koch noted he has attended several meetings regarding this matter and noted his understanding the proposed density is in compliance with the ordinances of the City. He questioned how fault could be found with this project when it meets the ordinance. Mr. Koch stated he would hope the ordinances would not be changed because of this development. He questioned where senior housing would be put in Shorewood if not at this location. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 4 Roy Swenson, 24745 Amlee Road, explained he has viewed many other developments, however they were not affordable. Mr. Swenson commented on the reputation and ability of the developer. He requested the Council not turn their backs on the seniors and approve the request. Jim Mertes, Minnetonka, stated he is a prior Shorewood resident. He has viewed some of the developer's other projects and noted the homes to be affordable. Mr. Mertes felt the Planning Commission did a thorough job and urged the Council to approve this request. Al Wagner, 2572 Highway 7, stated he decided to sell his property to move closer to his family. He stated if he were to stay in the area, he would be interested in living in the proposed project. He felt seniors should be able to enjoy life and remain in their community and churches. Katie Snyder, 5985 Eureka Road, spoke in opposition to the project. She recalled this to be the third proposal for senior housing in Shorewood. Ms. Snyder is opposed to the proposal not because it is senior housing, but because of the density. She expressed concern relative to increased traffic in an already high traffic area. Mike Peterson, 5910 Eureka Road, spoke in opposition to the project stating he was uncomfortable with the meeting being held in the Southshore Senior Center. He felt the issue to be . about density rather than senior housing. He noted there will not be any of the necessary services within the development and felt there to be other developments which are more appropriate for seniors. Mr. Peterson urged the Council not to approved a CUP or a PUD. He requested the Council use the resources available to obtain current information relative to the needs of the seniors and that the survey which was completed six years ago not be relied upon. Once the needs are established, the Council should devote its efforts in determining how best to fill those needs. Bernadette Thompson, 6100 Seamans Drive, noted she visited other developments by this particular developer. She stated the developer does not specialize in senior housing despite their claims. In speaking with a representative of Brooklyn Park, Ms. Thompson stated approximately two-thirds of the development is comprised of seniors. In addition, the seniors who live there were described as "snowbirds" in that many of them live in another climate for four to six months of the year. She noted her understanding the City is attempting to provide affordable housing for lower income seniors. Ms. Thompson provided flyers advertising the developments in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. She noted these developments to be smaller with more exits than proposed for Shorewood. Ms. Thompson felt the other developments to be consistent with their surrounding neighborhoods which she considered to be high density. With regard to the . developer, she did not feel they respect the differences of the proposed neighborhood versus the other neighborhoods in which they have developed. Ms. Thompson stated they are not familiar with the proposed site and noted the wetland on the subject property was identified by the neighbors and not the developers. Ms. Thompson questioned the zoning, noting it is currently RIA and RIC. She asked if the land is sold, if the zoning continues or reverts back to RIA. Planning Director Nielsen explained the zoning which existed at the time Lan-De-Con was given a Conditional Use Permit is the same as the zoning that exists today. The only difference is that in 1985 when the current zoning regulations were adopted, the name of the districts were changed, but the requirements remained the same. If Lan-De-Con sells to a similar operation, the Conditional Use Permit would travel with the land. If this is not the case, the Conditional Use Permit would expire. Mike Agnew, 6065 Eureka Road, noted he is not opposed to senior housing, but rather the high density being proposed in a low density area. He requested the Council uphold the plan for a rural community and urged them not to approve a Conditional Use Permit. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 5 . Diane A;gnew, 6065 Eureka Road, was also opposed to the project and wants the current RIA zorung to stay in place and requested a Conditional Use Permit not be granted. Kyle Engstrom, 6040 Burrowwood Court, expressed concern relative to high density. Don Rogers asked who the units will be sold to and expressed concern seniors from outside of the community could purchase the homes. City Attorney Dean stated the City would request the developers target seniors living in the community with their marketing plan, however, it would not be appropriate to mandate this given the fact the City has not contributed to the development financially. Keith Monjak, 6140 Pleasant Avenue, was in favor of the project with the exception of the density. He would be in favor of half the number of units. Mr. Monjak expressed concern that only one exit is proposed for this project. He noted a petition requesting an Environmental Worksheet Assessment was presented to the Planning Commission and asked about the status of that request. Councilmember O'Neill stated that will be considered if a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Julie Moore, 6060 Burrowwood Court, felt prospective homeowners should take into consideration the association fees and what types of things these fees will cover. She inquired how the cost will be kept affordable when the units are resold. Attorney Dean felt the developer could address what if any mechanism they would suggest to lock in the affordability standard if they have one. Mayor Dahlberg asked if there are legal mechanisms or processes by which the covenants and restrictions could be changed. Attorney Dean explained there are. Byron Thompson, 27665 Island View Road, felt there to be lack of demand for senior housing. He stated he has not received any inquiry regarding his wishes as a senior citizen and did not feel the survey which was conducted six years ago should be taken into consideration. Mr. Thompson noted his opposition to senior housing. He stated he would prefer to live in an area of mixed.ages, from seniors to children. Mr. Thompson expressed concern the Council will change the requirements at some point in the future which would suspend the requirement this project remain strictly seniors. He felt the decision should also take into consideration the park nearby is basically for children. The playgrounds there are not for seniors and there are no benches available. There is also no access to the trail for walking. In addition the development would not be within walking distance to services. . Steve and Gina Hertzenbergh, 26115 Shorewood Oaks Drive, were opposed to the development on the basis of zoning and density. Mr. Hertzenbergh expressed concern that other communities in the area have not provided any input or been involved in this proposed development. He stated there has not been an identified need for this project in Shorewood. Mr. Hertzenbergh referenced the 1991 marketing survey in which 1,300 seniors were surveyed from the surrounding communities and 391 replied. He felt the survey was seriously flawed because it did not ask seniors if they have, see or feel a need for affordable senior housing. Mr. Hertzenbergh stated the Metropolitan Council has determined there is a surplus of senior housing in the metropolitan area and he did not feel seniors should be singled out for affordable housing. Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:35 p.m. Lou Jacobson, 4200 Christie Lane, Minnetonka, stated she and her husband are very interested in this development. She has viewed the other developments and was impressed with what she saw. Mrs. Jacobson noted it is human nature to resist change and stated she understands the feelings of the surrounding neighbors who are opposed to the project, however, asked them to view this development in a positive way. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 6 Cory Nelson, 5980 Seamans Drive, felt Steve Hertzenbergh had covered his concerns. He stated he was taught to live within his means and since the neighborhood is zoned RIA, he felt it should remain. Mr. Nelson stated he bikes with his children and did not feel people who do not reside in the area realize how drastic the traffic problem is. He felt this development would make the traffic in the area unlivable. Mr. Nelson noted his issue to be with density. He stated senior citizens hold 77 percent of the wealth in the country. He felt other solutions should be investigated. In addition, private funding should be sought to buy down the cost of the land which will allow for a lower density which will fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Pete Winomo, Shorewood Oaks Drive, had questions relative to zoning. He asked how high density could move in overnight. Mr. Winomo did not feel the ordinances and taxes should be changed to make this development affordable. Beverly Koehnen, Shakopee, appeared on behalf of her father, Roy Seamans, 6115 Seamans Drive. Mr. Seamans was concerned with how the development can be approved on the supposition there will be roads to support it. Mr. Seamans' father donated the land for Seamans Drive many years ago. In addition, he donated land for Yellowstone Trail. Ms. Koehnen stated there will be no further land taken from her father's estate for any roadway. Ed Bergslien, 24785 Smithtown Road, was opposed to the project given the density. He stated he has never been questioned regarding the project and has not heard any interest on the part of others. Mr. Bergslien did not feel the City could afford this project given its current indebtedness. . Bo Whitrak, 21200 Christmas Lane, commented on the election of the Preservation Team and noted among their promises was a commitment to stop special deals to developers, to preserve the City and not over build it, and to respect property rights and values. Mr. Whitrak noted there was an 85 percent turnout for this election because of the promises of the Preservation Team. He also noted the Preservation Team was opposed to high density housing. Mr. Whitrak read excerpts from a newspaper advertisement in which a statement was made by the Preservation Team that Mayor Bean and the previous Council had ignored neighborhood majorities. The Preservation Team promised to preserve the natural beauty of Shorewood by strictly enforcing the zoning laws for development and green space. Bill Gleason, Eagle Crest Northwest, noted every project which is developed by Eagle . Crest Northwest is designed for senior housing although they have not all been limited to seniors. This is the first development which would be restricted to seniors. He noted there is a demand given the sales in the developments in Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove. Mr. Gleason stated this is a good project for the area given its proximity to the highway and the park. He noted the density in Brooklyn Park is different than Shorewood, however the Brooklyn Park development does back up to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Gleason also noted the majority of the sales are made to people who are 62 or older. The project in Maple Grove is across the street from $400,000 houses. There is a wetland area in close proximity as well. Mr. Gleason noted some traffic studies have been completed and it has been found that seniors are not generally out during peak hours. Mr. Gleason stated there is definitely not a surplus of senior housing. Most of the homes are purchased on a cash basis. He pointed out this would be affordable housing as opposed to low cost housing. This is the type of housing which will allow seniors the option of owning another residence in a warmer climate. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 7 . John Gleason addressed the issue of the traffic study which was performed by a company which speciali,zes in traffic studies, a copy of which was distributed to the Council. In reviewing the trip generatIon manual produced by the Institute of Transportational Engineers, it was noted limited information is available relative to traffic in a senior development. The traffic study which was completed was of a 44 unit development with one way in and one way out. In considering 3.19 trips times 68 homes, it is estimated there would be 260 trips in and out of the development. In addition, these trips were not at peak driving times. Mr. Gleason noted 22 single family homes would have a greater impact on traffic than the proposed development. Bill Gleason pointed out the crime rate in a development such as the proposed development is very low. John Gleason gave a slide presentation depicting the units and described how they are built. He pointed out the proposed development is considered a medium sized project. Paul Weingarten, attorney for Eagle Crest, explained he also represents various municipalities. With respect to land use issues and other factors which are to be considered, he requested the Council strictly enforce the current zoning ordinance. Mr. Weingarten noted this is not a request for rezoning or a variance. The request is for a Conditional Use Permit which would place certain conditions upon the project. Mr. Weingarten commented that since 1991, senior housing, with certain conditions, has been a permissible use in the zone of the subject property for a maximum of 108 units. The developer is requesting only 68 units. Mr. Weingarten felt if single family homes were to be constructed, assuming a two parent family with 2.5 children, this would be very similar to the population of the proposed development given the fact that 30 percent of the people who buy into these projects are single. Mr. Weingarten noted many of the residents are "snowbirds" and will not be present half of the year which will reduce the density issues. He did not feel these residents would be requiring police calls or be a burden on the roadways. In addition, Mr. Weingarten pointed out these residents will be paying property taxes for the benefit of the schools and will realize no return on those taxes. They will also be contributing towards the parks and recreation facilities and will probably not use them to the extent the children of the community will. . Mr. Weingarten stated the request meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance. He pointed out the request has been approved by the Planning Commission as well as City Staff. He did not feel there to be a justification for denying the request based upon land use criteria and requested the Council enforce the ordinance and grant the permit which the ordinance states the developer is entitled to. Byron Thompson stated he would like to see the ordinance of 1991 rescinded. Cory Nelson stated whether or not there are amenities on the property is the single biggest factor in performing a traffic study. He felt the traffic from the development would be closer to that of a single family neighborhood which would be closer to nine trips per household. A resident asked what conditions could be set forth in the granting of a Conditional Use Permit. Councilmember Garfunkel explained the process is not to the point of a Conditional Use Permit. The request at hand is for approval of a concept plan. If the concept plan is approved, then the Conditional Use Permit would be discussed. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 . PAGE 8 Ms. Koehnen asked whether the Council would take this matter beyond the concept stage with the absence of the approval of the roads necessary to service the area. Councilmember O'Neill stated the road has never been considered by the Council. Ms. Koehnen expressed her understanding a decision would be made given the roads as they exist today and asked whether the Council can support this type of development. A resident pointed out with respect to road closures, that is a decision of MNDOT and not the Council. She further noted MNDOT will do this regardless of the wishes of the City. Ms. Koehnen asked if the Council is able to go ahead assuming the roads are not going to happen and whether the development will be feasible without a service road over to Eureka Road. Planning Director Nielsen explained there are a number of proposals for the Highway 7 corridor which will be studied further. He noted the extension of Yellowstone Trail is one alternative. Councilmember O'Neill explained he spoke with .MNDOT and a study will hopefully be completed prior to the end of October. Bernadette Thompson stated at concept stage there are issues which need to be considered, one being the compatibility issue. She asked that each councilmember give their defInition of compatibility. Ms. Thompson noted the neighborhood does not feel this project is compatible with . the neighborhood given the density. With respect to the issue of compatibility, Nielsen pointed out the Council should refer back to the Comprehensive Plan which includes maps as well as a series of policies relative to different kinds of developments. He noted to some degree, however, the issue of compatibility is a judgment call. Mr. Koch felt the information related at the prior meeting regarding how many people had signed in as visitors to the Seasons was inaccurate. He asked how many visitors had signed in during the fIrst two years. Mr. Koch pointed out the Seasons is very expensive. Ms. Swenson pointed out many of the original Shorewood residents cannot afford the cost of the Seasons or the maintenance and upkeep of a private home. Ms. Engstrom noted that the wetland has resulted in the number of units being reduced from 80 to 68, possibly less. She asked at what point the cost per unit increase from $120,000 given the reduction of units. Mr. Gleason stated for some people the $120,000 may not be affordable. Most sales are completed on a cash basis because the purchaser is using the equity in their home as well as some savings to purchase a stepdown home. He noted if concept approval is not given, he will not be able to investigate the feasibility of the development. Mr. Gleason stated the reduction in units will increase the cost, however, he is looking at ways in which to reduce costs. In addition, he pointed out the developer is not seeking any type of subsidies. Mr. Gleason stated he will open marketing of the units to the surrounding area. Typically a high percentage of the purchasers are from the surrounding area. Steve Hertzenbergh felt there to be city subsidies given the City will charge water and sewer as if this were R1A zoning 22 units when in fact there were 80 units proposed. Councilmember O'Neill stated that is true, however, that is a part of the code. Mr. Hertzenbergh asked if concept approval is given, what ability will the Council have to vote down the project. Councilmember O'Neill explained there are a number of items which have not been resolved and this is not a done deal if it obtains concept plan approval. . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 9 Mike Agnew inquired whether the water issue was resolved relative to ftre flow. Nielsen explained the flow was reexamined and there is not adequate flow for ftre protection. This issue remains unresolved at this time. Nielsen also pointed out the water fees for the development are not reduced, however, the sewer and park fees would be. John Gleason stated he simply wants to comply with the ordinance in place and is not asking for a reduction in the water fees. He felt the ordinance was put in place because there is less usage and impact on the various facilities so it would not be appropriate to charge the same amount. A resident expressed concern the laws not be changed and that the current residents be allowed to raise their families in the same environment as the seniors were able to raise their families. Commissioner Turgeon asked Attorney Dean to address the issue of the 62 and older restriction, the 30 years, the extension of the 20 years if the association agrees to it and also services for age 55 versus age 62. Attorney Dean explained the 62 and older restriction is valid, lawful and enforceable for a period of 30 years by law. There are some steps which could be taken which would allow the City to increase this an additional 20 years. With respect to services for a development of residents 62 and older, there would be no other amenities and facilities which would be required. A development of residents 55 or older would require certain significant facilities and services be provided. . Mike Agnew asked whether the age requirement could be reduced. Attorney Dean stated under the ordinance this could be done, however, some of the amenities which may need to be provided might require additional construction on the site which would not perhaps be consistent with the site plan. There may also be implications relative to traffic. The 55 and older requirement intends occupancy by at least one person 55 years of age or older and not exclusively, so this may create a problem. Mike Peterson requested the Council make a decision with the idea a Conditional Use Permit is actually being approved or denied. Attorney Weingarten stated the developer would make the same request. Councilmember Stover suggested the two paragraphs relative to density under Section "d" of the proposed resolution be deleted. . Councilmember McCarty suggested since the request requires a 4/5 vote, it may not be necessary to conduct extensive discussions on this matter. Mayor Dahlberg explained the Council is in the process of rewriting the Comprehensive Plan. He expressed his belief policy instability is a signiftcant problem. Mayor Dahlberg stated he rejects the ordinance the way it is written today and felt it would be better for senior housing and everyone involved that the zoning be worked out ahead of time. He stated he is rejecting the current ordinance since there were not explicit public hearings relative to dedicating a speciftc area to a specific use. Councilmember Stover noted the proposal meets the current ordinance whether an individual likes the ordinance or not. If the concept plan is not supported at this level, the Council must give reasons for the denial. Denying the request because of a disagreement with the ordinance could be viewed as an arbitrary decision. If the Council wants to change the ordinance, then it should be changed. Councilmember Stover felt the Council should live by the current policy since it hasn't been changed. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 . PAGE 10 Councilmember O'Neill noted he had suggested this matter be addressed nine months ago and felt there should have been more done to complete this work. He noted his agreement with Councilmember Stover and expressed concern relative to possible legal action being taken against the City. Councilmember O'Neill stated he was very moved by the seniors, but did not feel he could approve the density. He pointed out he has been working on this issue to reach a compromise, noting he prefers to work out a compromise. Councilmember O'Neill stated he would prefer a lower density project for this particular site. Councilmember Garfunkel stated each piece of land is unique and there are problems on this particular site with density and the way it is set up. He stated he wants to be fair to the developer given the costs involved. Councilmember Garfunkel felt the unique features create problems on this site. He noted hard cover and traffic problems to be just two of the problems. Dahlberg moved, Garfunkel seconded directing staff to prepare a Findings of Fact denying the Concept Plan of Planned Unit Development for Senior Housing Community for Eagle Crest Northwest, 25600 Highway 7 and 6140 Eureka Road. Motion passed 3/2. (Councilmembers Stover and McCarty were the dissenting votes.) Mayor Dahlberg recessed the meeting at 11:20 p.m. and reconvened at 11:30 p.m. . Councilmember McCarty left the meeting at 11 :20 p.m. 6. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ABATEMENT OF WATER ASSESSMENT. 26115 BIRCH . BLUFF ROAD Councilmember Stover asked whether the other two property owners involved had been contacted. She suggested they may prefer to pay the $5,000 assessment rather than take the chance the price will be higher in the future. She suggested the two property owners be contacted and their written requests obtained. Garfunkel moved, Stover seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97.85 "A Resolution Authorizing Abatement of Water Assessment for the Fredrickson property at 26115 Birch Bluff Road," and not to include the other two properties until they have been contacted. Motion passed 4/0. . 7. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND LEVYING FOR WATERMAIN SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - WATERFORD 5TH ADDITION O'Neill moved, Dahlberg seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-86 "A Resolution Declaring Adequacy of Petition for Improvements and Levying for Watermain Special Assessments - Waterford 5th Addition" Motion passed 4/0. 8. CONSIDERA TION OF A MOTION ADOPTING THE TREE POLICY BY PENAL TIES FOR VIOLA TIONS ADMINISTRA TIVE SANCTIONS TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REFERENCE PROVIDING FOR AND DISCUSSION ON Councilmember Stover suggested this matter be considered a first reading and delay action to a later time to allow for discussion relative to this policy. She noted this matter could be added to the next agenda for a second reading. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 11 Dahlberg moved, Stover seconded to consider this a first reading, bringing the matter back for a second reading at the next regular meeting of the City Council. Motion passed 4/0. 9. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - PROJECT NO. 95-19 SHADY ISLAND BRIDGE Stover moved, Garfunkel seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-87, "A Resolution Approving Change Order No. 1 - Project No. 95-19 Shady Island Bridge." Motion passed 4/0. 9.5. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION ADOPTING A RESOLUTION MAKING BUDGET TRANSFERS Mayor Dahlberg asked if these budget transfers were scheduled for the current year. Administrator Hurm confirmed this. . Stover moved, O'Neill seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 97-88, "A Resolution Making Budget Transfers." Motion passed 4/0. 10. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS A. Staff Report on Development Monitoring Watten Ponds Nielsen reported an attempt was made to save a maple tree which is located on one of the first lots being built. This tree had originally been designated for removal. Due to site contours it has become apparent the tree cannot be saved and the original tree preservation plan will remain in place. Smithtown Meadows/Heritage . Nielsen reported an attempt is being made to see that the landscaping is finished on both Smithtown Meadows and the Heritage Developments prior to the end of the season. B . Report on Shoreline Messages Administrator Hurm reviewed the messages received on the Shoreline. Concern was raised relative to runners and bicyclists on the trail who are running onto main roads. A suggestion was made that bigger stop signs be placed on the trails or that there be additional police enforcement particularly at Smithtown, Eureka and Strawberry Lane. Another request was received for an article to be included in the upcoming issues of the newsletter discussing the Metropolitan Council, how large the Council is, a description of its budget and how the Metropolitan Council relates to the City of Shorewood. Concern was raised relative to having the ability to print an in depth article in the newsletter in which articles are kept relatively brief. Councilmember Stover suggested this may be an appropriate topic for a Council meeting or possibly a discussion for cablevision. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 . PAGE 12 C . Report on Fire Department Controlled Burn at 5885 Seamans Drive Administrator Hurm report the Fire Department will be conducting practice burns at a building located at 5885 Seamans Drive. Members of the Council have been invited to participate in this activity. Councilmember O'Neill expressed his interest in participating as did Mayor Dahlberg. Mayor Dahlberg requested a winter ride along be scheduled for him with the police department. D. Engineer's Report on Extended Construction Hours to Work on Shady Island Bridge Hurm explained it is the intent of the City to allow the contractor working on the Shady Island bridge to work on Sundays. The residents were not opposed to this since they would like to see the bridge finished as soon as possible. 11. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A . Establish December Meeting Dates Councilmember O'Neill proposed that a work session be scheduled to discuss the issue of senior . housing. This work session was scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. November 17,1997, is a tentative date which would be available for a work session if necessary. Hurm noted the Truth in Taxation Meeting has been scheduled for Wednesday, December 3, 1997, at 7:30 p.m. Stover moved, Dahlberg seconded rescheduling the December Regular City Council Meetings from December 8 and December 22 to December 3 and December 15. Motion passed 4/0. B . Discussion on Request for Additional Funding of 4th of July Celebration Mayor Dahlberg suggested staff review this matter and return to the Council with a recommendation. Councilmember Stover suggested an appeal in the newsletter requesting donations in support of the 4th of July Celebration. With respect to the document which was received from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, it was the consensus of the Council to direct staff to the review document and bring a recommendation before the Council. . . , . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1997 - PAGE 13 12. ADJOURNMENT Garfunkel moved, O'Neill seconded adjourning the meeting at 12:00 a.m. subject to the approval of claims. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl WalIat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. ATTEST: TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB, ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 20 October 1997 Southshore Senior/Community Center- Temporary Sign Permit 405 (Sign Permits) The Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center are requesting approval of a temporary sign permit to display a portable sign at the Center, announcing their Fall Festiva1lBoutique on November 7th through the 9th, and a benefit dinner on November 9th. They propose to display the sign between November 3rd and November 9th. Section 1201.03 Subd. 11c.( 4) of the City Code provides for the use of temporary signs twice within any 12 month period, seven days at a time and no larger than 32 square feet in area; Our records indicate that, since the Grand Opening, the Center has not had a temporary sign permit. Their proposed permanent sign will incorporate a message board which should make the use of temporary signs unnessary. . The sign is proposed to be displayed on County Road 19, approximately in the same location as the previous construction sign. The sign must be located at least five feet from any property line. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurrn Joanne K vem 3.ff. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT FOR CHARLES OBERG WHEREAS, Charles Oberg has submitted a final plat for the subdivision of property located on Christmas Lake Point, said property legally described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, the final plat has been submitted in the manner required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Shorewood. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the fmal plat submitted by Charles Oberg is hereby approved. . 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval for the plat on behalf of the City Council. 3. That this final plat shall be filed and recorded within (thirty) 30 days of the Developer's receipt of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. . ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October, 1997 Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk 3'8 .. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:30 P.M. 1. MINUTES CONVENE PARK COMMISSION MEETING DRAFT Vice Chair Puzak called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. A. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Puzak, Commissioners Dallman, Arnst, Wilson and Packard; Council Liaison McCarty; Administrator Jim Hurm Absent: Chair Colopoulos, Commissioner Bensman. B. REVIEW AGENDA . Vice Chair Puzak read the Agenda for October 14,1997. The agenda was accepted as presented. 2 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Park Commission Meeting Minutes of September 9, 1997 Arnst moved, Packard seconded, to approve the minutes as amended on Page 3, Item 7, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, amend to read, "the self composting facility at the Arboretum." Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 4. REPORTS: Status of Items Listed on "To Do" List Administrator Hurm reviewed the items remaining on the "To Do" list. He noted the materials for the picnic shelter have arrived and will be put up this week. Commissioner Arnst inquired relative to the status of the notices which were to be sent out to the property owners relative to the Silverwood Park area. Hurm noted the notices have been sent. 5. PRESENTATION BY MATT PIKE ON SUGGESTION FOR SKATING PARK - This matter was tabled to the November meeting of the Park Commission. 6. DISCUSSION WITH MARK KOEGLER REGARDING TRAIL PLAN Mr. Koegler provided an overview of the Trail Plan Update and each of the three approaches which were submitted to the Commission for their review and attached to and made a part of these minutes for reference. #6 PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 2 Vice Chair Puzak noted Commissioner Arnst had been a member of the subcommittee and asked her to explain her perception of the needs assessment step and how the needs assessment differs from Approach No.3. Commissioner Arnst felt Approach No.3 to be more consistent with what was discussed, but not necessarily what is reflected in the meeting notes. Commissioner Arnst felt Approach No.3 to be the most realistic approach and she also felt it would probably be the most acceptable to the Council. " Commissioner Arnst expressed concern relative to cost and Mr. Koegler's availability to assist the Commission through each of the steps. Vice Chair Puzak related his understanding that Approach No.2 is an interactive way of moving forward with a trail and Approach No.3 is an interactive way of developing parks and trails. Commissioners Arnst and Packard noted their agreement. Vice Chair Puzak summarized in the fIrst approach a plan would be developed and feedback obtained. The second approach is to go to the community with open questions, open minds and open forums to discuss a more limited subject of trails. The third approach would be to go to the community and ask what they would like the Park Commission to do. Mr. Koegler clarifIed that Approach No.3 is not necessarily wide open. A small group and large . group format, posing very specifIc questions would be conducted. Hurm asked if these groups would be by invitation only or if they would be open to anyone interested in parks and recreation. Mr. Koegler stated it would be open to everyone, however, those with a defmite position on certain recreation issues in the community would be specifIcally targeted. Vice Chair Puzak noted the majority of the parks are essentially complete. An open approach is more appropriate for Freeman Park given the fact there is signifIcant open space remaining. He raised concern with telling the public the City is ready to redesign the parks and trails. Commissioner Packard stated she is in favor of Approach No.3 although it looks too big. She asked if the original dollars have been expended. Mr. Koegler felt the cost would be close, however, changes can be made to meet budget constraints. Commissioner Packard felt Approach No. 3 goes beyond Freeman Park given the issues of resurfacing tennis courts, their usage, and the issue of alcohol in the parks. She felt the focus should be the trail system. Rob Schroeder, Shady Island, stated he is attracted to the idea of learning about trails given his remote location on Shady Island. He felt it would be unlikely the Commission could come to a resolution on a given issue if the meeting is not kept focused. Commissioner Wilson inquired how much trail area could be constructed for the funds available. Hurm was unsure, stating it would depend upon which trails are considered. Commissioner Wilson asked if positive results come out of the survey, will something be done about it. He felt the work should be done as inexpensively as possible to get as much for as little as possible to see if the City is ready to do something. Mr. Koegler noted bids for trail projects range from $13 to $15 per lineal foot without any extraordinary right-of-way acquisitions. This is the construction cost for a bituminous trail. Pat Delaney, Shady Island, asked if there is any process to establish a priority list of trails to be completed. Hi:lrm explained there is a 5-year Capital Improvement Program and the intent was to schedule out trails, however, very little has been done. Generally this type of project is tied in with street work which is being completed. . . . PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Dallman felt Approach No.2 to be the discussion of a trail plan which he felt the Commission to be looking for. He stated the trail is a separate issue and felt the Commission wants to move forward with a traiL With respect to Approach No.3, Commissioner Dallman felt if too many different issues are discussed, a decision will not be reached. He stated he would like to see a trail plan developed by May. At the same time, Commissioner Dallman felt the Commission should address the park system from a neighborhood point. of view, although he pointed out the park plan and the trail plan are two separate issues. Commissioner Dallman commented if there is sufficient public input at the meeting suggested by Approach 3, a decision could be made whether a survey is necessary. Dennis Q'Hagen, Shady Island, felt the trail on Shady Island to be more limited in scope given the fact it is probably not more than one mile long with another half mile which is located in Minnetrista. Mr. Q'Hagen asked whether Shorewood could join with other municipalities in addressing the trails. Hurm noted the City can work with other communities and there can be advantages to that such as funding or grants which could possibly be obtained. He stated there may not be unanimity on the island relative to expanding the traiL Mr. Koegler addressed the issue of the survey and asked if this would be a tool the decision makers need to make a [mal decision. He suggested broadening the scope to more than trails which would allow for a more balanced focus group rather than consisting of members whose sole focus is trails. Mr. Delaney suggested the Commission consider using the Shady Island trail as a pilot program with which to test the process which is selected. Commissioner Arnst noted the subcommittee recognized that not all areas of the city would have a blacktop traiL Some trails would be wood chip and would also vary in width. Vice-Chair Puzak asked Council Liaison McCarty what would be the most favor approach relative to the CounciL Council Liaison McCarty felt it would be important to have neutrals in the focus group. She also felt the current Council would want as much information as possible. Council Liaison noted the Council is interested in considering issues of visioning the parks and purchasing green space. Council Liaison McCarty suggested broadening the process and bringing in other issues with emphasis on the trail plan. Hurm suggested utilizing as-built drawings of the parks and use those to bring in interests other than the traiL Arnst moved, Dallman seconded approving Approach No. 3 keeping the focus primarily on the trail system, allowing room for input on the improvements to the parks or completion of Freeman Park. Commissioner Packard asked at what point the time table and budget would be considered. Vice Chair Puzak noted the time table to be March. In addition, the City has contracted with Mr. Koegler. Mr. Koegler will come back to the Commission with a detailed plan which will also include the costs associated with the plan. If the cost is not within the budget, the plan can be refined and brought back before the Commission for further consideration. Vice Chair Puzak stated it would be difficult to act on the motion not knowing whether it falls within the budget. Hurm felt a plan should be developed and brought back. If it exceeds the budget, the plan can be reworked. He pointed out $6,000 has been budgeted for this year as well as next year. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 4 Commissioner Arnst commented that in addition to the $100,000 currently in the trail fund, there may be MSA funds available from the State as well as IS TEA funds. Commissioner Wilson asked whether the approaches are developed based on Mr. Koegler's experience in working with other cities or whether there is a specific approach which is utilized. Mr. Koegler explained that the approaches as generated, while general, have been based specifically on conditions in Shorewood and to some extent are drawn from his experiences in other cities. The approaches presented are, however, unique to the Shorewood. Motion passed 5/0. Vice Chair Puzak thanked the citizens who attended and added their input. He also asked that Mr. Koegler keep the costs as close to what has been discussed as possible. Mr. Koegler stated he will present a detailed plan to the Commission at the November 11, 1997, meeting. Vice Chair Puzak recessed the meeting at 8:40 p.m. and reconvened at 8:44 p.m. 7. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO PROVIDE LAKE VIRGINIA AREA RESIDENTS ACCESS TO THE LRT TRAIL . Vice Chair Puzak felt this issue should be included in the trail plan. The Commissioners noted their agreement. 8. PARK FOUNDATION REPORT OF OCTOBER 6, 1997 MEETING Commissioner Dallman reported on the October 6, 1997, meeting of the Park Foundation (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Dallman noted there were discussions and a motion relative to the Foundation coming up with $10,000, and then looking into the building of the concession building. There is a goal of May, 1999 in which to have the building completed. Hurm explained there will be efforts made to schedule a tour of Carver and Chaska to view concession buildings which have been built in those areas. It is anticipated this tour would take place one weekday afternoon. . Vice Chair Puzak felt the Commission should be included in the tour along with the Park Foundation. He suggested the Commission could pass a motion supporting the Foundation's action. Dallman moved, Packard seconded that the Park Commission support the Park Foundation motion if the Foundation comes up with $10,000, the Park Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council to proceed with construction of the concession building. Commissioner Packard asked whether a Park Foundation member can vote on a motion concerning the Park Foundation. Vice Chair Puzak stated it is not a conflict of interest because the Park Foundation is a partnership with the Park Commission. Two commissioners are required to be on the Park Foundation. In addition, a conflict of interested is defmed as having a fmancial stake in the outcome. Motion passed 5/0. PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 . PAGE 5 CoJ?IIlissioner Arnst offered to go on the tour and bring photos back to the Commission for their reVIew. 9. CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE PLAN FOR CONCESSION TRAILER IN FREEMAN PARK This matter was considered and acted upon at a previous meeting. 10. CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL OPINION REGARDING ALCOHOL IN FREEMAN PARK Administrator Hurm explained the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust stated there is no additional liability when allowing the use of alcohol in the park, however, there would be additional exposure to the City. If a lawsuit should arise, it would affect the City's insurance rate. Commissioner Arnst pointed out this issue was voted down at the September meeting. She felt this information should be kept on file. . 11. REPORT ON ATTORNEY'S OPINION REGARDING LAND SWAP - FREEMAN PARK Vice Chair Puzak commented this is a moot point given the fact the Council has denied the request of the developer for senior housing, however this is important information for the future. 12. OLD BUSINESS . Commissioner Packard asked about the status of the mutt mitt dispenser. Hurm noted Public Works is opposed to them given the vandalism which has occurred. Commissioner Wilson suggested selling or giving a supply of the mitts upon the payment of dog license fees. Commissioner Packard suggested moving the dispenser to the end of one of the trails where there is a light. Council Liaison McCarty suggested the location of Eureka and Smithtown where there is both traffic and light. Commissioner Arnst suggested the Deephaven Park Booklet be put on the J~ne agenda. Commissioner Arnst inquired whether the situation with the soccer fields has been addressed. Commissioner Wilson stated the issue has been resolved. He noted a larger problem is being corrected so the work can be done properly. Hurm noted a letter has been received from the City of Excelsior inviting the Commission to a meeting on October 22, 1997 to discuss issues of mutual interest with respect to the children in the two cities. Commissioners Packard and Arnst will attend the meeting. Commissioners Puzak and Wilson will attempt to attend. The Commissioners were in agreement they are interested in working with Excelsior on this problem. 13. NEW BUSINESS PARK COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 14, 1997 - PAGE 6 14. ADJOURNMENT Arnst moved, Packard seconded adjourning the meeting at 9:31 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wall at Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. . . ~ 693 P02 OCT 14 '97 11:13 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER MEMORANDUM Hoisington K.oegler Group Inc. II TO: Shorewood Park Commission and Staff DATE: October 14, 1997 SUBJECT: Trail Plan Update FROM: Mark Koegler At tonight's meeting. we will be discusSiJlg the Trai1 Plan update. To belp facilitate that discUsSiOo. 1 have assembled some initial commeuts that are derived from recent conversations with Jim Hunn and a quick revieW of some of the correspondeI1CO pertaining to this isSue. For discussion purposes, the Park Commission could consider three methods of updating the trail plan. Prior to reviewing each of these options, a stateID'l1t of my un_ding of existing conditions may be appropriate. It is my unde=ding that trails have hecome a signillcant issue In Shorewood. The City haS received petitions both supporting and opposing the consttUCtion of trails. pattiJoularlY along Srnithtown Road. The position of the City Council regarding trails may have also changed. The Counci!'s genera1 philosophY is to involve community tesidenlS in deCisions in a "bottom-op" manner rather than a more "top-down" approach. The desire of the Parle cQIlllllission \s to resolve the trail issue by next Spring. Resolution presumably means either the creation of a plan that identifies various trails or a decision that Shorewood will not develop a trail system outside of the regional trail that cunentlY passes throUgh the community. In order to resolve the isSue. thteO approaches axe presented for diSCUSSion. each exhibiting varying degrees of top-down versus bottom-UP participation. . . Approach #1: The rust approach is to update the trail plan utilizing a work progtam that focuses on the parle Commission's review of the existing plan and modillcation of the plan as deemed appropriate. Under this scenario. we will facilitate a review of all of the elemenlS nf the plan and make changes as detetmlned by the group. The result may be a plan that is similar to the existing plan. Upon reworking the plan. the ootcolOO could be reviewed in a meeting or meetings with the City conncil and then with residents from throughout the community. This option is likely to be perceived as a tolHiown approach. howevet, it does provide a basis for people to offer specific cotllDlllnlS eithet in support or in opposition to the plan. Approach #2: The second approach is the one that was delineated by the Trai1 Plan RevIew SulJcolIlIIlittee on Juoe 10. 1997 (attached). Allbough deuills of this approach are yet to be worl<.ed out, it appear.; that the steps that are listed establish a much more patticipatoIY process. Detaiis of how you "develop a clear 123 North Third Street. Suite 100 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 612-835-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGlER .' 693 P03 OCT 14 '97 11:13 vision for Ir.li/s in Shorewood" need to be defined as pan of this process. This _ em!'hasi= the importance of COmmunication at evezy step in the process. Approach #3: The second step in this apProach might be to commission an <IJldated community 'Drvey that wouid Provide infol'Illlllion on a variety of recreation activities including trails. If the SlUVey is used as part of the process, it would need to be a telephone snrvey of a representative sample of the poJlUlation and Would probably COSt approximately $.5,000 . $6,000. Results of the survey WOuld be used to further identify cOmmunity park and recreation issues. A third approach for considerntion attempts to step bac1c Slld look at trni1s within a lUOle _ analysis of parlcs and recremion in Shorewood. The fiBt step in this poblic participation ptocess might be a CommUnity meeting <hat is slluctured to gather inful'Illlllioo about people', perception of the imPOrtance and use of parlcs, what types of facilities tbcy would like to see as pan of the completion of the park system (for example tennis coUrts, lrails, etc.). and most importantly, what issues might need to be addressed in completing the deveiopment of the Sborewood padc _ Under this 8jlproach, an initial public meeting Would be held utilizing a smau group and large group fOl7Ilat to define park issues. The session could be strnctured in a way to Provide a fun Slld uplliling Way for people to partiCipate in helping to plan the furore park SYStem. Based on past experience, it is likely that such a meeting COUld atlrnct 1 DO:!: Participants. The result of the meeting WOuld be . the tabulation of a set of issues that are importaat to the community. FollOwing the identification of issues, a series of focus groups would be held to address specJfjc topics. A focus group consisting of 12 to 15 people COUld be established aDd meet three limes to address the follOwing: I) define the issues (problems), 2) propose and examine ai_vas to resulve the L~,ues, and 3) formulate a recommendation to the Pari< COtnmiss1on and City Council. Utilizing the recommendation and results of the focus group process, the Park COmmission could then assemble a plan that could be adopted and implemented by the Ciry Council. ObviOusly, before any Olle of these "PJl1'ooche.s can be followed, it will be necessa,y to "work OUl the details." After diSCUssion and direction by the Park COlllIllission, We can provide you with additional infolDlation at the next meeting on putsuing Olle of these options or a hybrid of these 8jlproaches. In considering wbich approacb is ultimately apptopriate, it is important to remain cognizant of the political implications of implementing the remaining elements of the padc SYStem, Panlcu1arly the trail system component . 123 North Third Street. Suite 100 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 612-~35-3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 693 P04 OCT 14 '97 11:14 Notes on a meeting ot the Trail PIan Review Subcommittee June 10. 1997 i:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. In attendance: Park Com"'1')Sioner Pat Arnst Park Commissioner Dan Puzak: City Administrator James Hurm It is important to communicate every step of a trail review process. In the monthly newsletter we should be explaining "what we are rhink:ing abollC'. The community needs to be aware, on an ongoing basis, that we are thinkinf: ~ut trails. The following steps should be followed; . Needs Assessment - a survey should be underta.ken asking basic questions such as "no "you bike?" "'Where?" "Do you walk or jog?" UWhere?" "Where do you live?" "How do you.. or would you, use trails?" 2) Develop a clear vision for trails in Shorewood. 1) 3) Communicate the vision. . 4) Tra.n~l~te that vision into an ove."all trail pIan. 5) Follow citizen involvement process c:Jrefully. Long Range Planning - Comprehensive Trail Plan involves: . Needs assessment - survey and public meetings . Five- Year Capital Improvement Programming - 5 years out. citizens should be given notice of plans. They should know what the Park Commission is "thinking about". Residents should become involved at this stage for emiy dec;sioos on the need for, and design of, a specific trail . Three Years Out - Citizen involvement on early plans and design. . Two Years Out - Problem Solving. Citizens are intricately involved in working out the details of the trail. We are moving from "'We are thinking about tbjs'. to '''working out the details of a proposed trail" . Year-One - A project-specific local committee could be involved. to advise and comunmicate with residents in the City. D-R-A-F-T RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SHOREWOOD SENIOR HOUSING (EAGLECREST NORTHWEST) P.U.D. . WHEREAS, Eaglecrest Northwest, Inc. (the "Applicant") has an interest in real property located in the City of Shorewood~ County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A~ attached hereto and. made a part hereof (the "Property"); and WHEREAS~ the Applicant has applied to the City for approval of a Concept Plan for the construction of a residential planned unit development known as Shorewood Senior Housing containing twenty (20) four-unit structures (80 dwelling units) (the "Project") on the Property, which contains approximately 19 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the Project is proposed as elderly housing, pursuant to the requirements Qf 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Project was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommeildations were. duly set forth in memoranda to the Planning Commission dated 31 July and 29 August 1997, which memoranda are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on. 5 August 1997 and at its regular meeting of 2 September 1997 recommended approval of a Concept Plan for the Project; and . WHEREAS, the Park CommissioIlt at its 12 August 1997 meeting, reviewed and commented on the Project; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meetings of 22 September 1991 and 13 October 1997, at which time the City Planner's memoranda, the minutes of the Planning Commission and Park Connnission were reviewed, and comments regarding the Project were heard by the City Council from the Applicant, City staff and members of the audience attending the meeting. 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 the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Eureka Road and State Highway 7. 2. The Property consists oftbree parcels containing a total land area of approximately 19.08 acres, of which 2.77 acres exists as City-designated wetland. PJlB1J24J.4. SH230-21 1 to.A. 2"d N3i\tjCJ~ '3 ,.l.a3r-.J~13)1 00: S T LS. E2 3. The net area of the Property, after subtracting City-designated wetland and public street right-of-way, is 14.86 acres, of which 4.79 acres is located in the R-IA. Single-Family Residential District, and 10.07 acres is located in the R-IC, Single-Family Residential District. 4. Land use and zoning surrounding the Property is as follows: West: Freeman Park ball fields; zoned R-IC North: Freeman Park wetland; zoned R-l C East: Eureka Road, then vacant and one single-family dwelling; zoned R-IA South: State Highway 7, then Chanhassen; zoned residential . s. The Applicant proposes to construct 20 four-unit struPtW'es for a total of 80 dwelling units, the occupancy of which will be limited to persons 62 years of age and older. Six of the proposed dwelling units are proposed to be constructed over the zoning district boundary between the R-IA and R~1C portions of the site. 6. The proposed dwelling units are intended to be owner-occupied and will each have two bedrooms and a two-car garage. 7. The Applicant proposes to construct a public street extending westward from Eureka Road to the eastedy boundary of Freeman Park. In addition a 20-foot wide, private road. serving 10 of the proposed structures, is proposed to loop through the site north of the proposed public street. 8. Eureka Road, a designated collector street abutting the east side of the property, is substandard in terms of right-oi-way width. The City will require dedication of an additional 13.5 feet of r.o.w. for Eureka Road to bring it into compliance with City . standards. . 9. The Applicant proposes to trade approximately 1.2 acres of the Property for approximately .9 acres of City park property.' 10. Required building setbacks at the periphery of the Property are as follows: From State Highway 7: 50 feet for the R-IA portion of the site, 40 feet for the R-IC portion From the west property line: 40 feet From Eureka Road: 50 feet From the Cityoodesignated wetland: 50 feet 1 L The Applicant proposes to develop the Project over two construction seasons. 12. The Shorewood Zoning Code limits elderly housing units in single-family zoning districts to one and one half stories. The Applicant proposes single-story structures in the Project. ll.HB:l.324:L4 SH230-21 2 ~'d H31\tjCJ~ '8 ;l.,G3r..lr..13>l 00: S T 2,6. 22 IJC 13. The Shorewood. Zoning Code requires at least two parking :spaces per dwelling, of which one must be an enclosed garage. The Applicant proposes two garage spaces for each dwelling unit. plus additional parking in front of each garage. 14. City sewer is available to the Property from Eureka Road. City water for domestic purposes is available to the Property through Freeman Park. The current water supply is not adequate to meet fIre protection needs. 15. Elderly housing is regulated by section 1201.03, subd. 20 of the City's zoning ordinance. SuM 20. Elderly Housing . a. Purpose: The purpose of this Subdivision is to provide opportunities for elderly housing within residential zoning districts and to maintain compatibility with other uses within those districts. b. Conditional Use: Elderly housing shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-IA. R-IB, R-IC. R-ID, R-2A. R-2B, R-2C, R-3B and R-C. In addition the following conditions shall apply: (1) Elderly housing projects shall be processed as planned unit developments (p.U.D.) in compliance with Section 1201.06 of this Code. 16. In administering a planned unit development, section 1201.06, subd. 3 of the City's ordinance provides for review under two sections: . Subd. 3. Special Procedures: The establishment of a PUD by conditional use pennit shall be subject to the procedures and requirements for conditional use permits as set forth in Section 1201.04 ofthis Ordinance and the standards and criteria set forth in Section 1201.25 of this Ordinance. (Ord. 208, 4-11-88) 17. In reviewing an application for a conditional use permit. section 1201.04, subd. 3 of the City's zoning ordinance allows the City to exercise its discr.etion in the following manner: SuM 3. Conditional Use Permit: a. Purpose: The purpose of a conditional use permit is to pro:vide the City of Shorewood with a reasonable degree of discretion in determining the suitability of certain designated uses upon the general welfare, public health and safety. In making this determination, whether or not the conditional use is to be allowed, the City may consider the nature of the adjoining land Or buildings, whether or not a similar use is already in existence and located on the same premises or on other lands immediately close by, the effect upon traffic into and from the' premises, or on any RimU2iU4 SH230-21 3 p"d ~13/\t!d~'3 .1..G3HH3>1 ;;0:S1 2.6. '.....t..- J..,-,"-.--' adjoining roads, and all other or future factors as the City shall deem a prerequisite of consideration in determining the effect of the use on the general welfare, public health and safety. 18. In processing a request for a planned unit development as a CQnditional use permit, section 1201.25, subd. 6b(l)(k)iv establishes the scope of evaluation of the application. iv. In evaluating the request, the Council shall determine the relationship between the proposed development, the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance. . 19. The City's comprehensive plan establishes the following land use policies, objectives and standards among others: a) Development which is not accompanied by a sufficient level of supportive services and facilities (utilities, parking, access, etc.) is to be prevented. (Land Use Goals and Objectives) No.3 (LU-3) b) Intensification of land use activity and development will only be allowed if accompanied by sufficient corresponding increases in related supportive and service facilities such as parks, off~street parking, fIre and police protection, etc. (Land Use Policies) No. 10 (LU-7) c) Transitions between distinctly differing types of land uses shall be accomplished in an orderly fashion which does not create a negative (economic, social or physical) impact on adjoining developments. (Land Use Policies) No. 11 (LU-7) . d) Density and lot size shall be the primary consideration in the review of development requests. (Land Use Policies - Residential) No. 11 (LU.9) e) High density housing is to be concentrated and allowed in those portions of the community where adequate supportive facilities (high capacity streets, utilities, etc.) are existing, service needs are minimized and activities in the form of work and leisure time are directly accessible. (Land Use Policies ~ Residential) No. 17 (LU~9) 20. The City's comprehenSive plan establishes transportation issues and standards: Fire Protection Due to the narrow surface widths of certain streets in Shorewood, a serious question exists over the adequacy of road access for emergency vehicles. As the availability of municipal water is quite limited, fire fighting efforts are generally dependent upon the use of tank trucks. However, on narrow roads, there often is not sufficient room for RHB132414 SH230-21 4 ,~. -l ~J]NjCl~ 'il l.G3"JN3>1 10: S T d.S. S2 l:)C tank trucks and pumpers to pass each other, and "thus flre protection efforts may be critically jeopardized. (Transportation Issues) (TR-5) 21. While strictly applicable only to public streets, the following comments are made regarding street width: For local streets the following criteria should be used to evaluate appropriate "widths:" 24-foot street · . 28-foot street · 32-foot street · . . use in areas where zoning requires lots to be 20,000 square feet in area or larger on.street parking restricted to one side consider additional parking restrictions for through streets . use in areas where zoning allows lots smaller than 20,000 square feet in area on-street parking restricted to one side . use in areas where abutting properties are occupied or zoned for two-family or multiple-family dwellings or on through streets where on-street bicycle/pedestrian traffic is a factor if on-street parking is allowed on both sides of street, consider separated bicycle/pedestrian facilities It should be noted that streets currently exist which are less than 24 feet in width. While substandard streets may be maintained in their current design. in no case shall streets be reconstructed at a width less than 20 feet. Substandard streets shall be evaluated based on their use characteristics (i.e., land use intensity, on-street parking, bicycle/pedestrian traffic, etc.) (Transportation Plan - Streets) ((TR-17) . According to Minnesota Statutes. section 473.858, subd. 1, when there exists a conflict between the City's zoning ordinance or other official control and the comprehensive pl~ it is the comprehensive plan which supersedes. lUl:B:L324:l.4 SH230~21 gOd 5 rJ:3N:!~::' ~3 ,,,G3~j~,J:3>j 20: ST E2 1::0 1..- .::...0' CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicant's concept plan is based upon trading a portion of the Property for a portion of Freeman Park. An existing deed restriction on the Freeman Park property prohibits any use of the park for anything but park use and makes accomplishment of this impossible. B. . D. E. F. . G. Indications from available data suggest an increase in total traffic may be experienced if the Project were constructed. The City has identified problems with traffic circulation in the vicinity of the proposed Project. Alternatives for Freeman Park south entrance and local street connections to Eureka Road are currently under study by the City and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. The Department of Transportation has indicated that a traffic signal is unlikely to be located at the intersection of Eureka Road and State Highway 7. C. The 20-foot wide private road is inadequate in width to provide on-street parking on at least one side of the street and poses a threat to the City's ability to provide fire protection to residents of the Project. The Applicant's Concept Plan does not comply with the required setback frOm the proposed right..of-way for Eureka Road. City water available to the site has inadequate flow fOf fire protection. . The proposed Project is contrary to each of the portions of the Comprehensive Plan cited. above. For each and every one of the above reasons, the application of Eaglecrest Northwes~ Inc. for approval of the Concept Plan for the Shorewood Senior Housing P.U.D. as set forth above is hereby denied. Adopted. by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27th. day of October, 1997. t0111 Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C Hurm., City AdmUllstrator/Clerk !UlIl1324~4 SH230-21 6 2.'d N3Njd5 '2 /,Q3NN3)i E0: S 1 lS. E2 1:)0 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1997 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Pisula called the meeting to order at 7:01p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Pisula; Commissioners Borkon, Kolstad, Lizee and Turgeon; Planning Director Nielsen; Council Liaison O'Neill Absent: Commissioners Champa and Foust. APPROVAL OF MINUTES . Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded approving the Planning Commission Minutes of September 16, 1997, as amended on Page 1, Last Paragraph, change to read: "Commissioner Lizee felt the units would need to be counted so that units 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, and 47 lie wholly within the RIA district and units 37, 40, 41, 44, 45, and 48 lie wholly within the RIC district since each unit is being plotted with its own property." Page 2, Paragraph 6, Sentence 2, change to read: "Six units are split between the zoning districts and units 38, 39, 42, 43, 46 and 47 lie wholly within RIA and units 37, 40, 41, 44, 45 and 48 lie wholly within RIC;" Paragraph 7, Sentence 3, change to read, "to allow some on-street parking on one side of the street." Delete Paragraph 1 on Page 3; Page 4, Paragraph 6, change to read, "suggested illumination not be allowed from the hours of 12 midnight to 6:00 a.m." Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - MARY LAKE ADDITION . Applicant: Location: Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand 5910 Minnetonka Drive Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the matter in detail and recommended the request be tabled to the November 4, 1997 meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant an opportunity to submit engineering plans addressing drainage. Roger Anderson, Civil Engineer, 7415 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 107, appeared on behalf of Ms. Gleason and Mr. Tinnesand. Mr. Anderson explained this plat meets the zoning requirements. He noted sanitary sewer is available in the area and it is likely a new well will be installed which would be shared by all three homes. Mr. Anderson proposed at the time of the plat that no grading be performed. It was his opinion an architect, a builder and a new lot purchaser could fit a home in to match the lot. He felt this would create an opportunity to save trees based on the location of the homes given the current layout of the property. With respect to hydrology, Mr. Anderson stated there is more contribution from off site than from on site. Based on calculations he has made, Mr. Anderson felt the impact created by the new homes would be approximately 10 to 15 percent. o PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 2 Mr. Anderson pointed out the drain on the site and explained it does drain out to Mary Lake. Mr. Tinnesand, 5910 Minnetonka Drive, was also in attendance and he related the history surrounding the drainage situation on the property. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. David Weider, 23820 Yellowstone Trail, expressed concern relative to drainage. He noted in the spring and winter the drain tile routinely becomes plug resulting in a fair amount of standing water which encroaches onto his driveway. Even when the drain is clear, heavy summer rains will produce some pooling of water. Mr. Weider also commented on the rain event in 1987 which resulted in significant flooding on his property. Mr. Weider pointed out he has a 4-foot wide oak tree on his property which he would like to ensure is protected. Jim Hamstra, 23930 Yellowstone Trail, asked for a clarification of the zoning for the area. He also commented on problems with drainage in the area, typically in the spring when snow is melting. Mr. Hamstra also recalled the flood problems which resulted from the storm of 1987. Rick Howell, 5865 Minnetonka Drive, presented a petition from the adjoining property owners in . opposition to Mr. Tinnesand's request. The neighbors feel this development will significantly change the character of their neighborhood. Roger Lepke, 5915 Minnetonka Drive, stated Mr. Tinnesand has been a very good neighbor and stated he makes his comments with much consternation and trepidation. Mr. Lepke commented on the pooling and drainage problems which have occurred in the area over the years. Mr. Lepke felt constructing more houses in this area will leave the appearance of a housing development which will adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. He also expressed concern that higher density in the area will reduce property values. Roger Leak, 5870 Minnetonka Drive, expressed concern that the three homes will share one well. He inquired whether a study will be performed to determine how many new homes and new wells will be allowed in this particular area. Jim Eddy, 5830 Minnetonka Drive, expressed concern relative to additional traffic being generated in the area given the number of children currently in the area and the increase in housing. . Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether the Watershed District will review this property. Nielsen explained City Engineer Brown is checking into this matter. The City has recommended that a grading plan be submitted. Commissioner Kolstad asked how the culvert crossing Minnetonka Drive will be dealt with. Nielsen commented the concern on this property is relative to the additional water which will be generated. He stated a 4-inch PVC is typically not adequate to drain a property. The minimum currently allowed would be a 12-inch storm sewer. The engineer will also review this issue as part of a grading plan. The only outlet for the hole currently appears to be the 4-inch pipe. Commissioner Lizee stated she would like to see the engineer's report regarding drainage and grading. She would also like to know the position of the Watershed District. Commissioner Borkon raised the issue of the water table and number of wells in relation to the water table and asked if there is a point in which an alternative is considered such as municipal PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 3 water. Nielsen stated this has not been an issue. In addition, the aquifers in the area are adequate to serve the proposed density which is projected for Shore wood under the current zoning patterns. With respect to the community well which would be shared by the three homes, Nielsen explained this can be proposed, however, the City would expect each home built on this property to be served by its own well system. Commissioner Borkon felt the information available at this time to be insufficient with which to make a decision. Commissioner Turgeon asked if there had been any consideration given to blocking the roadway at either Yellowstone Trail or County Road 19. Nielsen stated this has not been considered, however he noted there has been some shortcutting through the area. Commissioner Turgeon suggested a traffic count be performed on this roadway. Commissioner Turgeon commented that she sympathizes with the neighbors and the petition, however, neither the Council nor the Planning Commission have the power to deny the property owner the ability to develop the property in a manner which meets the criteria for that particular area. . Chair Pisula suggested the neighbors meet with Mr. Tinnesand in an attempt to reach a proposal which would be mutually acceptable. . Commissioner Turgeon requested the 4-foot wide oak tree on Mr. Weider's property be kept in mind to avoid any damage occurring to the tree. Mr. Anderson provided some photographs of the area depicting the location of the drain. Kolstad moved, Borkon seconded tabling consideration of the request for preliminary plat - Mary Lake Addition for Judith Gleason, representing O'Dell Tinnesand, 5910 Minnetonka Drive to the November 4, 1997, meeting of the Planning Commission to allow the applicant to provide additional information relative to a grading plan, drainage on the site, a wetland delineation, the handling of the culvert across Minnetonka Drive, detailed storm water calculations, detailed tree inventory and additional information on the water table relative to wells. Motion passed 5/0. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS Applicant: Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center Glenn Froberg appeared on behalf of the Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center. He stated the Center needs to have a sign with a message board which is visible from County Road 19. Mr. Froberg felt an internally lit sign would be easier to see from the highway and would be more adaptable for changing the message. Mr. Froberg felt this type of sign would be more visible as well as aesthetically acceptable to the area and would not create a hazard to passing motorists. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Hearing no public testimony, the public hearing was closed at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Lizee felt the key points to be attractive, aesthetic and non-hazardous. She stated she is in agreement with Chair Pisula's memo regarding internally lit signs and felt this sign would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 4 be attractive and a nice addition to mark the Southshore Center. Commissioner Lizee expressed concern relative to a sign being placed on Country Club Road which would direct traffic onto Country Club Road. Nielsen stated consideration is being given to a wooden directional sign. Commissioner Kolstad commented that she is philosophically opposed to the request on a general basis. She stated she would have a problem with making a blanket ordinance amendment. If the sign were to be within a specified number of feet of a commercial area, she would not be opposed to that. Commissioner Kolstad stated she would not want to see signs place indiscriminately throughout the city and she did not feel this to be appropriate for the city. She felt there may be some other solution to getting word of the Center out to the community rather than placing a sign. Commissioner Borkon asked for clarification of the setback requirements. Nielsen explained the requirements would be five feet in toward the building from any property line. It was also noted the bottom of the sign would be landscaped. Mr. Froberg stated the sign would be placed on the side of the building where the former driveway was located. Commissioner Borkon stated she shares some of the concerns of Commissioner Kolstad, however, she felt the Center does need signage given the need to know where the Center is located . and the number of people from outside of Shorewood who would be looking for the Center. Commissioner Turgeon stated if the ordinance is amended as proposed, the church would then be in compliance. She stated she would not want to allow signs in residential areas. Commissioner Kolstad pointed out the church on Highway 7 is in a residential area. Nielsen explained churches are handled by a Conditional Use Permit and state law provides they cannot be prohibited in residential areas. Commissioner Turgeon stated she does not have a problem with the amendment and would like to b~ng the church into compliance and this would also allow the Senior Center to establish their SIgn. Commissioner Borkon inquired as to the process to be followed for a Conditional Use Permit. Nielsen explained the language would need to be changed and conditions assigned. For the number of signs which currently exist, he felt a Conditional Use Permit may be excessive. Chair Pisula felt with the way the ordinance is drafted and because so few places in the city can be affected, this is an expeditious way of controlling and managing the process. . Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a zoning ordinance amendment relative to signs for the Friends of the Southshore Senior/Community Center. Motion passed 4/1. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.) Chair Pisula noted this matter will come before the Council for their consideration on October 27, 1997. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO GIDEON WOODS P.U.D. AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE COVENANTS Applicant: Location: Gideon Woods Homeowner's Association Common Area of Gideon Woods P.U.D. Chair Pisula opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 5 Jim Savoy, 5455 Gideons Lane, stated his townhome is the one most affected by the sign. When he purchased the property, he was told by the developer the sign would be gone at the end of the lease. He explained the sign separates the trail from his property and shields the snowmobiles and car headlights from his home. He felt the suggestion relative to planting spruce trees as a buffer to be a good idea and noted the townhome association could use the income from the sign to screen along the trail and County Road 19. Mr. Savoy noted the developer made many promises which were not kept both morally and financially. Fred Dresser, 5480 Gideons Woods, stated the financial aspect is an issue given the problems with the developer and the fact the association has been taken over by the homeowners. He noted a petition had been submitted in favor of maintaining the sign in the area. Mrs. Savoy addressed the issue of planting pine trees as a buffer. She explained the lights from County Road 19 come in on the second floor of their home and it would be impossible to obtain vegetation that tall. These lights are presently blocked by the sign. Council Liaison O'Neill stated the neighbors have taken over the homeowners association and all of the income of the association has been lost. Although this request does not comply with the code, the homeowners have suffered a financial hardship given the problems with the developer. Mr. Dresser explained he has met with Police Chief Young and the State Attorney General. He noted the rent on the sign is $2,000 per year. Kevin Conley, 24740 Amlee Road, stated he is opposed to retaining the billboard and felt the presence of the billboard to be incompatible with the area given the proximity to the park and the entrance to the trail. He did not believe it to be necessarily equitable to allow a noncompliant, income producing entity such as the billboard on a residential property. Hearing no further public testimony, Chair Pisula closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Commissioner Borkon inquired whether the City could be subject to litigation because of the acts of the developer. Nielsen explained there has been no suggestion of risk to the City. Commissioner Borkon questioned the use of the City Attorney with respect to this issue. Nielsen explained City Attorney Dean is exploring the possibility of fraudulent action on the part of the developer. Commissioner Kolstad asked from what standpoint this would be the business of the City. Nielsen explained the City Attorney is investigating to determine whether a prosecutable crime has been committed. Commissioner Borkon questioned where the City ceases its involvement and the residents take over. Nielsen explained there are claims and allegations by the residents that the City is not involved in. The residents are working with the Attorney General's office in this regard. Commissioner Borkon noted according to the PUD, the sign needs to be removed, however, there appears to be extenuating circumstances. She stated she would like to have legal input from City Attorney Dean in this regard. Nielsen pointed out the City Attorney's involvement in the matters at Gideon Woods does not have anything to do with the request to amend the PUD Agreement and protective covenants. Commissioner Borkon felt the two issues to be entwined. She expressed compassion for the residents of Shorewood who have been put in a hard place through no fault of their own. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 6 Mr. Dresser stated the issues are completely separate and have nothing to do with each other. The homeowners want the sign to stay up for five years to obtain the rental income for the benefit of the association. Commissioner Turgeon stated the City has been working since the 1980s to get the signs out of the city and while she sympathizes with the situation, the problem which arises is how to separate a business from a homeowners association in the event Fina or Total were to return at the end of their lease stating they need the income from the sign and are, therefore, requesting an extension. Council Liaison O'Neill did not feel this situation would set a precedent with Fina or any other business. It was Commissioner Turgeon's belief the City made a promise in the PUD Agreement and did not feel it could be separated by one situation versus another one. Commissioner Lizee noted her agreement with Commissioner Turgeon's remarks. She also felt a promise had been made and would not support extending the agreement. Commissioner Kolstad commented while she is sympathetic to the plight of the homeowners association, she also felt the sign should be removed. Commissioner Lizee questioned whether there would be other methods of screening available for this area. Nielsen explained for a long term solution, vegetation would be the most favorable method. . Nielsen explained the developer could be required to post an escrow prior to obtaining building permits for the final four units. Chair Pisula stated while he is against the request and is sympathetic to the residents, the Council views agreements as inviolate and not to be changed. He did not feel there to be a public purpose to change the PUD Agreement given the amount of planning when the provisions were set. Commissioner Borkon noted her agreement with the other commissioners in that a commitment was made that the sign be removed, however, she was sympathetic to the residents. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded denying an amendment to the Gideon Woods . P.U.D. Agreement and Protective Covenants for Gideon Woods Homeowner's Association, Common Area of Gideon Woods P.U.D., contingent on the City Attorney's opinion that the City owes no responsibility to the homeowners or the homeowners association. Motion passed 5/0. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded prior to granting of further building permits to the Gideon Woods development that additional escrow account money is utilized to landscape the old billboard site in such a way that it becomes a screening mechanism for the residents. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Pisula recessed the meeting at 9:27 p.m. Vice Chair Turgeon reconvened the meeting at 9:36 p.m. (Chair Pisula left the meeting at this time.) 4. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997) Applicant: Howard's Point Marina PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 7 Mr. Brekke was in attendance. He was in favor of the recommendation as well as the enforcement provIsIon. Commissioner Kolstad stated she does not object to the solution as presented, but she does object to any sign advertising a commercial business and will note vote in favor of the request. She felt the problem could be resolved by using a larger street sign and not changing the ordinance. Commissioner Borkon felt this situation to be different because this is more of a landmark situation and it is important to look at an alternative. She stated she would vote in favor of the sign ordinance amendment. Commissioner Lizee stated she is in favor of the ordinance amendment which will clean up the neighborhood and still assist travelers looking for the marina. Commissioner Turgeon was in agreement with the exception of the 20-year requirement and the issue this presents relative to the burden of proof. She suggested compiling a list of similar signs in the City so that a record exists from the date of the amendment. Nielsen felt an inventory could be completed. This inventory should be kept where it can be easily referenced. Commissioner Kolstad noted her agreement. . Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a zoning ordinance amendment relative to signs for Howard's Point Marina, 5400 Howard's Point Road. Motion passed 3/1. (Commissioner Kolstad was the dissenting vote.) Turgeon moved, Borkon seconded to complete an inventory of existing nonconforming right of way signs as a base of reference to be kept in the office of the Clerk of the City of Shorewood. Motion passed 4/0. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATIVE TO SIGNS (Continued from Planning Commission Meeting of September 2, 1997) . Applicant: Location: Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 Fred Limmel, 23290 Highway 7, was in attendance. He thanked the Commission for their consideration. Mr. Limmel stated he will be moving the mobile billboard this coming weekend. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a zoning ordinance text amendment relative to signs for Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7). Motion passed 4/0. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR LUTHERAN CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR FOR AN INSTITUTIONAL WALL SIGN Applicant: Location: Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 State Highway 7 Nielsen explained the movable sign which is currently present on the property can be used twice per year for a period of seven days each and a sign permit is necessary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 8 Mr. Limmel asked if there is a fee for the Conditional Use Permit. Nielsen explained the fee is $200. Borkon moved, Turgeon seconded approving a Conditional Use Permit for Lutheran Church of Our Savior, 23290 State Highway 7 for an institutional wall sign contingent upon the removal of the moveable sign. Motion passed 4/0. 7. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Location: Stan Taube 27280 Edgewood Road John Atkinson was in attendance on behalf of Mr. Taube. He noted Mr. Taube is in agreement with the staff recommendations. Commissioner Borkon was in favor of Mr. Taube's request. Commissioner Lizee questioned why the driveway has not been removed. Nielsen explained the driveway may be used for the adjoining lot. He will further investigate whether the existing driveway will be utilized or a new one built. . Commissioner Turgeon noted her understanding the driveway, the house, garage and the shed were to have been removed by June 16th. Nielsen there was some delay on the release of the resolution since an explanation relative to the hardcover had been requested. Mr. Atkinson explained the landscaping plan has been revised because a patio has been moved from the proposed plan. Lizee moved, Borkon seconded approving a simple subdivision for Stan Taube, 27280 Edgewood Road subject to staff recommendations as well as the driveway on the Howard's Point property being removed or rebuilt by May 1, 1998. Motion passed 4/0. 8. 9. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None REPORTS . With respect to the land swap, Commissioner Turgeon inquired whether the heirs of the property had been contacted to determine their position relative to the land swap. Commissioner Borkon ask that the City Attorney contact the heirs to determine their position. Nielsen noted the developer intends to modify the layout. Borkon moved, Lizee seconded directing the City Attorney to further investigate the land swap, locating the heirs to request their approval. Motion passed 4/0. Commissioner Turgeon addressed the issue of the homeowners association meetings and requested the meeting notices be sent to the Park and Planning Commissioners. It was noted on Saturday Commissioner Turgeon spent considerable time attempting to locate the homeowners meeting and was unable to locate the meeting. Council Liaison O'Neill explained the meeting was canceled given the fact only five people could attend. Commissioner Turgeon stated the meeting should then have been posted as cancelled. . . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 7, 1997 - PAGE 9 Commissioners Kolstad and Turgeon recalled that requests have been made in the past asking that the Commission be noticed of the meetings being held. Commissioner Turgeon raised concern relative to communication between the Council and the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kolstad stated it is important that the Planning Commission has the opportunity to know the feelings of the community. Commissioner Borkon expressed concern with the results of the meetings coming back and being communicated to the Planning Commission as well as other Councilmembers who were not in attendance. Commissioner Turgeon inquired relative to the resident who had requested a berm along the back of his property given the number of baseballs which are thrown onto his property. This matter had been referred to the Park Commission for their consideration and to report back to the Planning Commission. 10. ADJOURNMENT Borkon moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:52 p.m. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474:0128 . www.state.net/shorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 3 October 1997 Gideon's Woods P.U.D. - Proposed Amendment to P.U.D. Agreement FILE NO.: 405 (97.26) BACKGROUND . In July the City Council received a petition (see Exhibit A) from the Gideon's' Woods Homeowners Association to allow them to renew the lease for the existing nonconforming billboard sign, located in the northeast comer of their site on County Road 19 (see Site Location map - Exhibit B, attached). Their petition asks that the sign be allowed for at least five more years. According to the Development Agreement for Gideon's Woods, the sign was to have been removed in the summer of 1997. The applicant's cite financial reasons and the screening effect of the existing sign. Additional background is provided in a staff report, dated 7 August 1997, attached as Exhibit C. ANAL YSISIRECOMMENDA TION One of the conditions of approval for the Gideon' s Woods P. U.D. was that the billboard sign, located in the northeast comer of the site be removed at the end of its current lease agreement (approximately June or July of this year). This requirement was specifically memorialized in the Development Agreement for Gideon's Woods, dated 14 March 1994 (Excerpted in Exhibit D). Paragraph 18 clearly states that the lease will not be renewed and that the sign will be removed at the end of the current lease. Having had a miserable experience with the developer of the Gideon's Woods project, staff is sympathetic to the residents of that project. However, from a policy perspective, the continuation of the nonconforming sign is contrary to the precedent which has been established by the City over the last several years. If this is approved there is no reason why the owner of the Shorewood FinaMart would not ask for similar consideration when the billboard on his site is scheduled to be taken down in the next couple of years. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore foB . . Memorandum Re: Gideon' s Woods Development Agreement Amendment 3 October 1997 In terms of screening, the Association would be better served by planting several evergreen trees in the location of the sign. These would provide a long term solution which would comply with Shorewood's current zoning regulations prohibiting billboard signs. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to the meeting. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Fred Dresser 2 1/ L /2., I 7 7 ] .~7 PETITION We the undersigned would ,like the Universal Sign on our property to remain there for at least five years. This would assist us financially in getting out of the hole. It would also block off the traffic lights and the noise. . NA.LVfE ADD~SS, I PHONE '2)iCU(Q~~,( S~'6t~iL-dYl-5 k~ ti-7D 5Z~J-, 7 1 - - O~ - r L/ .,/ 3/9 / oj 1';?() /P-c~ o-~. 77>--- f7' ~., SfL,t)~~ IfN-99.;;- l1mUJL~Jp 85a'S ( i '.~lL' _tf1L(fD5L ~~ ' ~ :.'7-5-S-ICilab/-k';~d _ 4.;", .:;r 0 _ ~)14df;~ ~<!~ J .. C- 'I!p._ .J;.Llc ~J- /)4Sl)~ 4?0-'O~ _ . __ ) '1/ .' r c- '/zr 1;""1,,,..) I, LJ':j 0 (" \(,:"1 '*,"l K~l ,/;' ;' ",.i.i!>0..d l' ~ ,J~l tXi_O:Z.j ~f("':""-;_~_~~ <:;/ / /" J . /",/" -.- -!,' ,__/ ,,',/1, 1/'1 ,....--- / '>1.? tl' \ ,,' t, J ",. J1 / """: J ...., '. -"/ /" . -, i ~ q, ~ / /; - y :s- ~ '-""N L.' ~. '~"""'....:L-'~ '-'.....' '-' ,,-,j j .:J/,/~ ",,,~ I LV I ---- , ----.~---~~~ ~~,.,.~------ --------- ...l2i~J:&.~ ") 'f,,-J,L -:> ~UST7 -d1;L4y/.~~~~ 6 '/.<(~,~~___2ZZ -f&y' ~~~i~~~~o ~-/ '-L c:~.;i_~~~ P~~~37 / /' ' ( . Exhibit A GIDEON'S WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PETITION Dated:::: Tulv 199~ ; ;4. ~ c:o j . 114. ~ I c.Jf 11 ~ J , i l)...;j 21 ".J ~ i (10)1 ~l ,~~$ Il!.~ I MlEE I i ~:. ~L11 i II: j (9) I~I ( I J) I I ": j l~! 114. 5 J 11:.5.1 z J (2) Igl (10) cii (9) gl (8):1 ""II ,,,.'1 ",. I)~;',:~ ......"]" RD "uo SU6D NO .. I I i'~ ,.. I'" i S d i ~ j J ""'J )~~lE1M" ~)1 !3 ~I' ~l'~ ; (~~j$! IS ~ 17 ~ '! 1..1 (~~)i'" (~~) '~ i I '""f' I (24) I '''~f7iS) I I ~ I~ I "b, I ,~ I~ I /.,/,~ I ,,, ,..... fj.. \ "5 I~ S<l1'~' ".; /. ~~.\~. 6 .~-}~ 1'1~ "!.\:,2:: <~ :. ~ I (24) ~ . .. ~ Uo) ~ -. '6.... '" ce..T'" :.....? 115, ~6 1Z..T ..::. : 5)' .,. '4. iJ' ~. . ':" ~- . · ~I~ c ": ~.~ ~ (23) l~C:: 2: ~ :~; =\ !(';.~ ..~ ...I~C~ I~ - ~ 5-- ~\.., l,g.tiZ 'd~ (19) zz , . c\- - 1- (--) ~ ...- \,.. ~ .. ;: a ~\:. 'J1\~ '"':) _ I ~.:~ ~~\ '"w. ~ 1_' _:.. ,". i .. \..b\ .~,'~ I . ::~. ~_.::"u, (. ..~. ;1 f ~.;:;; ...;. I iJ.; i j .. 1. ( i I I lid. I I 6 ~I (3) ~j !::i I , y. .II I I i , I .1 I .1 i I ~. ~! , ./: // ",\ / '<;1' 1-' , ( 1) ,,~. ~ itC9' ze'06''I I ~... ?,lilT ,~ L~T ZO (.., , ) \ -. J ~7" 2'~~"",: ~I.. ~ iC9.75 ......... ( 49) ~!iY OF TONK~ =AY i.,.j. i I ur JI1\Jnt:'!'I"'" $I I PE"""'"'fA' $I I \ v J.l.. 1....~..- tOOT. gg Billboard location II~. S I Zll :t (18) l "~, ./ I ('19) IT~ RO I , 0' ~I I I ....1 21 $ll ..I (28) I I I I I ~i " '--1 .. ::ll (29) i I I I ,.". I .,~.. ., I ..l .1 (3 i) 'I n ji - ~.........~....-:.-' ."" "I ~i I I I i 't- NORTH 25 ( 12) 111 = 200' ,..,. , '-'--r:r-r -- ,..,.--. I I , I: I I i i';" 7:5 ,4 i'" ( II) : !l.."\ ... ~ ' :-rt:-11-: - (:3) ( J) 1l"\# , , /~. n.~\ 6'~\D) .~I.U B- - ;::,../. -=-" Exhibit B SITE LOCATION Gideon '~, \XID()ds ,'::'__ITIencin-:en ~ .......t"4. 11' ..' : J.5 R I , I I , ( ie' ~. ,......:;! ( la) "1. _: ::,~ .. 3l:,,~~" ~}, ......EAST w~ - ~ lU,l,r~ '. ...... Z, ..1- ~ ..~.... . " :.--1----- _0' : ., . ...., , : .......-.,' ~ ~ /' ~ -, ~ ... IE (7) .;. '\ ~-- CITY OF SHOREWOOD MAYOR Tom Dahlberg COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel . 5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927- (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.net/shorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net ME1\tIORA1'IDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO. Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 7 August 1997 Gideon' s Woods - Billboard Removal 405 (92.26) . Representatives of the Gideon's Woods Homeowner's Association have expressed an interest in renewing the lease for a nonconfonning billboard sign located in the northeast corner of their development, adjacent to County Road 19. The lease recently expired and is subject to removal pursuant to the development agreement for Gideon's Woods, dated March of 1994 (see Exhibit A - excerpted from the development agreement). Staffhas been asked to provide background on the current ordinances relative to billboards and a brief history of billboard enforcement. Section 1201.03 Subd. II.d. of the Zoning Code lists billboards as nonconforming signs. Since adopting the code in approximately 1985, the City has successfully managed to eliminate three-fourths of the previously existing billboards in the community (including the agreement to remove the Gideon's Woods billboard and a similar agreement on the Fina property). Following are the locations from which signs have been removed: · Vine Hill RoadlHighway 7 Intersection. The City negotiated with the Department of Transportation to remove the sign as part of the intersection improvement. · Rapid Oil Site (19465 State Highway 7). As part of the redevelopment of the old Vine Hill Florist Shop, the City required removal of the billboard. · Christmas Lake RoadlHighway 7 Intersection. The City went to court with Naegele Outdoor Advertising company after they reconstructed and moved a nonconforming bill board. The case was settled and the sign was removed last year. Although the lawsuit did not reach the $50,000 legal costs originally estimated, the City did spend a considerable amount to enforce its Code. Staff will try to tabulate those past expenses. · Shorewood Finamart Site (24365 Smithtown Road). One of two nonconforming billboards was removed upon the redevelopment of the former gas station site. A development agreement adopted as part of the development also requires the removal of the sign at the end of its current lease arrangement (possibly as early as 1998). ~ ~-3S'C':;:''--'?f ':,:,..,....,....,. ,.....- Exhibit C PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT Dated 7 i-\U~l~:S: ~ {~O'""7 Memorandum Re: Billboard Signs 7 August 1997 · Gideon's Woods. As part of the P.U.D. development agreement the sign is to be removed this year. Aside from the billboards which have been removed or will be removed at the end of their current leases, only two billboards remain within the City limits: 1) immediately east of the Shorewood Shopping Center; and 2) the Total Gas Station (5680 County Road 19). While it is not recommended that this trend toward billboard removal be reversed, if the Gideon's Woods H.G.A. wishes to keep their billboard, it will require an amendment to the development agreement which governs the site. This is similar to the recent request for an amendment to the Waterford Development Agreement. The Association should make their application so that a public hearing can be conducted by the Planning Commission. Ultimate approval would then require a four-fifths vote by the City Council. . If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Monday night's meeting. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Fred Dresser Planning Commission . -2- C-2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD DE'f"t:~OP1tfE:.'IT A GR FEMENT GIDEON'S WOODS PLA...NNED u~1T DEVELOP11El'iT TIllS AGREE.NJ:a.t"T, made this 14th day of March, 1994, by and between the CITY OF SHO.R....1:WOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Glen Road Limited Partnership, a Minnesota Limited Partnership, hereinafter referred to as u.1e "Developer." . 'WHE.."ZE.d",S, the Developer is t"Ie fee owner in certain lands legally described in Exluoit A, attached hereto and made a pan hereof, which lands are hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"; and \VHEREAS, Developer proposes to develop the Subject Property by means of a Planned Unit Developmem: ("PUD") consisting of 18 lots, one of which is common area for the P1JD; and 'WHE..~AS, the Developer has made application. wir.IJ. the Zoning Administrator for a Conditional Use permit for a PUD and sub mined a Concept Plan and Development Stage Plan for the property, which matters were considered by the City Plal'L1Jing Commission at a Public Hea..'ing held on 17 November 1992 and a regular meeting held on 12 August 1993; and . 'WHE.."ZE.d",S, upon recommendation of the City Planning Commission, the City Council did consider and srrant ConceDt Plan aooroval as set forth in Resolution 125-92 and - ... ...... Development Stage Plan approval as set forJI in Resolution 93-84; NOW, THEREFORE,- in consideration of the mutual covenants and guaranrees contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.) Conditions of Aooroval - Tne Developer shall comply with the conditions of approval as adopted by the City Council and set forth in Resolution 93-84, incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 2.) Imorovements Installed bv Develooer - Developer a~ees at its e."Cpense to consrruc:, install and perform all work and furnish all materials and equipment in connection with the instaLlation of the following improvements: Exhibit D EXCERPTS FROM GIDEON'S WOODS P.FD, AGREEMENT Dared 1..1 :\1arch L 12.) Gradin~. Drainage. and Erosion Control - Developer, at its expense, shall provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Said. plans shall provide for temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices, including seeding or graded areas, as necessary, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion or lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of construction. Developer shall keep all streets within and adjoining the plat free or all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein by the Developer, its agents or assignees. 13.) Street Signs - Developer, at its expense, shall provide standard city street identification signs and traffic control signs in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 14.) Access to Residences - Developer shall provide reasonable access, including temporary grading and graveling, to all residences affected by construction until the streets are approved by the City Engineer, pursuant to 5. arid 16. hereof. . 15.) OccU'oancv Permits - The City shall not issue a permanent certificate or occupancy until all Improvements set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 are completed and approved by the City Engineer. Exception: A certificate of occupancy may be issued for the units on Lots 11 and 12 upon completion of utility work and class V surfacing of the street. 16.) Final Insnec::ion - Upon completion of the Improvements set forth in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, the City Engineer, the contractor, and the Developer's engineer will make a f.ll1al inspection of the work. 17.) Removal of Nonconforming Outdoor Advertisin~ Si!p1 - Tne Developer agrees that it will not extend the existing lease agreement for the outdoor advertising sign located in the northeast comer of the Subject Property, and will cause the removal or said sign upon expiration of the lease agreement. . 18.) Restoration of Streets. Public Facilities and Private Properties - The Developer shall restore all City streets and other public facilities and any private properties disturbed or damaged as a result or Developer's construction activities, including sod with necessary black dirt, bituminous replacement, curb replacement, and all other items disturbed during construction. 19.) Reouired Landscaping - The Developer shall provide a separate letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $10,810 for the purpose of assuring that required landscaping in the common areas (Lot 18) shall be constructed and installed according to the Landscape Plan attached as Exhibit D and made a part hereof. Landscaping associated with individual unit lots shall be constructed and installed prior to issuance of certificates or occupancy for said unit lots. If required unit lot 4. D-2 34.) Severabiiirv - In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any coun of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining provisions shall not in any way beaffected or impaired thereby. 35.) Execution of Counteroarts - This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument 36.) Construction - This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. . 37.) Successors and Assigns - It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Agreement herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS \VF......::....~OF, the parries hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the day and year first above written. DEVELOPE..1(: CITY: Glen Road Limited Partne:-ship By: Ii ~,... J By: #~; ';;Oio I PUwt> Its: Mayo:'i' . By: Its: President ATTEST: /1 l. ( ~vviJA- [, 1!CA./'vW) CitY Administrator/ Clerk 10. D-3 FILE COpy -~ -~--- - 1 October 1997 ocr 2 1997 .. ~ Planning Commissioners c/o Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN 55331 3\j -..--- Dear: Commissioners: . I am writing to you in response to the Public Hearing Notice regarding the proposed amendment to the Development Agre~ment and Protective Covenants of Gideon Woods P. U.D. Based on my understanding of the City's statutory position on billboards in general and the nature of this billboard in particular. I am opposed to the proposed extension of the deadline for removal. I understand that the City of Shorewood prohibits billboards, and that a progressive effort to remove existing billboards throughout the city has been very successful. I assume that other property owners in the city have had to sacrifice lease revenue when the ordinance has been enforced to effect the removal of an existing billboard. I seems appropriate that this should continue to be enforced uniformly and fairly. In providing for the financial interests of the residents of Gideon Woods by allO\\'ing their billboard to remain through the term of their existing lease rather than e:\-pecting them to break the lease and pay the resulting penalty the city has acted justly and in good faith. The residents in turn acted in good faith in agreeing to respect the deadline to remove it. I do not believe it is appropriate for the city to now forego the Agreement and forestall it's eventual removal. . Shorewood benefits from the absence of such advertising cluttering up our visual environment. especially in or adjacent to residential areas. This location in particular will especially benefit from it's removal. The billboard stands at the entrance to the trail where it intersects county road 19 adjacent to Manitou Park. I have always felt that it made for a poor image where it stood. Simply by standing alongside the trail it is unsightly and incompatible. Locating advertising of any kind alongside the trail is an outrageous proposition indeed. The billboard frequently carries cigarette advertising, which is especially repugnant where so many families and kids come for sports, ice skating, the playground. and the picnic area as well as the trail. I and my family are grateful to live in Shorewood and we appreciate that our city staff and our elected representatives and fellow residents are sensitive to the quality of the environment which we all share together. I also want to express my utmost respect and friendship towards our neighbors in Gideon Woods. Thank you for considering my request that you allow the Agreement to stand intact. Sincerely, /dr~~/ / Kevin S. Conley 24740 Amlee Road Shorewood MN Exhibit E RESIDENT CORRESPONDENCE Dated 1 October 1997 Oct-06-97 lO:30A P.Ol t" ~~~ - -.:,~ MAYOR Doug Keller COUNCIL Guy Sasanfar William laBelle Judd Mowry John Senescall . ADMINISTRATOR Patrick Wussow . dtg 01 EJO/lRa CPa} 4901 Manitou Road. Tanka Bay. Minnesota 55331 (612) 474-7994 FAX 474-6538 October 1, 1997 Bradley Neilsen City of Shorewood 5575 Country Club Lane Shorewood MN 55331 Dear Mr. Neilsen: I have reviewed the public notice for an amendment to the developm ent agreement and protective covenance of the Gideon Woods PUD. To the best of my knowledge, the purpose of a PUD in the City of Shorewood is to allow a deviation from the strict provisions of an ordinance relating to setbacks, lot area, width and depth of yards etc. It is my understanding that the leasing of the billboard space to Naegele Sign Co. was to allow the company to use the space until their agreem ent expired. I am unaware of any hardships relating to installing a billboard sign or leasing space for a billboard sign that would prohibit homeowners from using their property if the lease were not allowed to continue. In summary I ask that you deny the request to continue leasing the space to Naegele Sign Company. If you have any question s relating to this matter, please feel free to contact me at 474-7994 or at Tonka Bay City Hall, 4901 Manitou Road. Sincerely, tffP~ Patrick Wussow City Administrator ~- C:\WPOOCS\DA T A\NAEGELE ~ ) CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474:0128 . www.state.net/shorewood · cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 3 October 1997 RE: Shorewood Senior Center - Proposed Zoning Code Amendment for Signage FILE NO.: 405 (97.25) BACKGROUND Mr. Glenn Froberg, representing the Friends of the Southshore Senior Center, has requested that the City amend it zoning regulations relative to institutional signage. Currently the Code limits signage for institutions to indirect illumination (e.g. flood lighting shining onto the sign). The Friends have asked to be able to erect an internally lit, freestanding sign on County Road 19, in front of the Southshore Senior Center (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The proposed sign is shown on Exhibit B. . ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION The consensus of the Planning Commission at its 16 September study session was to not allow internally lit signs for institutions, due to their location in residential zoning districts. Since then, Commissioner Pisula raises a good point in his E-mail, dated 19 September 1997 (Exhibit C, attached). He suggests that a distinction may be able to be made when the institution (in his example, Our Savior Church) is located along a major roadway. In the case of the Senior Center, the Friends desire to place the sign along County Road 19, in the northwest comer of the site. Despite its location on County Road 19 the Center is somewhat tucked away below the hill. The Friends hope to make up for this lack of visibility by making their sign more visible. It should be noted that the Senior Center site, although zoned residential, has little impact on nearby residential uses. The property immediately west of the site is zoned and used for commercial purposes. The City Public Works Department is located immediately north of the proposed sign, and the nearest residence to the east is over 300 feet away and substantially buffered by existing trees. A Residential Communit'j on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 0~ } . . \ Memorandum Re: Southshore Senior Center Proposed Sign Amendment 3 October 1997 In light of Mr. Pisula's suggestion, a proposed draft amendment has been prepared (Exhibit D) which allows internally lit signs for institutions which are located on intermediate or minor arterial streets, as identified in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan (e.g. Highway 7 and County Road 19, respectively). If approved, this amendment could be included in with the amendment for Our Savior Church. Hopefully we will have photographic slide illustrating various sign lighting for your review at the public hearing. cc: Jim Hurm . John Dean Glenn Froberg 2 ) : 1~__ ~---------:--- ~: (7C) I . 1_______ 100 ~ ~ 8 .. n .; (31) ~ ,. ....." on ...; ... '" ~ ~ ~ ~ , fJ(T IS LOl 3 (74) 2 (3) "0 r: ,- I. ,,.. ,N ".. , , , , , . <:32) 1lI 15. O~ . 9'" ", ..1'3"6 ' ~ --(~--~ - ...........- n9.II"'--"-' ---J ~-----.-, I ---- '4" 70" .....12 I '=....;; .... : ~ ' .. . /81 I ." . . -~;,,' ~ : ." ... .. .,~" 0 ~ ( 42) \ rt. ,.,r. : (Z) : . . , , . . I , . . I II a (40) 10) ., . I I . ,0. ."" ... 'CI . ,- I .~l ~ IE ~ ....... .. . '33 Q) 0:: ~. ::::> . d~ I;; .. .. /"'!" ~ t- :z ::::> 8 nl ~ ~: ~ ':(~) -~c (',~) l!~1 .~ I Ui cs " lE~U8<<) " , '"'Stt-f\ WJr u~ /lIIl L.....~ n lS7.-r. . =-, , 12 (33) - -.'*::.. .;:: .-. 160. 7~ ~/ 13.5 _ 2!IJtJlO 13.5 -:> 11 10 ~!- . '::~{~J) ( 30) (Z9) ." ~ ,.,~ f I 135 AfWfO~ 135 :il e . 7 I: ((~8~ i.- (V).. ,.,~ . '15'- ~ ,;:. ;~ , ... ,.,. , ~i I':l ; ~J--:t Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Southshore Senior Cente:' . Pronosecl . HAM IIIINEB IIIIIGIIJ . Exhibit B PROPOSED SIGN flLE COpy Subject: Attn: Brad Nielsen Date: Fri, 19 Sep 199720:03:11 -0500 From: Brenda & Jim Pisula <jdpisula@ix.netcom.com> Reply-To: jdpisula@ix.netcom.com To: Shorewood City Hall <cityhall@dorthy.state.net> CC: "O'Neill, Jerry" <joneill@wintemet.com>, "Foust, Jeff -- Office" <JefCFoust@adc.coIIl>, "Champa, Roger" <RDCHAMP1@aol.com>, "Borkon, Deborah" <Deborahayn@worldnet.att.net> Brad: I just drove past Our Savior Lutheran Church on Route 7. Their permitted sign was lit and it's LIT FROM THE INSIDE! If this is the case, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to change the ordinance and grant them one thing and make them non-compliant on another part (or grandfather them in.) Based on this observation, doesn't it make sense for us to allow ~nternallY lit signs? My thinking is that we can identify the total number of potential signs that would fall into this classification by councing the institutions in the city. We can eyeball them and see what problems an internally-lit sign could cause and, through CUP, deny them if it makes sense. If it was a request from the Apostolic Church on Smithtown Road, I would not support it because that location is in a single-family neighborhood. I don't have a problem with internally lit signs for Our Savior church because it's on 4-lane Route 7. I may not have a problem with the Senior Center sign, depending on where they want to put it. Give me a call early next week and we can discuss further. We may need to see this again. Best, ++++++++++ .im pisula Exhibit C E-MAIL FROM JIM PTSUL-', Dated 19 SeDtemb~~ ~ (',n- 1201.03 1201.03 (4) Nonconforming Sign Maintenance and Repair: Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as relieving the owner or user of a legal nonconforming sign or owner of the property on which the legal nonconforming sign is located from the provisions of this subdivision regarding safety, maintenance, and repair of signs contained in subdivision llc. Provided, however, that any repainting, cleaning, and other normal maintenance or repair of the sign or sign structure shall not modify the sign structure or copy in any way which makes it more nonconforming or the sign shall lose its legal nonconforming status. e. District Regulations: The following sign standards by zoning district pertain to signs which require application and permit: . (1) R-lA Through R-3B Residential Districts: (a) Area Identification Signs (Monument Type Only): One sign facing each bordering street shall be allowed for each development of twenty (20) or more units. Such sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area. Such signs shall be erected only at the dedicated street entrance, may be indirectly illuminated, and shall not exceed a height of eight feet (8') above grade. . (c) Park entI lcation igns: One sign facing each bordering street. Such sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet in area nor eight feet (8') in height. Such signs may be indirectly illuminated. (d) Subdivision Plat Signs: No more than two (2) temporary signs advertising a new subdivision plat, provided each such sign does not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area, identifying only the plat in which they are located, are nonilluminated, and are erected only at dedicated street entrances to the plat. Such signs shall be removed if construction of subdivision improvements is not in progress on the plat within sixty (60) days following the date of the sign erection or as soon as eighty percent (80%) of the lots are developed and sold. (2) R-C Residential/Commercial and C-l Commercial Districts: Subject to other conditions of this Ordinance, the following signs shall be allowed in the R-C Note: Proposed changes shown in italics. 10/2/97 Exhibit D PROPOSED AMENDMENT .. MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474:0128. www.state.net/shorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 3 October 1997 Howard's Point Marina - Proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment 405 (97.29) The attached amendment reflects the recommendation of the Planning Commission which would allow nonconforming signs in the public right-of-way to remain or be replaced through a licensing procedure. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean . A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 0J) .. 1201.03 1201.03 . (9) Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises or identifies a business conducted, service rendered, or product sold on the premises, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use or control of the building or structure upon which the sign may be found, within sixty (60) days from the date of vacancy. (10) The regulations contained herein shall not apply to traffic signs or the flag, separate emblem or insignia of a nation, political unit, school or religious group, or integral signs. A sign inside a building is not included unless its face is visible only from the exterior of the building. (11) All signs requiring a permit from the City shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. d. Nonconforming Signs: (1) The following are nonconforming signs: (a) Prohibited signs. (b) All other signs not prohibited that do not conform to the provisions of this Ordinance. (c) Billboards and advertising signs (except as provided in provision e[3][b] of this subdivision). . (2) Except as provided in paragraph (5) below all nonconforming and prohibited signs created by this Ordinance except those signs exempted by State statutes shall be removed or brought into conformity with this Ordinance within the following time periods: (a) Any sign in violation of prohibited signs: Six (6) months from the date of the enactment of this Ordinance. (b) All other nonconforming signs: Three (3) years from the date of the enactment of this Ordinance, or upon approval of any building permit, whichever comes first. (3) A nonconforming sign may not be: (a) Changed to another nonconforming sign. (b) Structurally altered except to bring into compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (c) Expanded. (d) Reestablished after its removal. (e) Reestablished after damage of more than fifty percent (50%) of sign replacement cost except to bring into compliance. Exhibit A 'l 1201.03 1201.03 (4) Nonconforming Sign Maintenance and Repair: Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as relieving the owner or user of a legal nonconforming sign or owner of the property on which the legal nonconforming sign is located from the provisions of this subdivision regarding safety, maintenance, and repair of signs contained in subdivision lIe. Provided, however, that any repainting, cleaning, and other normal maintenance or repair of the sign or sign structure shall not modify the sign structure or copy in any way which makes it more nonconforming or the sign shall lose its legal nonconforming status. (5) Notwithstanding provisions to the contrary within this Subdivision, nonconforming off site directional signs located on public rights-of-way may continue upon a finding by the City Council that: . (a) The sign is reasonably necessary to provide direction to the business which is advertised by the sign. ( b) The sign (or a substantially similar predecessor) has been at the location for at least 20 years. ( c) The sign has not represented a safety hazard or an obstruction to ordinary roadway maintenance activities. The Council may condition such permission upon the owner of the establishment entering into an agreement with the City addressing matters including liability, indemnity of the City, circumstances calling for removal of the sign, permit fees, and other matters deemed appropriate by the City. In lieu of permitting the existing sign to remain at its existing location the City Council may authorize the location of a substitute sign in the existing location or a different location. . DATA/Planning/Code Amendments/Signs MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB. ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.net/shorewood' cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 August 1997 RE: Howard's Pt. Marina - Appeal of Sign Violation Notice FILE NO.: 405 (97.23) BACKGROUND . For years Howard's Point Marina has displayed an off-site, directional sign at the comer of the intersection of Howard's Point and Smithtown Road (see Site Location map- Exhibit A, attached). In April of this year, based upon a neighborhood complaint, the City sent notice to the manager of the Marina (see Exhibit B), advising that the sign is in violation of the Shorewood Zoning Code, and requesting its removal. Subsequently, Mr. Don Ponto, current president of the Marina, has appealed the notice in a letter, dated 10 May 1997 (see Exhibit C). A public hearing scheduled for the 5 August Planning Commission meeting was tabled due to an unusually late meeting. As can be seen on Exhibit A Howard's Point Marina is located at 5400 Howard's Point Road, approximately 3550 feet (.67 mile) north of their sign. To date we have received correspondence from one resident in favor of the sign and one resident opposed to the sign (see Exhibits D and E, respectively). Notice of the hearing has been sent to property owners within 500 feet of the sign. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Memorandum Re: Howard's Pt. Marina Sign Violation Appeal 28 August 1997 ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION Except for governmental, street control and campaign signs, Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.c.(3) and (5) of the Shorewood Zoning Code preclude signs from being located in the public right-of-way. Section 1201.03 Subd. l1.d.(2)(b) goes on to require removal of any such existing signs within three years of the enactment of the Code (19 May 1986). . The City Attorney advises that allowing the sign in question to remain in its current location will require an amendment to the Zoning Code. If the City determines that there is some merit in allowing the sign to remain, one approach to the problem would be to adopt an amendment establishing a licensing procedure for right-of-way signs. Since it is not recommended that additional signs be encouraged within the rights-of-way of Shorewood streets, one condition of a license would be that the sign must have been in place prior to the adoption of the current Code. Other conditions could also be imposed such as maintenance and insurance. The process could also provide for removal of the sign upon violation of the license conditions. If the Planning Commission and City Council are interested in this type of solution, staff should be directed to prepare an amendment for your consideration and schedule a public hearing regarding the amendment. It is not recommended that an amendment simply "grandfathering" the sign in be adopted. If it is decided that the Code should not be amended, a deadline for removal of the sign should be determined. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Larry Brown Don Ponto . . - /11- ~,. --'--. LAKE M/NNETONK (UPPER LAKE) "~ r' R: l....-..,; i :: 'I: Ir- I ii I 'i -----J ~ I I I t NORTH I'~ 10:0' / ~ , , . >- a: '" 'l! \-5 I I ~ , '~ \ ,',/ LAKE VIRGINIA \ , . \ .. f , \~ . t /;;...,~S " \1, /.P' Ji~" VICTORIA Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Howard's Pt. Marina Sign Appeal PROPERTY filE MAYOR Tom Dahlberg COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer"':\4cCarty Jerry ~eilf John Garfun~~el CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD' SHOAEWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927' (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128' www.state.netlshorewood' cityhaU@shorewood.state.net 29 April 1997 Property Manager Howard's Point Marina 5400 Howard's Point Road Shore wood, MN 55331 Original sent via Certified Mail . Re: Nonconforming Sign @ Howard's Point Road and Smithtown Road Intersection Property Manager: This office has received a resident complaint regarding your directional sign located at the intersection of Howard's Point Road and Smithtown Road. This sign is located in the public right-of-way in violation of the Shorewood Zoning Code. Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.c.(3) of the City Code (Exhibit A, attached) prohibits such signs in the public right-of- way. Subd. 11.c.(5) further states that "No sign or sign structure shall protrude over a public right-of-way." Based on these sections of the Code, the sign in question is nonconforming. Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.d.(2)(b) requires that nonconforming signs be removed within three years of enactment of the Code (see Exhibit B, attached). The Code was enacted on 19 May 1986. . This is to notify you that your sign must be removed by 12 May 1997. If it is not removed by that time, the Public Works Department will be directed to do so. You are hereby advised that you may appeal this notice to the City Council. If we receive a written appeal letter prior to 12 May, no further action will be taken until your appeal has been processed. .\ If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 474- 3236. CITY OF SHOREWOOD .;!;vtd0;-. (7i)dLe---, Bradley J. Ni~e: Planning Director cc: Jim Hurm Larry Brown John Dean Mayor and City Council Exhibit B ZONING VIOLATION NOTICE Dated 29 April 1997 1201.03 1201.03 (b) Any sign which contains or imitates an official traffic sign or signal. except for private, on-premise directional signs. (c) Any sign which moves, rotates, has any moving partS or. gives the illusion of motion. E;tempted are time and temperarure information and barber poles. Moving message type signs may be permitted as an exception when their messages consist primarily of news, public announcements, etc. of a nonadvertising nature. (d) Except for holiday signs and exceptions provided in provision c(4) below, any sign which contains or consists of banners, pen- nants, ribbons, streamers, strings of light bulbs, spinners, or similar devices. (e) Portable signs (except as provided in provision c(4) below). i \,. ..J . (f) Signs which are attached in any manner to trees, fences, utility poles, or other such permanent supports. (g) No sign shall be illuminated with any flashing or intermittent lights, nor shall it be animated. Exempted are time and temperature information and barber poles. All displays shall be shielded to pre vent any light to be directed at on-coming traffic in such brilliance as to impair the vision of any driver. No device shall be illuminated in such a manner as to interfere with or obscure an official traffic sign or signal. No light shall be directed onto a lake so as to interfere with navigation thereon. (h) Roof signs. c. General Provisions: . (1) All signs shall comply with the .Minnesota State Building Code as may be amended. 1 (2) When electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the State Building Code as may be amended.l (Ord.. 168, 6- 24-85) (4) Tne temporary use of signs, searchlights, banners, pennants, and similar devices shall require a permit. The permit shall be valid for seven (7) consecutive days. The permit shall be prominently displayed during the period of validity. Only two (2) temporary permits may be granted for any property within any twelve (12) month period. Temporary signs shall nor exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area. 1. Sc:e Clapce: 1001 of :his Code. QC-= r: ';'A. Jr .::::./:c,r?:L,.CCC 1201.03 1201.03 (5) No silffi or Silffi strUcmre shall protrUde over a public right-of-:- ~ (6) All signs which require a pennit shall display. in a conspicuous manner, the owner's name, permit number, and dare the sign was erected. (7) All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign strUcture and be measured from lot grade. (8) In the case of a two-faced, freestanding sign. where the tvlO (2) faces of the sign are parallel and face in opposite directions. only one face shall be used in computing the allowable area of the sign. . . S9:3 c;:-; Jr. Shore~'ccc 1201.03 1201.03 (9) Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises or idemifies a business conducted, service rendered, or product sold on the premises, shall be removed by the owner, agent, or person having the beneficial use or control of the building or structure upon which the sign may be found, within sixty (60) days from the date of vacancy. (10) The regulations contained herein shall not apply to traffic signs or the flag, separate emblem or insignia of a nation, political unit, school or religious group, or integral signs. A sign inside a building is not in- cluded unless its face is visible only from the exterior of the building. (11) All signs requiring a permit from the City shall be subject to review and approval by the City Council. d. Nonconforming Signs: (1) The following are nonconforming signs: . (a) Prohibited signs. (b) All other signs nOt: prohibited that do not conform to the pro- visions of this Ordinance. (c) Billboards and advertising signs (except as provided in provi- sion e(3] (b] of this subdivision). (2) All nonconforming and rohibited sims created bv this Or- dinance except t ose SIgns exempted by State statutes shall be removed or brought IntO conformIty WIth thIS Ordinance wIthin the following time penods; (a) Any sign in violation of prohibited signs: Six (6) momhs from the date of the enactment of this Ordinance. . (b) All Other nonconforming siO"ns: Three 3 ears from the date of t e enactment or thIS Oramance, or upon approval 0 any building permit, whichever comes first. (3) A nonconforming sign may not be: (a) Changed to another nonconforming sign. (b) Structurally altered except to bring into compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. (c) Expanded. (d) Reestablished after its removal. (e) Reestablished after damage of more than fifty percent (500:0) of sign replacement cost except to bring into compliance. . . May 10, 1997 Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331-8927 Re: Your letter of 4/29/97, "Nonconforming Sign..." Dear Mr. Nielsen: _.,..._~_._-",...~-~:-~~==.-- ~ ' = ,e Ii \\// \S \i""\ ~ ~ : c=_ ! ~ \t,. I ~-==- \ \ \; \1 :. ,;; ;.!,,"' 1 ." 1CQ7 ii i: '- ,~ ,,-,,,I.) i W : \i ",y---------- This letter is written as a formal appeal to your letter regarding the directional sign at Howard's Point Road and Smithtown Road for Howard's Point Marina. I have been a resident of Shore wood for the past 25+ years and there has always been a sign for the Marina on the spot where it is located today. The placement of this sign supercedes the Code which was enacted on May 19, 1986. It has provided a means for people to find the Marina as those who are unfamiliar with the area would find it difficult to locate. I believe this sign is in the best interest of the public and should, therefore, be allowed on the public right-of-way. I have observed other directional and informational signs in public rights-of-way in the area. Please advise next course of action. You mav reach me at 470-0549 or 474-3850. Sincerely, ~p~ Don Ponto President Howard's Point Marina ~ 0 \,\/ ~_ R :- } S D ('l } '.: -: ~\i 1 ~ :(~ ' ;'\) :\ Exhibit C APPEAL LETTER Dated 10 Mav 1997 !1~~~.~~~~rnll ~~~ JUL ~iJ W ~ IBY Subject: August 5 Meeting Date: Mon, 28 Jul 199720:55:42 -0500 From: David Hinze <dhinze@wavefront.com> To: cityhall@dorthy.state.net We live in Virginia Highlands, Lot 1,Block 1 at intersection of Lake Virginia Dr and Smithtown. Significant number of people miss turn on Howard's Pt while driving west and pull a U-turn on the city property I maintain, leaving large track marks in the grass. What is city attempting to accomplish with forcing Marina to pull their sign?? While there is a well marked road sign, a significant number of people miss the turn ( speeding problem-which we have complained about frequently) and pull the big U-turn on the city easement property. I mow and maintain it for the city since they don't do it, so we are concerned that pulling the sign will generate many more turnarounds on the city easement property. What is city's agenda in this matter? . . Exhibit D HINZE E-MAIL Dated 28 July 1997 rq.... ~ rODv. r iL.L liLr I Shorewood Planning Commission The following are reasons for the removal of the Howard's Point Marina Sign: . 1 . The sign is the only business directional/billboard on Smithtown Road from its border of Victoria to Country Club Road. 2. The sign attracts clutter in the form of Realtor signs, garage sales, parties, as well as trash, like pop cans, beer bottles. People have a little less respect for IIpublic property" as compared to private property. 3. The sign is very unattractive, takes away from the landscaping and yard care we have done. It is unappealing to us and to the community. . 4. The sign is on the property we maintain and is bothersome to keeping the area landscaped, mowing and weed control. It may also cause issues with snow plowing in the winter. 5. The sign is located 9 feet from the curb and 24 feet from the center line of Smithtown Road. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Thomas Murphy, 27360 Blue Ridge Lane, Shorewood, MN 55331 Exhibit E MURPHY LETTER Dated 1 Julv 1997 MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB,ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128. www.state.netlshorewood. cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 August 1997 RE: Our Savior Lutheran Church - Request for Zoning Text Amendment for Signage FILE NO.: 405 (97.24) BACKGROUND . Mr. Fred Ummel, representing Our Savior Lutheran Church, has requested that the City amend its current regulations relative to institutional signs. The church is located at 23290 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) and is zoned R-1 C, Single-Family Residential. The church currently displays two signs, one freestanding identification sign with message board, located in front of the building near the street, and one freestanding informational sign announcing times of services, also in front but near the building. In a letter from the Church President (see Exhibit B), dated July 1997, it is explained that current signage is inadequate to identify that a school is also located on the site. The applicant has requested that the Zoning Code be amended to allow two signs for institutional uses, one freestanding and one wall sign. Exhibits C and D illustrate the type of sign they would like to install. Although difficult to copy, the photos shown on Exhibits E and F provide examples of other such signs in the surrounding area. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ro E a..- . . Memorandum Re: Our Savior Church Proposed Zoning Text Amendment - Signage 28 August 1997 ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDA TION The applicant's request appears to have some merit. While the church itself is immediately recognizable as a church, it is not so apparent that a school is also located on the site. As can be seen in the attached photos, it is not at all uncommon for institutions (churches, schools and other public and semi-public uses) to display two signs. If the request is determined to be reasonable, an amendment such as the one attached as Exhibit G, herein could be adopted. A public hearing on this request is scheduled for 2 September 1997. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Fred Limmel -2- JMIJINNTI J 2000' 1/2 MI. r 2640' REVISED DATE: BY FEBRUARY 1992 ~NING DEPARTMENT /~ROG ISLAND ~ 0' I ~1=lJ-~ I i ilL 11"__----1 \, \ i .IW I: :.,~~ti!FRD.. . 0 I:~_ !~ :n i. ~ j // " \ '-~--"--.m--' ., . '~-j \ ~ n n /i '^~ /, Ii. II II Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Our Savior Church Sign Amendmenr Lutheran Church of Our Savior 23290 Highway Seven, Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Phone: 474-5181 July, 1997 To: Members of Shorewood City Council Shorewood City Zoning & Planning Commission The Church Council, Board of Education, and the voting members of Our Savior Lutheran Church and School ave submitted this request for an amendment to the zoning text in regards to the signage limitation that governs 'r church and school. Weare requesting that the text be rewritten or altered to allow buildings such as ours in the Rl C Zoning District to have more than one sign, and also to have the maximum size changed so that it will be legible by traffic traveling at highway speeds. Our reasoning for this has come from numerous accounts of visitors to our church, and people from neighboring communities remarking that they did not realize that our building even has a school and child care facility attached. We consider the school and our child care portion of the church as a tremendous resource to the Shorewood community and would like the public to know that they exist. We do understand the reasoning for the existing text as it protects the image of the community, but we do feel that our school's livelihood is severely restricted by not being able to advertise itself on the building, especially when churches in the neighboring communities are being allowed to have signage of this nature. ~r ultimate goal is to have letters applied to the building that are both high enough and large enough so that ~ey are legible to the daily Highway 7 traffic in front of our building. The sign would simply state "Our Savior Lutheran Church and SchooL" The letters would not need to be lighted, due to the existing up lighting that already washes our building at night. We also would want to keep the letters tasteful in color to compliment our building. Our members feel that a more permanent sign would also be more attractive to the image that the City of Shorewood tries to protect, rather than all the temporary signs that we have used in the past and still continue to use. Weare hoping that this request will meet with your approval and that the zoning text can be amended to allow Our Savior to achieve this goal. S. I /.,~ me ere y /: ; . ,/ /'), ' ~" ~,... -, / ~ /~~/_./ __ .,7 _' ..__ ..- )' .%-rl--~"" "'H,*,J V'). <-- ~ ':....-., ... , / . 7ML~ ek.-uk- ~u 5~ Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated July 1997 \, r--..... x.,'" '\ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~~ % ~ . . Exhibit C PROPOSED SIGNAGE - PHOTO ILLUSTRA TON c ~ \ .... {\ ~ / ~ -"" 1 .? " e1) "" ~ .J "" ~ t I__~- ~ "" \~ 0- 0 . c: -1' 0 0 \: I I~ <..> U) ',~ "0 \~ ~- C ('\J J: U a: ::> :r: u L1-I Z rr.: < l~J a: 1-- ~-- ill [II U) :r: -' .en:: l- . : ltJ u.. N.- ::> 0 I f- -1 - w U) 1"1-.1 c:x:: Z x 0 --.l 0 i/) 3: <{ :J > Z ii:J a -T--- -c( -\,;"- w :> :2 .1 ~~ (I) Cl r---- a ~ --.... ~~ c:x:: ,,- _J II "" ::> _J ..c 0 <{ I 0::: <{ ~- lJJ !.tJ 1 "> (y . I , I [-=~_a.] i I ["\;--11 -:-\,:"'11 ILII Exhibit D PROPOSED SIGNAGE - SOUTH BUILDING ELEVATION ~' i3 ~-":.,, wfr y.k ie' i~ ~:~c: k-~- f..:l l' I r. r- rr: r I r- L [:&11 , , r r : j ~- llr If ' [J=-' , l ! : . r L, \.- ~C! L'~ t Exhibit E EXAMPLE SIGNAGE ;,' Exhibit F EXAMPLE SIGNAGE 1201.03 1201.03 (4) Nonconforming Sign Maintenance and Repair: Nothing 'in this subdivision. shall be-e-enstfUed as -relieving the owner or user of a legal nonconforming sign or owner of the property on which the legal nonconforming sign is located from the provisions of this subdivision regarding safety, maintenance, and repair of signs contained in subdivision 1Ic. Provided, however, that any repainting, cleaning, and other normal maintenance or repair of the signor sign structure shall nQt modify the sign structure or copy in any way which makes it more nonconforming or the sign sha11lose its legal nonconforming status. e. District Regulations: The following sign standards by zoning district pertain to signs which require application and permit: . (1) R-1A Through R-3B Residential Districts: (a) Area Identification Signs (Monument Type Only): One sign facing each bordering street shall be allowed for each development of twenty (20) or more units. Such sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area. Such signs shall be erected only at the dedicated street entrance, may be indirectly illuminated, and shall not exceed a height of eight feet (8') above grade. . ( c) Park Identification Signs: One sign facing each bordering street. Such sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet in area nor eight feet (8') in height. Such signs may be indirectly illuminated. (d) Subdivision Plat Signs: No more than two (2) temporary signs advertising a new subdivision plat, provided each such sign does not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area, identifying only the plat in which they are located, are nonilluminated, and are erected only at dedicated street entrances to the plat. Such signs shall be removed if construction of subdivision improvements is not in progress on the plat within sixty (60) days following the date of the sIgn erectIon or as soon as eighty percent (80%) of the lots are developed and sold. (2) R-C Residential/Commercial and "C-l Commercial Districts: Subject to other conditions of this Ordinance, the following signs shall be allowed in the R-C Exhibit G PROPOSED AMENDMENT Note: Proposed changes shown in italics. MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-'0128 . www.state.net/shorewood . cityhall@shorewood.state.net Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 2 October 1997 Our Savior Church - Proposed Sign Amendment and C. U.P. 405 (97.24) At its 2 September meeting the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an amendment to the signage requirement for institutional uses found in Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e.(1)(b) of the Zoning Code. The Commission recommended that the second sign requested by Our Savior Lutheran Church should be processed by conditional use permit. Exhibit B contains the language which was discussed at the Commission's 16 September study session. Assuming there is agreement regarding the amendment, a public hearing has been scheduled for the 7 October meeting to consider a conditional use permit for the church. As mentioned at the study session, the proposed wall sign (Exhibit C) appears to constitute less than three percent of the area of the building silhouette as viewed from Highway 7. The sign will be lit by the lights which currently illuminate the building. It is suggested that the amendment be recommended for adoption by the Council, and that the C. U.P. for Our Savior Lutheran Church be approved, subject to the removal of a nonconforming portable billboard which is located in front of the church. . cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Fred Ummel A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore &Eb JMITINN] ']' FEBRUARY 1992 f 2000' 1/2 MI. I 2640' REVISED DATE' BY "'"' ~ C \lNING DEPARTMENT ,-.-......, . (1l~OG ----- (GIOCONS SAY) ::> c , n n ! i i i II , I , , Exhibit A SITE LOCA nON 0!.if S ~l \-; C ~4 C~1~::.'=:--~ :_~ L:;~ '- .-~--. -:....... .'-..,.....,.....;~.~ . -. -~'- 1201.03 1201.03 (4) Nonconforming Sign Maintenance and Repair: Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed as relieving the owner or user of a legal nonconforming sign or owner of the property on which the legal nonconforming sign is located from the provisions of this subdivision regarding safety, maintenance, and repair of signs contained in subdivision lIe. Provided, however, that any repainting, cleaning, and other normal maintenance or repair of the sign or sign structure 'shall not modify the sign structure or copy in any way which makes it more nonconforming or the sign shall lose its legal nonconforming status. e. District Regulations: The following sign standards by zoning district pertain to signs which require application and permit: (1) R-1A Through R-3B Residential Districts: . (a) Area Identification Signs (Monument Type Only): One sign facing each bordering street shall be allowed for each development of twenty (20) or more units. Such sign shall not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area. Such signs shall be erected only at the dedicated street entrance, may be indirectly illuminated, and shall not exceed a height of eight feet (8') above grade. . (c) Park Identification Signs: ne sign facing each bordering street. Such sign shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet in area nor eight feet (8') in height. Such signs may be indirectly illuminated. (d) Subdivision Plat Signs: No more than two (2) temporary signs advertising a new subdivision plat, provided each such sign does not exceed thirty two (32) square feet in area, identifying only the plat in which they are located, are nonilluminated, and are erected only at dedicated street entrances to the plat. Such signs shall be removed if construction of subdivision improvements is not in progress on the plat within sixty (60) days following the date of the sign erection or as soon as eighty percent (80%) of the lots are developed and sold. (2) R-C ResidentiaI/Commercial and C-1 Commercial Districts: Subject to other conditions of this Ordinance, the following signs shall be allowed in the R-C Note: Proposed changes shown in italics. 10/2/97 Exhibit B PROPOSED AMENDMENT Our Savior Lutheran Church Zoning A.mendment Clnd r ~ ~ 1\ . ~ - -1 .? ~ ~ '" () ~ o c.t .~ I .;;~'- . bJ rr: Cd 1-- ~ l. J V) -lea:: =w LL. N f- a 11- o W U)r<J-l zX-l 2 <( (/) ~ :J ~C()Q "'> I > ;5r--8 ~ ""- ::JU-L: <( = n::: <( v l lJJ lJJ I '> (}' 0 I ., n;- -'--~~'----'. ~... ., ., \~ ~; \~ ., I o a: :) :r: o z -< a: w I J- ::> -I ., -I o o I U Cl) "'0 C tIS I \, \~ I _. \:. I Ii \~ \~ -~ \~ ., '\~ ~~ \~ : I I _~; i \IIIU~';'il I I ,[, ili UI i III Exhibit C PROPOSED WALL SIGN . -CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOob, MINNESOTA 55331-8927. (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-'0128 . www,state,net/shorewood · cityhall@shorewood,state.net MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Planning Commission Brad Nielsen 6 October 1997 Taube, Stan - Simple Subdivision FILE NO. 405 (97.28) BACKGROUND . Late last year, Mr. Stan Taube received a variance to combine two lots and temporarily leave two homes on the resulting single parcel at 27280 Edgewood Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He indicated at the time he would later resubdivide the property into differently configured lots. He now proposes to do so. As shown on Exhibit B Mr. Taube proposes to create two lots, one of which will be accessed from Edgewood Road (his homestead parcel), and one from Howard's Point Road. The property is zoned R-IA/S, Single-Family Residentia1JShoreland, and contains approximately 169,091 square feet of area (3.88 acres). The property is occupied by Mr. Taube's home. The extra house for which the variance was granted, has now been demolished, along with a garage and a shed. The lot on which Mr. Taube's house is located will contain 116,042 square feet, and the vacant lot will contain 53,049 square feet. ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDA TION With one exception of one issue the applicant's request is quite simple. Both lots comply with the area, width and depth requirements of the R -1 A/S. zoning district. The existing house complies with required setbacks. What complicates this request is the amount of hardcover on the property. You may recall that when the applicant received his variance one of the conditions was that he submit a letter stating that he was aware of the hardcover requirement, and that it may affect his ability to resubdivide the property. His letter dated 4 June 1997 proposes to convert all areas which are landscaped with rock over plastic to landscape fabric (seeExhibit C). The maximum amount of impervious surface on a shoreland lot is 25 percent. With the proposed division, the applicant's homestead lot would be at 26.4 percent. He proposes, A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore !oF . . Memorandum Re: Taube Subdivision 6 October 1997 however, to remove 7683 square feet of impervious surface, resulting in a total hardcover of 19.8 percent. It should be noted that the applicant's survey proposes to deed five additional feet of right- of-way for Howard's Point Road which is currently substandard in terms ofr.o.w. width. Although the County half section maps show a 66-foot r.o.W. for Edgewood Road, the applicant's legal description appears to extend to the center line of the street. Depending on the applicant's title opinion, it should be required that the r.o.w. for Edgewood Road also be dedicated to the City. It is recommended that the applicant's request for a simple subdivision be granted subject to the following: 1. The applicant must submit a title opinion (up-to-date within 30 days) for review by the City Attorney. 2. The applicant must provide the following legal descriptions: a. The property as it exists today. b. The additional five feet of right-of-way for Howard's Point Road. c.The right-of-way for Edgewood Road, if his legal description extends to the middle of the road. d. Revised legal descriptions, if necessary, of the two proposed lots, reflecting the proposed right-of-way descriptions. e. Drainage and utility easements, 10 feet on each side of each side and rear lot line. 3. From the above-mentioned descriptions the applicant's attorney must prepare deeds in favor of the City. The legal descriptions and deeds must be submitted within 30 days,. and at least 10 days in advance of the City Council meeting at which the request will be considered. 4. 5. The applicant must provide an estimate or bid for converting the landscaping from plastic to fabric. From this estimate, a letter of credit or cash security for 1.5 times the amount of the work must be provided to guarantee that the work will be completed by 1 May 1998. 6. Once the applicant has received the resolution approving the division, he must record it within 30 days. cc: Jim Hurm John Dean Larry Brown Stan Taube John Atkinson -2- (I) . .._..............~..........::-,::.. ......-.-.......-.......--.-...--......-.--.-..-....-....................--.......--.J....-....................................................................... .......... ("(Z).<l..," , ----------.~-------;..... I ,':: f",> LtLKC-j J"\ j 1" e.. -/-0 rd<' <<- I ..,.".", Subject property .,~ ~ I t NORTH Not to Scale (II -'"'' (Ill { Zl i " ;6. ~I (') ,.1 : TY ~F j Sl;OREWOOO . fl. I.., ~ ("~.'f " . (7) ~ ~ @g) (3i Q::::" m.n . '57.17 -5:. ..' :j':b.... ? ~ . i ( IZl .\ ~ . ~r~ ( IZl ~~ S ~ ~ II. ~ tIl8.'" ~."""f (81 ! . ~ ".)1 ~.'}I.e.t.. ......-.. 111&.>> ~'~l.. ()JfU1' I ( 151 ~ ~ . . 51 AlC)[V)OO ~, o r::/t:7'4'1 (121 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Taube Subdivision ~ , . 1-' .- '.:~~-':~;~ " -1 ----; i / / / l I ....-r- '" fA " ~J I i / I I ;? :..'.) j / / I (tlf /14 ///1 / i-01 / IV~^, <:::~ 01/1 ~ ,"Ur..c.ST O='N~" c,,~~ ~'/ ...O\vARO'S ,~INi -~..""{ __. ~{.i'~'" ~ - <.' .- / .. ...-- ..;...., -....... -...___....~..J_-- .~ r ... 'o.. ~ ~ i :.i . .. ~ u * . . ; I f>ROPO=EO DRAINAGE ;'NO UTILITY::">' SE1'1EN7S SHOWN 7HUS: 1'0 101 I I I I 110 10 I ~ l~ BEING 10 ;:=:=:7 IN W1D7~ AND ..OJOINING 1.07 LINES. ! I / I / I / / - ~ ~' o - - ~ " ::Yt I. ._. r-:.,.;::c. '.:. ~ -z ---l.=;-= , ;~ --1 =. , -- ! S~ j !.;; :~ J:':-.:. 7-J :~~ _.::"'~~~~~-::~;.~::~ :~ ~. " ;'.~ ......:.~.... .:~.;: / ; I I I ...., I I.~~ Ii H jl . ~(I':.::r~' ;:::::. '....':N:S:;":'P!. '\\c::::t< ':'/~= ='_':'S~lC ~I: :l~~:~:~:;M~~;~ ~~;~JSGi~:~l~ 40 ~- .; :;'L.~ \11 .0 ~C -= ;. <0 ' ~20 :'':C'.c . ~-:1" - ~_., :: -'1f'!.- .'; ~'I~ - ._ . 5: :-:~:.::~ __~2~~E\:\i ~.~!~ Exhibit B PROPOSED DIVISION Taube - Simple Subdivision -,.; : ~ ~e:.':"~ .- -..i, r'.:~~::- FILE COpy Stanley M. Taube 27280 Edgewood Road Shorewood, Mn. 55331 (612) 474-8882 , ;." .,. June 4, 1997 Attention: Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Mn. 55331-8927 . Dear Mr. Nielsen: I am currently looking to subdivide our new lot on Howard's Point Road. With this letter, I am requesting you issue us a resolution, so we may start the subdividing process. Bruce Knutson Architects has informed me of certain stipulations that I must meet I promise to meet the following: 1. the lots of the subdivision will meet the minimum size requirements of the city of Shorewood, 2. I will convert all the current landscaping from plastic to landscape fabric in order to meet the 25% hardcover requirement. . The enclosed preliminary drawing is our proposed subdivision. It meets all the size requirements of the city of Shorewood. Also included in this package is our cash escrow/letter of credit for 1 "h times our bid price for removal of the house and driveway and for restoration of the site. I fully understand this resolution will allow a subdivision under current city requirements. Please contact Bruce Knutson Architects if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you for your help on this project. .' . .....~ Stan Taube Exhibit C APPLICANT'S LETTER RE: HARDCOVER Dated 4 June 1997 CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR STAN TAUBE . WHEREAS, Stan Taube (Applicant) is the owner of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for a subdivision of said real property into two parcels legally described in Exhibit Band C, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and all other parties holding an interest in said real property have agreed to deed additional rights-of-way for Howard's Point Road and Edgewood Road, said deed shown as Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant and all other parties holding an interest in said real property have agreed to grant to the City drainage and utility easements as shown in Exhibit E, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and . WHEREAS, the subdivision requested by the Applicant complies in all respects with the Shorewood Zoning Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the real properly legally described herein be divided into two parcels, legally described in Exhibits B and C. . 2. That the City Clerk furnish the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. 3. That the Applicant record this resolution, together with the right-of-way deeds shown in Exhibit D and the drainage and utility easements legally described in Exhibit E, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of the certification of this resolution. . ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 27th day of October 1997. Tom Dahlberg, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk . (Insert Legal Description - Existing Property) . Exhibit A . (Insert Legal Description - Parcel A) . Exhibit B . (Insert Legal Description - Parcel B) . Exhibit C . (Insert Drainage and Utility Easement) . Exhibit E ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PETITION AND LEVYING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City has received a petition from the developer requesting that special assessments for water system improvements for Marsh Pointe Subdivision be levied against such parcels; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed such petitions at a regular meeting. WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the water system improvements affecting the Marsh Pointe Subdivision. The cost for such improvements is estimated to be $145,000.00. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota: . 1. That such petitions, attached hereto and made a part hereof, are hereby accepted and that special assessments for water system improvements are hereby levied. 3. 2. That the assessment roll, attached hereto and made a part hereof, be known as Levy No. 14165, Marsh Pointe Water System Improvements, and payment of such levies shall be amortized over a period of fifteen (15) years, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January, 1998, and shall bear interest at seven percent (7.00 %) per annum from the date of the adoption of this resolution. To the first installment shall be added interest on the entire assessment from the date of this resolution until December 31, 1998. To each subsequent installment when dueall be added interest for one year on all unpaid installments. The owner of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the county auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the city treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this resolution; and he/she may at any time thereafter, pay to the city treasurer the entire amount of the assessmment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such payment must be made before November 15 or interst will be charted through December 31 of the next succeeding year. . 4. The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the county auditor to be extended on the property tax lists of the county. Such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of October, 1997. TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR ATTEST: JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR -:;/::7 .. . . Attachment to Resolution No. 97,_ Adopted October 27, 1997 Marsh Pointe Assessment Roll page 1 of 2 Parcel Addn Last Name House Street City St Zip Land Shorewood Principle Principle De. Prepa~' # PID Code Owner or # Use Address & r erred Receptl Comoanv Name In terest Date I 32-117-23-23.0002 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5,000.00 $8,324.36 2 32-117-23-23-0003 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. WaV7.ata MN 55391 SF Unassil!11ed $5.000.00 $8,324.36 3 32-117-23-23-0005 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!11ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 4 32-1]7-23-23-0006 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. WaV7.l1ta Blvd. WaV7.l1ta MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5 000.00 $8.324.36 5 32-117-23-23.0007 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5 000.00 $8.324.36 . 6 32-117-23-23-0008 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. WaV7.l1ta Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 7 32-117-23-23-0009 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 8 32-117-23-23-0010 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!11ed $5 000.00 $8 324.36 9 32-117-23-23-0011 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. WaV7.l1ta Blvd. WaV7.l1ta MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 10 32-117-23-23-0012 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5,000.00 $8.324.36 11 32-117-23-23-0014 06]84 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5,000.00 $8.324.36 12 32-117-23-23-0015 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 13 32-117-23-24-0014 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF UnassilJT1ed $5,000.00 $8.324.36 14 32-117-23-24-0015 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. WaV7.l1lH MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5.000.00 $8,324.36 15 32-117-23-24-0016 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 16 32-117-23-24-0017 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. WaV7.l1ta B]vd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5.000.00 $8,324.36 17 32-117-23-24-0018 06]84 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassilmed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 18 32-117-23-24-0019 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata B]vd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassimed $5,000.00 $8,324.36 19 32-117-23-24-0020 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. WaV7J1lJl MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 20 32-117-23-24-0021 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!11ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 21 32-117-23-24-0022 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 22 32-117-23-24-0023 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. WaV7.ata B]vd. WaV7J1ta MN 55391 SF Unassilmed $5,000.00 $8.324.36 23 32-117-23-24-0024 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. WaV7~ta MN 55391 SF Unassi l!11ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 24 32-117-23-24-0025 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassi!!lled $5.000.00 $8.324.36 25 32-117-23-24-0026 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata B]vd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassil!l1ed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 26 32-117-23-24-0027 06]84 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5.000.00 $8.324.36 27 32-117-23-24-0028 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassianed $5.000.00 $8,324.36 28 32-117-23-24-0029 06184 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata B]vd. Wavzata MN 5539] SF Unassi!!lled $5.000.00 $8.324.36 29 32-117-23-24-0030 06]84 Marsh Pointe LLC 935 E. Wavzata Blvd. Wavzata MN 55391 SF Unassi!!lled $5,000.00 $8.324.36 TOTALS 29 SF $]45,000.00 $241,406.4< MAL K E R SON G ILL r LAN D MAR TIN LLP SUITE 1500 ATs.T TOWER 901 MAROUETTE AVENUE M INN E A POL. IS, M INN E SOT ASS 4 0 2 - 3 2 0 51~ Ie ~ Ie n \\ /7 I ~ ~ I TEL.EPHONE 612-344-1111 ID [f;\87[f;U W lS ~\l FACSIMIL.E 612-344-1414 II PI OCT 2 2 1997 Iii By I Bruce D. Malkerson Direct Dial: 612/344-1699 October 21, 1997 . Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 City Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Re: Special Assessments and Connection Charges for Marsh Pointe Plat - Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. and Marsh Pointe LLC - Hearing Scheduled for October 27, 1997 Our File No. 1018-004 . Dear Mayor, City Council and City Clerk: As you may recall, I represent Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. ("Lundgren"), which was the owner ofthe lots in the Marsh Pointe plat. Lundgren sold the lots to a related entity, Marsh Pointe LLC. Marsh Pointe LLC has received from the City of Shorewood ("City") a Notice of Assessment for Water System Improvements attached hereto as Exhibit A. This letter constitutes the objection of Marsh Pointe LLC to the proposed special assessments as to the property listed in Exhibit A, to be discussed at the October 27, 1997 Council meeting. Please make it a part of the City's record. As you know, Lundgren has objected orally and in writing to the proposed special assessments and connection charges the City has attempted in the past to have Lundgren agree to pay and waive rights to appeal from in the Developer's Agreement. The City did modify the final Developer's Agreement so that Lundgren need not waive its rights and instead the City 11903BDM City of Shorewood October 21, 1997 Page 2 would seek to levy or charge connection charges as allowed by law thereafter, preserving Lundgren's right to appeal. In June, 1997, Lundgren obtained a building permit for the model home in the plat on Lot 1, Block 1 and the City required as part thereof that Lundgren pay $5,000 as a water connection charge. Lundgren had no choice but to pay that amount to keep on schedule, but did so under protest. See enclosed letter and bill from the City attached as Exhibit B. As to this proposed assessment, based upon an analysis by Lundgren's and Marsh Pointe LLC's appraiser and the undersigned, Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC believe that the City's proposed $10,000 in charges (whether as special assessments or connection charges) are: 1. Substantially in excess of any special benefit; . 2. Unreasonable and unfair; 3. Excessive in comparison to charges and special assessments for trunk water by other cities in the area; 4. Discriminate illegally against vacant platted lots in favor of existing homes with on-site wells; 5. Possibly includes costs not assessable or for which connection charges may not be charged; 6. Not uniform on the same class of property; . 7. An attempt to recover costs of an overbuilt system; 8. Subject to such other defects as may appear in the record. Officials of Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC have considered at length whether to contest these proposed charges. Lundgren is a well respected and experienced developer which quite frankly will agree often to dedicate land in a plat or pay fees and charges in excess of what a city by law may require. However, in this case, the proposed specials and charges are far too excessive for Lundgren or Marsh Pointe LLC to agree to pay unless the Court confirms them as valid, which of course we doubt will be the case. Therefore we ask that the City complete its special assessment process as required by law 11903BDM City of Shorewood October 21, 1997 Page 3 and adopt special assessments as to this property so that Marsh Pointe LLC can then file an appeal as to those assessments as provided for in Chapter 429. As to any amounts the City thinks it can charge per lot as connection fees or other charges for trunk water, we ask that the City provide to Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC a written statement of what they will be per lot so that Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC can bring a declaratory judgment action as to their validity. . Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC understand that the City requires a total payment of $10,000 per lot. If there is a possibility of a meaningful reduction in that amount, we should discuss it now. Ifwe can agree on an amount, then Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC would be willing to waive their rights of appeal as to that amount and Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC would agree that the City can levy that amount as a special assessment against each lot. Such an agreement of course would eliminate staff, attorney and appraisal costs for both parties and would provide certainty to the City as to the payment of the amounts agreed upon. In your analysis of this matter, you should be aware of the fact that the City in the past proposed that the entire $10,000 be adopted as a special assessment against each proposed vacant lot in the proposed Lundgren plat. Lundgren objected. Thereafter, the City decided to call $5,000 ofthe proposed $10,000 special assessment a "connection charge," probably to try to eliminate the right to appeal. The City did not adopt any special assessment as to Lundgren's property at that time, but did adopt a special assessment roll as to many other properties. The City has recently proposed to levy the $5,000 connection charge as a special assessment. . I do not think a reviewing Court will allow the City to characterize $5,000 as a connection charge in order to allow the City to argue that the special assessment benefit test does not apply. Moreover, although I have not had a chance to review all of the City files in this matter, the City may not be able to specially assess the Lundgren property at this time for this project since the City failed to assess the Lundgren property when it had a chance to assess it and when Chapter 429 required it. We ask that the City Council direct staff to meet with Lundgren and Marsh Pointe LLC to see if an agreement can be reached, subject to City Council approval. Very truly yours, ~o.~ Bruce D. Malkerson cc: Marc Anderson, Lundgren Bros. Construction, Inc. and Marsh Pointe LLC Charles Lefevre, City attorney's office 11903BDM U~I J.'+ '-;'( IQ.:\. 1Q1Qr-'ITI LUNUbKl:..N tlU::i. CONS I . rntT148 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 1"".<::/.-1 MAYOR Torn Dahlberg COUNCIL Kristi stoVlilr JeMifer McCarty Jerry O'Neill John Garfunksl 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOAEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 (812) 474.3236 FAX (612) 474.0128 www.state.netlshor9wood cityhall@shorewood.state.net Marsh Point L.L.P. 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 Attention: Mark Anderson CITY OF SHOREWOOn NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Shorewood will hold a public hearing in the Council Chambers of . the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota, ,at a regular meecing 0;1 October .27,. 1997, at 8: 00 p.m. t:.o consider the proposed assess~entfor Wa'ter. ..Sys.tem Imp.rovements and the. adoption of a final assessment roll .itemiz,ing..t:hat portion of the cost of 'the Water Syst'em "Ixnpr'oV'ements -to' be assessed against each p:r;op~rty. within the proposed assessment area. The area proposed 'to. be " assessed. ..and the amounts to be assessed against your' parcels are' ft'e's~ri':bed as' follows: . ". ' P.I,D. 32-117-23-23-0002 32-117-23-23-0003 32-117-23-23-0005 32-117-23-23-0006 32-1+7-23-23-0007 32-117-23~23-0008 32-117-23-23-0009 32-117-23-23-0010 32-117-23-23-0011 32-117-23-23-0012 32-117-23-23-0014 32-117-23-23-0015 32-117-23-24-0014 32-117-23-24-0015 32-117-23-24-0016 Amount of Assessment $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000_00 $5,000.00 S5,000.00 PIn 32-117-23-24-0017 32-117-23-24-0018 32-117-23-24-0019 32-117-23-24-0020 32-117-23-24-0021 32-117-23-24-0022 32-117-23-24-0023 32-117-23-24-0024 32-117-23-24-0025 32-117-23-24-0026 32-117-23-24-0027 32-117-23-24-0028 32-117-23-24-0029 32-117-23-24-0030 Amount of Assessment $5,000.00 $5,000.00 . $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,0.00.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000_00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 .. Adoption of the proposed assessment may be taken by the City Council at the hearing. The assessment is proposed to be payab"1e fifteen (15) years. The proposed assessment roll is on file for public inspection at the Shorewood City Hall. The total amount proposed to be assessed against benefited properties is $145,000. A Resir:1emial Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore EXHIBIT A . . SEP' E18' 37 02: 45P~1 LUNDGREN BOS. CONS1. P 'OJ /-~ .. .-" -=' ;:,~ '301 19'i'7 ~ Mr. James C. Hunn Shorewood City Administrator 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: "Connection Fee" for Lot 1, Block 1, Marsh Pointe Dear Mr. Hurm: This letter is to express Marsh Pointe LLC's strong objection to Shorewood's apparent intention to ignore the provision of the Marsh Poihte Development Contract which states that charges for municipal water are to be assessed, Since Ltmdgren Bros. Construction, which is purchasing lots from Marsh Pointe LLC, urgently needs to start construction of a model home on subject lot, and since the City of Shorewood will not grant the necessary Building Permit without a cash payment for the water charge, Marsh Pamte LLC has no choice but to make this payment, the legitimacy of which it nonetheless intends to challenge. Very truly yours, MARSH POINTE, LLC ~~t:~ Michael A. Pflaum Vice President EXHIBIT B , ;1 _I' l H l '. ft' t I,.:: ,1',1 '1'1 LUf~[lt~f,)f:-',t [')C '-"tN':'T A'," III ~ B ..." 'J l i ~, /..; ._'.'_ .ll. ._1. l .l.,_.:J _ -"2 .... .c. P..2:/3) 1 ~ :6jl~:-i(~ (~~ T~Trif~ i~~JUN 1 '11997 ~ I Ry CITY OF' -...--.--------- SHOREWOOD stSS OOUNmr cLUlI AOAO . liMORe...ooo. /olj/'INESOT.U5J31 . (61ZI.7.~ PLANNING AND PROTECTIVE INSPECTIONS BUILDING PERMIT APPLICA TION (Please Print or Type) SITE Addn:.>s: ,;) 7? 0 Lor: I Block: ,00 (A/'J" ff1 A1l.}j If j) /2../-(1 E pO/Air . YTl~p ( Subdivision: P.I.N.: OWNER Name: hA/o1H#' Address: 9.3 ~ & W ~ -v~ (Street) thar~ , (City) 8n-s (2;#5~' /& tv~ /T1"v (State) Telephone:~z..) 9'73-"7 Z '3 / F- 473 - c;/3{ .5S 39/ (Zipcode) CONTRACTOR Namt; " ./J,..o,AA.P A L _.J; Stare Lie. No.: :- . . /~/3 ""-'- Addre ~ltiple-Family Post-lt.. Fax Noto To bpN ~ ~..IOopI. Lu NO~?-EN 15('1AoS Phooe' 4-1 ~ -12~ Fad . 41;..~/?t _Telephone:( (Zipcode) DWE Type: No. of Units: The unden;igncd hereby agrees that, in case such pennie is granted, that all wock which shall be done and all mAlenals which shall be u~d shaH comply wilh the plans af'Jd s~ifiGaliolU here.....ith submitted and with all appliC2lbJe Ordinances. Signature of applicant: Dace: t-/1- f1 APPLICA nON FOR: PERMIT FEES: Permit Fee (104027) Pllln Check Fcc (10-4021) Sub-total: State Surcharge (104032) Metro S.A.C. (61-4729) SewerPcnnit (61-4721) Wllter Permit (60-4713) Water Melet (60-4705) ~, (60-~) ~ ,_ j':~ To"l: 41J& ( r1'\..../ Receipt No.: o Nonc:onformin Dille: 6 ceo. tV ... Cf :57". ~ ~ew ConstrUction 0 Garage: Attached_~_ o Alteration 0 Porch o Addition 0 Dcck o Demolition 0 Ro-roof o t'illish Basemcnl 0 Other: c:t:> Estimated Value: ~-30.lt) ~ - , ZON1NGy? I . O'strict:--f" I A tlll).1), Conforming I r-I/T -; /1 /91 . . ~ t:j ~ t-3 ~ o ~ . . U,"-I ....... ='( 1O.:l'~"Orl"l L.UI'LJ~~C.I' OU;:J. ,"-VI,;:JI. r.~' ..:;J No appeal may be taken as to the amount of unless a written objection, signed by the affected is filed with the Administrator/Clerk prior to presenced to the presiding officer at the hearing. an assessment property owner, the hearing or Written or oral objections will be considered at the hearing. The Council will consider any objection to the amount of a proposed assessment at the hearing, or at an adjourned meeting upon such further notice to the affected property owners as it deems advisable. An owner may appeal an a~sessment to District Court pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.081 by serving notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or Administrator/Clerk of the city within 30 days after the adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the Hennepin County District court within 10 days after service upon the Mayor or Adminiscrator/Clerk. You may at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the Hennepin County Auditor, pay the entire assessment on such property, with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the Cicy of Shorewood. No interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of this assessment. Ac any time thereafter, you may pay to the City of Shorewood the entire amount of the assessment remaining unpaid, with interest accrued to December 31 of the year in which such payment is made. Such subsequent payment must be made before November 15 or interest will be charged chrough December 31 of the succeeding year- If yOU decide not to pay the assessment before 30 days from the adoption of the assessment, the rate of interest that will apply is seven percent (7.00%) per year. partia.l payment of unpaid assessments is not permitted. The City Council has adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.193 to 435.195, a resolution containing standards and guidelines for deferring assessments for senior citizens for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments on homestead properey. The standards and guidelines are on file with .the Administrator/Clerk for public inspection. You will receive additional notice on this macter only if your assessment amount is amended. Anyone having questions relative to this matter may contact James C. Hur.m, City Administrator/Clerk, at 474-3236. Dated this 8th Day of October 1997. City of Shorewood JAMES C. HURM City Administrator/Clerk MAYOR Tom Dahlberg CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty _' Jerry O'Neill John Garfunkel 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 (612) 474-3236 FAX (612) 474-0128 www.state.net/shorewood cityhall@shorewood.state.net MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council James Hurm, City Administrator FROM: Larry Brown, Director of Public Works JkY . DATE: October 23, 1997 RE: Consideration of a Motion to Accept a Quote for Power- Washing the S.E. Area Water Tower Over the past several months, the City has received several calls with regard to the appearance of the southeast area water tower. The upper portion of the tower collects algae as condensation forms on the bowl of the tower during hot days. If not removed, the algae will be difficult to remove and will begin to deteriorate the paint. Statutory bidding requirements indicate that quotes are acceptable for any amount less than $25,000. Normally, a city is required to obtain at least two quotes or demonstrate that other quotes were sought out. Over the past few months, staff has requested bids from the following companies to power wash this tower: . . Glen Steeves Tank & Maintenance, Inc. . Chicago Bridge and Iron, Inc. . Tightrope Once again, we are facing a boom construction period for this type of work. After several calls to each one of the contractors, we were able to obtain one quote for the amount of $3,480. Other firms stated that they are will be too busy to quote this work. The City Attorney has advised staff that as long as a record is made that quotes were attempted to be received from another firm, that one quote would be acceptable for award of the contract. The estimate for this project was $3,500. Therefore the quote received is within the budgeted amount. The contractor is known to be reliable and responsible. The revenue for washing of the tower was actually provided by the Sprint PCS contract executed last spring. Sprint paid the City $3,500 as part of the contract for power washing the tower. If acceptable, a motion authorizing expenditure for power washing of the tower for an amount not to exceed $3500. would be in order. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore #. ( . C) . . ~ MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 27, 19~7 MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL James C. Hurm, City Administrator Request for assistance in funding the 4th of July Fireworks. /1 /1 fhIl- :/1 1/ The City of Tonka Bay has increased its contribution from $450 to $750. The City of Greenwood will place an article in its quarterly newsletter asking for contributions or for individuals to help with funding raising efforts. The American Legion has offered assistance and fund raising activities. So there is a wide range of options that the City of Shorewood might be interested to help raise funds for the 4th of July Fireworks. We certainly can put an article in an upcoming newsletter. In addition a member of the City Council may by interested in assisting with fund raising activities. '1f-cr "'. ....... CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 97- A RESOLUTION MAKING A NOMINATION TO THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED BOARD OF MANAGERS WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council has worked cooperatively with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on stormwater management issues; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has by Resolution No. 97-74 requested oversight of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; and WHEREAS, in its Stormwater Management Position adopted in April, 1997, the City of Shorewood states: . · The District should address the City's concern for accountability issues in the District's requirements causing public project costs to increase significantly; · . The District's Capital Improvement Program review process should include a public hearing opportunity for municipalities and residents of the District at least annually; · The District should offer funding and technical assistance to municipalities in accomplishing the municipal storm water management plans; · The District should encourage municipalities to work together on sub-regional planning efforts in that storm water knows no municipal boundaries; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Watershed law provides that municipalities within a watershed district in the metropolitan area may nominate persons to serve on the Board of Managers of the watershed district from which the County Board of Commissioners appoint the Manager; and WHEREAS, Woody Love has a life long commitment to the stewardship of Lake Minnetonka and other area lakes by working to protect and improve lake water quality and wise water resources management; and WHEREAS, Woody Love's leadership as a watershed manager has been recognized throughout Minnesota by his election as President of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found District Manager Woody Love to work hard for the District and its goals, to encourage open communication, and to understand and to be genuinely concerned with the City's stormwater management position and its call for oversight; and . WHEREAS, Woody Love has committed to the Shorewood City Council to not only work hard for the District and its goals, but to encourage improved communications, and to be cooperative in addressing municipal concerns; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood City Council nominates Woody Love to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers, and urges the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners to re-appoint him to this position. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 27th day of October, 1997. ATTEST: TOM DAHLBERG, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR dt-/Q ;, I ... .. 'lit.. OCT-23-1997 08:26 HENN CO RTTY-CIVIL 612 348 8299 P.02/03 HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OmCE Civil Division MEMORANDUM TO: ~anet . ,Manager, EMD ker, Assistant Hennepin County Attorney S ann Pearl, law clerk FROM: RE: Watershed District Managers/Role of Cities in Appointment of Wat~hed District Managers . DATE: October 23, 1997 This is an informal response to your request. ISSUE: What is the role of the cities in Hennepin County in the appointment process of watershed district managers? . SHORT ANSWER: Towns and municipalities within the watershed districts may submit lists of at least three nominees for each vacancy If a list is submitted, the county board must appoint from that list. APPOINTMENT PROCESS Minnesota Statute ~ 103D.311 sets forth the procedure required to appoint managers of watershed districts. To appoint a manager to a watershed district wholly within the metro area, the following procedures must be followed: 1. Towns and municipalities may jointly or individually submit a list of nominees (at least three for each position) to the county board at least 60 days before the current manager's term expires. Minn. Stat. ~ 103D.31I, Subd. 3(a). 2. Qualified nominees are voting residents of the watershed district who do not hold public office. 3. The County board shall publish notice at least 15 days before appointment is made and at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the watershed district. U~I-~~-lgg7 08:27 HENN CO RTTY-CIUIL 612 348 8299 P.03/0~ .A 4. Notice contents: Minn. Stat. ~ 1030.311, subd. 2(d) a. Advise interested persons they may submit their names to the county board. b. Locationt date and time of the county board meeting. 5. County board meeting to make appointment of new manager is held 30 days before tenn of any manager expires. Minn. Stat. ~ 103D.311, subd. 2(b). 6. Managers must be appointed from list timely submitted by towns and/or municipalities. 7. If a list of nominees has not been SUbmitted timely t the county board may appoint any eligible person residing in the watershed district. Minn. Stat. ~ 103D.311t subd. 3(b). Towns and municipalities within the watershed districts may join together to submit lists of nominees to the county board. If the county board wants to appoint a manager from a certain town or municipality that has submitted a list of nominees, the county board must appoint from that list. On the other hand, jf that city or town has not submitted a list 60 days before the end of the term of the current manager, the county board may appoint any eligible person from the watershed district. Managers must fairly represent the various hydrOlogic areas in the water district by residence of the manager appointed. The notice required must be published at least 15 days before an appointment is to be made. The appointment of managers IIIUSt be filed with the county auditor, the secretary of the board of managers and the secretary of the board of water and soil resources; therefore, appointments are a matter of public record. . You raised an additional question regarding the history of municipal participation in the appointment process. I do not know whether lists of nominees from the cities have been submitted in the past. I checked with the Hennepin County Auditor, where the appointments . must be filed. They do not have a record of any nomination lists. DP:kd cc: Toni A. Beitz Mike Natysin l\NainlbiIClllt.UellAllIDivWor.ICNiI\lawClcrllls\Ptarl\Parta-apJlOinUllcJl( flf w&lellh~ d1s1rict lIIIlIlagm.doe 2 To: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator ~ .. j _ Teri Naab, Executive Secretary / Deputy Clerk......~ October 23, 1997 From: Date: Re: Computer Improvements . cc: Larry Brown, City Engineer Brad Nielsen, City Planner AI Rolek, Finance Director In order to best utilize dollar amounts that were budgeted for computer purchases or upgrades in 1997, all departments have pooled their funds together and devised both a short term and long term plan to facilitate necessary changes or improvements related to technology. The four critical areas with the current system that needed immediate correction included: upgrade existing hard drives in several of the Macs, provide remote access, provide access by all staff members to LAN, and provide a backup printer. . In order to allow for remote access, we considered several options. The fIrst was to purchase software for both the Mac and PC side for all machines that needed access. Realizing the long term goal included a cross platform server, we felt this might be spending money unwisely. Upon advise from a computer consultant, we have included a Windows based PC which will act as the server in coordination with the current Mac server. This will provide the cross platform necessary at a minimal cost. The PC included for the Planning Department was scheduled for purchase in 1997 to allow them to run a GIS system. This entire package will also include the wiring of the conference room and Council Chambers in anticipation of future computer presentations. This technology proposal has tried to implement necessary changes at a minimum cost, while utilizing the current equipment to the fullest extend possible. We have tried very hard to anticipate needs of the offIce into the future, and to provide for the best solution available today to meet those future needs. :1J= I J .. .., Computer Improvements Page 2 October 23, 1997 A resolution will be presented to the Council at the meeting on Monday for consideration. This resolution will identify which areas the funds will be coming from to pay for the upgrades. The entire project may exceed the total amount budgeted by a small amount. It is anticipated that overage amount will be taken out of contingency. \...................\... ...........\....\..\. ............... NEC 166 Mhz, 16xCD, 16 MB, 2.1 GB, 56 KModem $1,099 Memory upgrade 49 15" monitor (Comp USA) 150 Planning Department - Gateway 2000; 200 MHZ MMX; 48 MB, 4 GB 2,097 HD, 24xCD ROM, 17" monitor, internal modem - 3 yr warranty Harddrives for PPC: 1,552 1 - 8100/80 $362 - 4 GB 4 - 6100/60 $235 - 2 GB 5 - Mounting Brackets for Internal HD $50/ea. 3 Pkgs - MacLan Pro ($265/each) 800 Coral Draw Software 499 Backup Printer - HP LaserJet 6MP (8MB Memory upgrade) 939 Digitizer Tablet 12"x12" 230 30 hr. of install and config of server/maclan pro/hardware setup ($75/hr) 2,250 5 hrs consultant - hard drive conversion/fax ($75/hr) 375 4 hrs wiring ($50/hrs) 200 Wiring and accessories: 1,000' of CAT5 Shielded Cable; 6 Double jack 451 walljacks RJ-45; 10 Base-T Kit; Computer Service Kit Total Cost of Equipment 1 Installation $10,691 Tax 695 Shipping 345 TOTAL COST OF UPGRADE $11,731 . . , . . . To: From: Date: Re: Mayor and City Council James C. Hurm, City Administrator October 9, 1997 Proposed Ordinance Amendment This proposed ordinance will allow for the adoption of the Tree Preservation Policy into our code by reference. It also establishes an enforcement and fine mechanism. A third issue which was previously, briefly discussed by the City Council is not included in this ordinance amendment, but should be discussed again by the Council. That issue is whether or not to consider an administrative sanction section. Please review the "draft for discussion only" proposed Section 104.04, Administrative Offenses which is in the packet material. ! J-.. J "l ;Jf- ! 0', AMEl'iDlV!ENT TO CODE SEC. 1100 SuM 1103.01. Tree P,eservarion and Reularement . Subd. 1. Puroose. It is the policy of the City to recognize andpreserve existing namral resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded charncter of the are:l, the City finds that trees provide numerous benefits, including: s....abili:zarion of me soil by the preventioo of erosion and sedimentation., reduction of stOrmVlater runoff: improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect,. protection and increase of property values, prm:ection of privacy, energy conservation through natt1ral insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and coIJSeI"Vation and enhancement of the City's physical and aesthetic enviromnent. The purpose of these regulations. is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of tre:s whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or coIJ.SII'UCtion would adversely effect the City's e:dsting natural resources. The regu!atioDS also recognize that despite the best efforrs of the City and developers and property ov.ners, trees will occasionally be lost in the development and constrUCtion process. In such inst.ances. these regulations will require rep1ac::::nem of such treeS. SuM 2. Re2Ulations. In furtherance of tf::te purpose of this section, the City Council shall, by resolution., adopt and may, from time-ta-time, amend regulations providing for tree preservation and replacement in situations involving development or constrUCtion. . SuM 3. Penalty. Enforcement. Failure to comply with the provisions of such regulations shall constitute a violation of this Code; and the City shall proc..""'ed to enforcement either in accordance with Section 104.02 or Section 104.04. .:3::~:saa; S:-~~~-2 "'-:=.:.: s: ~ ~..; 1301.02 N CHA.PT.ER. 1301 Establishment of Fees and Ca~ r:YpE OF CHARGEiFEE Tree Protection PIan CITY CODE REFERENCE 1103.01.1 C-iARGE:FEE . . JUL 08 '97 09: 20 KEJ'lNEDY 8. GRAV8'1 P.3 104.04 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES "...-IIIIAJIY- - . POR IIIIC'JS8ICN ONLY Subd. 1. Definitions. An administrative offense is a violation or any section or this code when one performs an act prohibited. or fails to act when such failure is thereby prohibited,. and is subject to the charges set forth in Chapter 1301 of this code. .Any person violating a section of this code shall be subject to the scheduled penalty. Subd. 2. Notice.. . .Any person employed by the City with authority to enforce this code shall, upon deteImining that there has been a violation. notify me violator, or person responsible for the violation, or in the case of a vehicular violation by attaching to said vehicle notice or the violation, said notice setting forth the nature, date, time of the violation, the name or the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled initial penalty, and where applicable, any charges relating .thereto. Subd. 3. Pavment. Once such notice is given, the person responsible for the violation ~ within seven (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay full satisfaction of the stated violation schedule to the City Treasurer. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail and payment shall be admission of the violation. A lare charge shall be imposed for each seven (7) days thepena1ty remains unpaid after the first seven (7) day period. Subd. 4. Hearing Officer. . The Administrator, or designee, is authorized to hem- or determine a cause or controversy under this section. The hearing officer is not a judicial officer but is a public officer as defined by Minnesota Statute 609.415 and is subject to Minnesota Statutes relating to public officers. Subd. 5. Hearing. .Any person aggrieved by this chapter may request within seven (7) days of the time of issuance of the notice to be heard by the hearing officer who shall hear and de'"..enn:ine the grievanca~ The hearing officer shall bave the authority to dismiss the violation for cause, reduce or waive the penalty upon such terms and conditions as ~ be agreed upon by the parties. however. reasons for such. dispositions shall be stated in writing by said hearing officer. If the violation is sustained by the hearing officer, the violator shall pay satisfaction of the charge or shall sign an agreement to pay upon such terms and conditions as set forth by the hearing officer. J'30!':S94a SIl::!30-1 JUL 08 '97 0S: 21 !<E:NNEDY 3. GRAVEN JllOl~3'.S Sil::30-:: P.4 Subd. 6. Failure to Pav. .ORAl='"r FOR DISCUSSION ONL.Y If a violator fails to pay the charge imposed by this section, or as agreed upon following hearing before the hearing officer~ the failure to pay the charge or the underlying violation, or both may be processed as a code violation or as a debt owed, or both through the judicial system. SuM 1. Charges. All charges collected shall be paid over to the Treasurer for deposit in the General Fund of the City. Subd. 8. Sc.lteduled Penalties. Charges shall be imposed for violation. of the scheduled administrative offenses according to a schedule duly established and adopted, from time to tim~ by the City Council and . contained in Chapter 1.301 of the code. 2 . . . TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEl\IfENT POLICY CITY OF SHOREWOOD I. Pu rtlose. It is the policy of the City of Shorewood to recognize and preserve existing natural resources of the community. In its effort to maintain the wooded character of the area, the City fmds that trees provide numerous benefits including, but not limited to: stabilization of the soil by the prevention of erosion and sedimentation, reduction of storm water runoff, improvement of air quality, reduction of noise pollution, control of urban heat island effect, protection and increase of property values, protection of privacy, energy c.onservation through natural insulation, providing habitat for birds and other wildlife and conservation and enhancement of the city's physical and aesthetic environment. The purpose of this policy is to preserve and protect significant trees or stands of trees whose loss due to land disturbances associated with the process of development or construction would adversely affect the character of neighborhoods, subdivisions, public or semipublic projects and commercial developments. This policy also recognizes that, despite the best efforts of the City and property owners, trees may occasionally be lost in the development or construction process. In those cases tree replacement or reforestation shall be required. II. Applicabilitv. This policy shall apply to any person or entity that would disturb land areas and impact significant trees or stands of trees in neighborhoods, subdivisions, commercial building developments, public and semipublic projects such as streets, utilities and parks whether disturbed by a public agency or private developer, except when the City Council may waive these requirements where there would be greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this policy. The terms and provisions of this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No. -' shall apply to all activity which requires the issuance of a Land Disturbance Permit. III. Definitions. All words in this Policy have their customary dictionary defmition except as specifically defined herein. The word "shall" is mandatory and the words "should" and "may" are permissive. Technical terms used in this Policy are defmed in Appendix A. Buildable Area: The portion of a lot which is not located within any minimum required yard, landscape strip/area, or buffer, that portion of a lot wherein a building may be located, as prescribed by the Shorewood Zoni,ng Code. DBH (Diarneter-at-Breast-Height): A standard measure of tree size, whereby a tree trunk diameter is measured in inches at a height of four and one-half feet (4 1./2') above ground. If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet (4 1/2'), then the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split. Dripline: A vertical line extending from the outer swface of a tree's branch tips down to the ground. Land Disturbance Pennit: An official authorization issued by the Zoning Administrator, allowing defoliation or alteration of the site for the commencement of any construction. Protection Zone: All lands that fall outside the buildable area of a parcel. ;-:'/0 ~ Significant Trees: Any healthy long-lived hardwood deciduous tree measuring eight inches (8") DBH or greater; any healthy softwood deciduous tree measuring twelve inches (12") DBH or greater; or any healthy coniferous tree measuring eight feet (8') or more in height. Box-elder, cottonwood, and willow trees shall not be considered to be significant trees. Soecirnen Tree or Stand: Any tree or grouping of trees which has been determined to be of a high value by the Zoning Administrator because of its species. size. age. or omer professional criteria. . Structure: Anything which is built. constructed or erected; an edifice or building of any kind or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts jointed together in some defmite manner whether temporary or permanent in character. Tree: Any self supporting woody plant. usually having a single woody trunk, and a potential DBH of two inches (2") or more. Tree Preservation Plan: A plan established in Section IV(B) of this Policy. See Appendices B and C. . Zoning Administrator: The agent of the City of Shorewood having me primary responsibilities of administration and enforcement of this Policy. IV. Procedures A. Development Standards. Developments shall be designed to preserve large trees where such preservation would not affect the public health. safety or welfare. The City may prohibit removal of all or pan of a stand of trees. In addition. nothing in this policy shall prevent building on an existing lot of record. provided that such building shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. This decision shall be based on. but not limited to. the following criteria: 1. Size of trees. 2. Species. health and attractiveness of the trees including: . a. Sensitivity to disease b. Life span c. Nuisance characteristics d. Sensitivity to grading 3. Potential for transplanting. 4. Need for thinning a stand of trees. 5. Effect on the. functioning of a development. B . Land Disturbance Permit. 1. A tree survey, prepared by a registered land surveyor or landscape architect. shall be submitted showing size. species and location of significant trees. ..., A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted with tlIe following: 0/0':: a. Preliminary plat for the subdivision of property. b. Other pennit drawings as a part of the building permit process for the construction of new principal buildinas. c. Nonresidential site plans, either as a separate drawing or as part of the landscape plan. 3 . The Tree Preservation Plan shall be certified by a forester or registered landscape architect and shall include the following information: . a. Identification of spatial limits: (1) Limits ofIand disturbance, clearing, grading and trenching (2) Tree protection zones (3) Specimen trees or stands of trees (4) Location of significant trees which will be saved (5) Location of significant trees which will be removed (6) Location of trees to be transplanted . (7) Location of replacement trees b. Detail drawings of tree protection measures as provided for in Section VI. of this Policy (where applicable): (l) Protective tree fencing (2) Tree protection signs c. Drawings indicating location of applicable utilities: . (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) City water or well City sewer Electricity Gas Cable TV Telephone 4. These plans shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator for conformance with this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No. . and will either be approved, or returned for revisions. Reasons for denial shall be noted on the Tree Preservation Plan, or otherwise stated in writing. 5 . Issuance of the Land Disturbance Pennie is contingent upon approval of preliminary plats, or metes and bounds subdivision approval for the subdivision of property, or approval of the Tree Preservation Plan for other building pennie processes or nonresidential site plans. 6. A fee as provided in Chapter 1302 of the City Code shall be charged for review of Tree Preservation Plans. Any costs incurred by the City in reviewing plans for plats and nonresidential site plans shall be charged to the developer. The Zoning Administrator may submit the plan to a consulting forester for a recommendation. the costs or \l/mcn shall be paid by the developer or buildei. 0/0'; ...:/ ,/- 7. All tree protection me:lSUreS shall be installed prior to beginning building construction and inspected by the Zoning Administrator or his agent. 8. The Zoning Administrator or his agent will conduct follow-up site inspections for enforcement of this Policy, in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No. 9. If any significant tree in a development or on a building site is cut, damaged, or the area within the tree's drip line has been encroached upon by grading equipment, without City authorization, the City shall require replacement pursuant to 10. below. In addition, if the City detennines that a damaged tree will probably not survive, it shall be removed by the developer or builder. 10. All significant trees removed or damaged during the process of land development or construction activities shall be replaced on site. The . removal of trees on public right-of-way, conducted by or on behalf of a governmental agency in pursuance of its lawful activities or functions, shall be e.,<:empt from this replacement. a. Any trees required to be planted shall be varied in species, shall maximize the use of species native to the area, shall not include any species under disease epidemic, and shall be hardy under local conditions. b. Tree Replacement Ratio. (1) Significant deciduous trees eight inches (8") DBH or greater shall be replaced by rwo (2), two and a half inch (25') DBH or greater deciduous trees or two, six-foot (6') high coniferous trees. (2) Significant deciduous trees twelve inches (12") DBH . or greater shall be replaced by three (3), two and a half inch (2.5") DBH or greater deciduous trees or three (3), six-foot (6'~ high coniferous trees. (3) Significant coniferous trees six feet (6') high or greater shall be replaced by one (1) six-foot (6') high or greater coniferous tree. (4) Significant coniferous trees twelve feet (12') high or greater shall be replaced by two (2) six-foot (6') high or greater coniferous trees. (5) In no case will the total number of replacement trees exceed eight (8) trees per acre. c. Before any construction takes place, tree protection measures as set forth in VI.B. of this Policy shall be placed around tree protection zones and around the drip lines of significant trees to be preserved. Signs shall be placed along fe:1ce lines prohibiting grading beyond the fence line. a/a.:::: .-'1./_.' d. Any trees required to be planted shall be replaced if they die or appear to be dying within two (2) full growing seasons of planting by the person responsible for the planting. e. Replacement trees shall be of a similar species to the trees which are lost or removed and shall include those species shown on the following list Deciduous Trees . Green Ash - Fraxinus pennsylvanica Mountain Ash - Sorbus spp. River Birch - Betula nigra Kentucky Coffeetree - Gymnocladus dioicus Amur Corktree - PhelZodendron amurense Flowering Crabapple - Malus spp. Ginkgo (male only) - Ginkgo biloba Hackberry - Celtis occidentalis Hawthorn - Crataeglls spp. Shagbark Hickory - Carya ovata Honeylocust - G/editsia Hatriacanthos Ironwood - Gstrya virginiana ~apan7se Tree Lilac - Syringa amurensis japonzca American Linden - Tilia aniericana LittleleafLinden - Tilia cordata Redmond Linden - Tilia americana 'Redmond' Conifers . American Arborvitae - Thuja occidentalis Balsam Fir - Abies balsamea Douglas Fir - Pseudorsuga menziesii White Fir - Abies conc%r Canadian Hemlock - Tsuga canadensis European Larch - Larix decidua Austrian Pine - Pinus nigra Norway Pine - Pinus resinosa Black Locust - Robinia psuedoacacia Amur Maple - acer ginnala Norway Maple - Acer platanoides Red Maple - Acer rohnun Silver Queen Maple (seedless) - Acer saccharinum 'Silver Queen' Su~ar Maole - acer saccharum Normern Catalpa - Catalpa speciosi Bur Oak - Quercus macrocarpa Pin Oak: - Quereus palustris Red Oak - Quercus mbra Swamp Wlrite Oak - Quercus bicolor White Oak: - Quercus alba Ohio Buckeye - Aescul!JS glabra Russian Olive - Eleagnus angustifolia Black Walnut - Juglans nigra Red Pine - Pinus resinosa Scotch Pine - Pinus sylvestris White Pine - Pinus strobus Black Hills Spruce - Picea glaLlca densata Colorado Spruce - Picea pungens Norway Spruce - Picea abies White Spruce - Picea glauca Tamarack - Larix: laricina 11. Financial Guarantee - Subdividers. a. Subdividers shall provide a financial guarantee as part of the development contract to ensure replacement of significant trees lost in the development process. The amount of me financial guarantee shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator, based uoon estimates made by the subdivider's registered.landscape architect or actual bids orepared bv a certified nurservman. This shall be a separate line item iri me development contL<lct and shall be the basis for a develooment contract where me lack of public improveme~ts would othe:-wise nac require :l contr:lc:. This financial guarantee shall be held for at least two (2) full growing seasons beyond the date of installation of the last replacement tree or beyond the last date of site activity that may impact tree survival. b. In addition to a. above subdividers shall provide a financial guarantee as part of the development contract to ensure protection of all significant trees to be saved. For each mass graded lot with at least one (1) significant tree to be saved and each custom graded lot with at least one (1) significant tree, the subdivider shall pay a fee as established in Chapter 1302 of the Shorewood City Code. This financial guarantee will be released upon 1) certification in writing by the subdivider's forester or landscape architect indicating that tree protection measures were installed on mass graded lots and tree replacement is completed, if . necessary and/or 2) the builders have posted security for the custom graded lots. 12. Financial Guarantee - Builders. a. Homebuilders shall provide a financial guarantee as part of the building permit application to ensure protection of all significant trees to be saved. For all lots with at least one (1) significant tree to be saved the builder shall provide a letter of credit or cash escrow as established by Chapter 1302 of the City Code. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or release of the tree protection guarantee, the builder's forester or landscape architect shall certify to the Ciry in writing that ail the tree protection measures identified on the tree, preservation plan were installed from the start of construction to the end of construction and tree replacement, is completed, if necessary. c. The Building Official will monitor the tree protection measures at the time of routine inspections. . d. Builders are liable for subcontractors which destroy or damage significant trees which were indicated to be saved on the individual lot tree preservation plan. V. Tree & Site Related Disturbances. 9/95 A. Tree protection zones, specimen trees or stands of trees designated to be saved must be protected from the following damages which may occur during ail phases of land disturbance and construction processes. Methods of tree protection and disturbance prevention are provided in Section VI. 1 . Direct physical root damage 2 . Indirect root damage .J. Truf'Jc and crown disturbance . .., B . Direct physical root damage most frequently occurs durina site ciearina and grading operations, where transport or feeder roots are c;t, tom, or :::. removed. 1. Transport and feeder roots tend to tangle and fuse among the roots of adjacent trees. The removal of trees with heavy machinery alona the outer periphery of a tree save area causes root damage. 0 2. The most substantial form of root damage for all root types occurs in the form of cut roots. Roots are cut in grade reduction, or from trenching for underground utilities, sanitary sewer, or storm sewer lines. 3. A more subtle type of root damage is the loss of feeder roots. Feeder roots normally occur within the organic layer, and the surface four inches (4") of top soil, subsequently, these roots can be easily damaged by the track action from a single bulldozer pass. The stripping of top soil within a tree's critical root zone can totally eliminate its feeder root system. . C. Indirect root damage through site modification can result from positive grade changes, temporary storage of fill material, the sedimentation of erosion materials, soil compaction, and soil chemical changes. 1. Positive grade changes from fill and sedimentation causes a decrease in soil oxygen levels. An increase in soil carbon dioxide and other toxic gases can also occur, leading to large areas of anaerobic conditions. Anaerobic soil conditions cause a decrease in the root respiration process which is essential for the uptake and transport of minerals and nutrients. 2. Anaerobic soil conditions are also produced by soil compaction, the increase in soil bulk density with a decrease in soil spore space. . Compacted soil is also impervious to root penetration, and thus inhibits root development. Soil compaction is generally caused by the weight and vibrations of heavy machinery, vehicle parking, and the storage of fill and/or construction materials within the critical root zones of trees. . 3 . Changes in soil chemistry will adversely affect tree survival. The most frequent occurrence is the change (decrease) in soil acidity by concrete washout. The leakage or spillage of toxic materials such as fuels or paints can be fatal for trees. D. Trunk and crown disturbances are generally mechanical in nature and are either caused directly by clearing and grading machinery, or indirectly by debris being cleared and falling into trees marked for protection. 1. Common forms of damage include stripped bark and cambium. split trunks, and broken limbs. 2. Damage also occurs from the posting of signs such as building permits, or survey markers on trees. 0/0:: 3. Indirect damage can be caused by the placement of burn holes or debris fires too close to trees. The possible range of damages include scorched trunks with some cambial dieback, the loss of foliage due to evaporative heat stress (leaf desiccation). and completely burned trunks and crowns. VI. lVlethods of Tree Protection. A. Planning and considerations. Tree space is the most critical factor in tree protection throughout the development process. The root system of trees can easily extend beyond the dripline of the tree canopy (Figure 1). The root system within the dripline region is generally considered to be the protected root zone. Disturbance within this zone can directly affect a tree's chances of survival. With reference to root zones. the following standards shall apply: 1. The use of tree save islands and stands is encouraged rather than the . protection of individual (nonspecimen) trees scattered throughout a site. This will facilitate ease in overall site organization as related to tree protection. 2. The protective zone of specimen trees or stands of trees or otherwise designated tree save areas shall include no less than the total area beneath the tree(s) canopy as defmed by the farthest canopy dripline of the tree(s). In some instances, the Zoning Administrator may require a protective zone in excess of the area defined by the cree's dripline. .., Layout of the project site utility and grading plans shall ~. accommodate the required tree protective zones. Utilities must be placed along corridors between tree protective zones. 4. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage. . concrete washout. hole placement. etc.. shall be arranged so as to prevent disturbances within tree protective zones. 5. Alterations to the protective zone of the specimen trees or stands of trees must be approved by the Zoning Administrator. B. Protective Barriers. 1. Active protective tree fencing shall be installed along the outer edge of and completely surrounding the critical root zones of all specimen trees or stands of trees. or otherwise designated tree protective zones. prior to any building construction. 2. These fences will be a minimum four feet (4') high. Four-feet (4') high orange polyethylene laminar safety fencing is acceptable (Figure 2). 3. Passive forms of tree protection may be utilized to delineate tree save areas which are remote from areas of land disturbance. These areas must be completely surrounded with continuous rope or flagging 9/95 (heavy mil - minimum four inches (4") wide). All passive tree protection must be accompanied by "Keep Our" or "Tree Save" signage (Figure 3). 4. All tree protection zones should be designated as such with "Tree Save Area" signs posted visibly on all sides of the fenced area. These signs are intended to inform subcontractors of the tree protection process. Signs requesting subcontractor cooperation and compliance with tree protection standards are recommended for site entrances. 2. 5 . All tree fencing baniers must be installed prior to and maintained throughout building construction and should not be removed until completion of construction and until landscaping is installed. Encroachment. Most trees can tolerate only a small percentage of critical root zone loss. If encroachment is anticipated within the critical root zones of specimen trees, stands of trees, or otherwise designated tree protective zones, the following preventive measures shall be employed: 1. Clearing Activities: Roots often fuse and tangle amongst trees. The removal of trees adjacent to tree save areas can cause inadvertent damage to the protected trees. Wherever possible, it is advisable to cut minimum two foot (2') trenches (e.g., with a "ditch-witch") along the limits of land disturbances, so as to cue, rather than tear, roots. Directionally felling trees outward into disturbance areas and grinding stumps is also acceptable. It is very strongly suggested that all clearing in oak stands be done before May 1st and after July 1st of each season. This will help to prevent the inadvertent wounding of trees with the consequential spread of oak wilt. If clearing has to be done at this time, all stumps and wounded trees shall have the wound areas painted thoroughly with a tree paint. To be effective, the painting shall be perlormed within the same day of cutting. Should oak wilt get started as a result of construction during the months of May and June, then the developer/builder shall pay for all additional on-site oak wilt control measures needed to control the disease. C. . . 3 . Where the Zoning Administrator has determined that irreparable damage has occurred to trees within tree protective zones, they must be removed and replaced by the developer/builder as provided in Section IV (B)9. D. Reclamation of the Growing Site. A tree's ability for adequate root development. and ultimately its chances for survival, are improved with reclamation of the growing site. Whenever possible, the soil should be brought back to its natural grade. Unnecessary fill, erosion sedimentation, concrete washout, and construction debris should be removed. When machinery is required for site improvement, it is recommended that a "rubber-tired skid steer loader" or similar light weight rubber tire vehicle be used so as to minimize soil compaction. '?/95 TREE PRESERV A nON POLICY CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPENDlX A Technical Terms: Cambium: The tissue within the woody portion of trees and shrubs which gives rise co the woody water and nutrient conducting system, and the energy substrate transport system in trees. Cambial die back: The irreparable radial of vertical interruption of a tree's cambium, usually caused by mechanical damage, such as "skinning bark", or from excessive heat. Coniferous: Belonging to the group of cone-bearing evergreen trees or shrubs. Deciduous: Not persistent; the shedding ofleaves annually. Feeder roots: A complex system of small annual roots growing outward and predomiriantly upward from the system of "transport roots". These roots branch four or more times to form fans . or mats of thousands of fine, shoI4 non-woody tips. Many of these small roots and their multiple tips are 0.2 to Imm or less in diameter, and less than 1 to 2mm long. These roots constitute the major fraction of a tree's root system sUIface area, and are the primary sites of absorption of water and nutrients. Maior W oodv Roots: FIrSt order tree roots originating at the "root collar" and growing horizontally in the soil to a distance of between 3 and 15 feet from the tree's trunk. These roots branch and decrease in diameter to give rise to "rope roots". The primary function of major woody roots include anchorage, structural SUppOI4 the storage of food reserves, and the transport of minerals and nutrients. Protected Root Zone: The rooting area of a tree established to limit root disturbances. This zone is generally detmed as a circle with a radius extending from a tree's trunk to a poine no less than the furthest crown dripline. Disturbances within this zone will directly affect a tree's chance for survi val. Root Collar. The point of attachment of major woody roots to the tree trunk, usually at or near the . groundline and associated with a marked swelling of the tree trunk. Root Respiration: An active process occurring throughout the feeder root system of trees, and involving the consumption of oxygen and sugars with the release of energy and carbon-dioxide. Root respiration facilitates the uptake and transport of minerals and nutrients essential for tree survival. Rooe Roots: An extensive network: of woody second order roots arising from major woody roots, occurring within the surface 12 to 18 inches of local soils, and with an average size ranging from .25 to 1 inch in diameter. The primary function of rope roots is the transport of water and nutrients, and the storage of food reserves. Soil Compaction: A change in soil physical properties which includes an increase in soil weight per unit volume, and a decrease in soil pore space. Soil compaction is caused by repeated vibrations, frequent traffic and weight. As related to tree roots, compacted soil can cause physical root damage, a decrease in soil oxygen levels with an increase in toxic gases, and can be impervious to new root development. 9/95 TranSDort Roots: The system or framework of tree roots comprised of major roots and rope roars. . . 9/0'::: '" -; ~ TREE PRESERV AnON POUCY CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPENDIX B Checklist for Tree Protection P'an: 1. Tree Protection Plans. a. Provisions for tree protection on the site shall be. at minimum. in conformance with the requirements of the City of Shorewood Tree Preservation Policy in conjunction with the Shorewood Tree Preservation Ordinance No. b. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted either as part of a landscape plan. preliminary plat. or as a separate drawing. roinc1ude the following: All tree protection zones Approximate location of all specimen trees or stands of trees Approximate location of all specimen trees when their preservation is questionable. or might result in a change of the site design Identification of specimen trees to be removed. (Removal of specimen trees is subject to Zoning Administrator approval.) Limits of clearing and land distUrbance sllch as grading. trenching, etc. where these dismrbances may affect tree protection zones. Proposed location of underground utilities. Methods of tree protection shall be indicated for all tree protection. zones. aeration systems. staking, signage. etc. The plan should indicate staging areas for parking, material storage. concrete washout. and burial holes where these areas might affect tree protection. The following notes shall be indicated on both tree preservation plans aild grading plans in large letters: (1) Contact the City Planning Department at 474-3236 to arrange a preconstruction conference with the City Zoning Administrator prior to any land disturbance. (2) All tree protection measures shall be installed prior to building construction. c. (3) Contact the City of Shorewood Planning Department at 474-3236 for a Site Inspection upon completion of landscape installation. KEY c:~ - CHERRY R.O. - REJ OAK W.O. - WHITE OAK A - ASH ~ :e: 1 S FOOT WORKING :NVl::..OP: F:NC!NG &. WARNING SiGNAGE UI1L:'TY Al r =y S70CKPIL.:: ?:RIM~t.;:R 7"RE=: TO BE REMOVE:! TREE PRESERV A nON POLICY CITY OF SHOREWOOD APPENDIX C SAMPLE DRIVE I I I I R_O_GC.- -------~~:_L--~-L--.. . I A :: 10_000 I I I --=. Iff iOoO/ DRIVFWAYr . I (\'.9';; J 1:1 '. t.. r~ 1!' . If! t .~ .. ~ if! -/ 74.0 ~. ;if~ . r . '. _. ~.,~ [ .~I i if I /' ~ f! I I'~.J ~ ! !! :cl+.-.o GARAGE ~ II i . ~I i- 1fe( : i! 24.3/5 i!, I en ! - ,:So a ~ j 20! ! [. /; 1 I ....',J I < i i > I ..: i aOI :: I ~ -f !r1+- ~ no., l!1 I: i Ii:, I · -I: i I r-' : [tQOV f PROPOSED r ! f.ol I. .\ f 3;;.:;5 HOUSE 24.0.; i ' [-.\,/ 1,I~f!! ,''. V f : !etl .~__i . Ie.' ~ ~! I ,I . . I ~.. I r:!.~.w-::;P ! e-t.. ~ .~.~ef. I . I . - I~;/ 10.0 ;.....:: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- . . t I r I : 'Canopy Drip-line , r I r I , I I I I I I I r I r I Critical Root Radius Critical Root Zone Within the Drip-line 4 Actual Feeder Root System Extends Well Beyond the Drip-line . FIGURE 1 TYPICAL CRITICAL ROOT ZONE TRE~ FENC!NG ~~ALL CONSIS7 a. 4.0' HIGH ,'1!NIMUM ORANGE POUEIHYLE:NE: LAMINAR ~"'S:-E7Y NE7T1NG. .. "" II ! III, II III III 11111 1/11 I 1I11 I I, III/ 1111 I 111111 111111 III/ I D 1111 I II II 11I1111 II III II I) I II 11111 I I 11111111 II I I I 111111111111111111 1110 I 1//1 I I I 111111 1I11 II 1111 I : I I I Iii i i i IIIIIIII~ II} FENC~ SHALL 3e: SC:CUREL Y ANCliCRQ 3Y >:TE~L ;:"ENC~ POSTS CNSTALLZD 6.0 F~ ON CENTER. .... .....,,,.:-"'.~ '.\.:.. ..,.--:.. ~ - - . - ..- ~ . . FIGURE 2 ACTIVE PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING TREE PROTECTION AREA CAUTION DO NOT ENTER c ~ . TREE SAVE . Passive Protection with Rope and Signage FIGURE 3 PASSIVE PROTECTION DETAIL . . Message on the Shoreline: Thursday, October 16, 1997 I've just finished watching the cable vision program of the City Council on the discussion of the semor housing. I would like to ask that if the mic or the sound cannot be regulated, that the person of the chair would at least repeat the question so that we could know what the discussion is about. It is very difficult to hear, and even the Council members do not always use the microphone. So could that please be done, thank you. ff/3B .. .. . CKNO 21695 21696 21697 21698 21699 21700 21701 21702 21703 21704 21705 21706 21707 21708 21709 21710 21711 21712 21713 21714 21715 21716 21717 21718 21719 21720 21721 21722 21723 21724 21725 21726 21727 21728 21729 21730 21731 21732 . CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR OCTOBER 27, 1997 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE OCTOBER 15,1997 TO WHOM ISSUED PURFC6E . PERA PERA. ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERREDCOMP CI1Y COUN1Y CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS ANOKA CO SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID AFSCME COUNCIL 14 UNION DUES MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE TAX WITHHELD AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC. 2 SUBSCRIPTIONS-ZONING NEWS BROWNING FERRIS IND. OCT. RECYCLlNG-TB UQ KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE PEPSI COLA COMPANY MISC/POP PURCHASE ALAN ROLEK MILEAG8'EXPENSES US WEST COMMUNICATIONs/ADVERTISING MIDWEST COCA-COLA MISC PURCHASES DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER1'v1ISC PURCHASES EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEER1'v1ISC PURCHASES LEEFBROS. MATS QUALl1Y WINE & SPIRITS CO UQUORiWINE PURCHASES SENSIBLE LAND USE COALITION LAND USE DISPUTES-PISULA LAWRENCE BROWN BOOM LIFT RENT-FOOTBALL L TS COMMERCIAL ASPHALT ASPHALT HENN. CO DISTRICT COURT FORFEITURE OF VEHICLES MN STATE TREASURER 3RD QTR BLDG. PERMIT SIC NORTHERN STATES POWER UTIlITIES WA nATA MOTOR VEHICLES FORFEITURE OF VEHICLE BELLBOY CORPORATION UQUOR PURCHASES BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISaSUPPL Y PURCHASES DAHLHEIMER DISTRIBUTING BEER PURCHASES DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER1'v1ISC PURCHASES GRIGGS, COOPER & CO L1QUORiWINE/MISC PURCHASES HONEYWELL QTRL Y MONITORING JOHNSON BROS. LIQUOR CO L1QUORiWlNE PURCHASES LAKE REGION VENDING MISC PURCHASES MARLIN'S TRUCKING FRBGHf PAUSTIS WINE CO WINE PURCHASES PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS L1QUORiWINE PURCHASES THE WINE COMPANY WINE PURCHASES TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED Page 1 AMOUNT $2,470.29 1,533.36 929.00 156.50 145.25 1,229.75 100.00 33.66 240.00 100.00 69.14 292.45 672.34 351.29 723.00 2,997.50 15,937.90 26.20 717.53 25.00 201.26 557.15 20.00 2,299.65 4,928.67 9.00 4,702.65 302.12 632.00 2,949.40 13,845.49 103.25 2,867.25 1,308.95 356.80 221.90 6,838.72 994.20 " CI'!"Y OF SHORE WOOD Cf~ECK APPROVAL LIS"r FOR OCT. 2/. 1991 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCi~:H;)T 101'-1 .-.-..--...---- _.~.._.._._--_.._----_._-_._._---_.._- .--.----.-.---------.-.---.-.--.--- ----.--.-- DEPT. 21733 ADAMS~ LUCIA "i"EMP HELP GEN GOV'j" 21/34 AMERICAN ENGINEERING "j"ES'!"ING-EUREKA RD ---.----- 21/35 BOULDER WORKS," INC~ BOULDER WORK--EUREKA/SMI'!" -------- 21736 CROSS"!"OWN-OCS, INC~ CCi:~ F~=E:: 21/ ~! ",it DAWSON BLACK"!"UPPING, A~3l~)}-jf~L T c: Li Ft~:3 "- .:s )' () .::! ..... . ;'~ .... .; .~ t:: LJ ~.< t: 1"\ f~~ .1 i'''{C~ .. 21.738 ERIC:KSON, ROLF t~H~ f;:..:';SE:SS()F~ Fi::~:: ASSESSOR SUPPLIES *~~ 'l'O'~'AL FOR ERICKSO~f, ROLF e~H~ .-~/.~!~: .'::::.1. ,1 t:~.I.) EXCELSIOR-CITY OF 1.1 T t-l Q T f':"~ F.1 F<E F)~~CfTECT lCii""'~ f:ALL MAIN'J'ENANCE EXPO f.) i/',i T f~; f'::: I r'~ 1 r...{ (;~ 21741 FRON'!'lER ELEC"i'RIC X-MAS LK LiF"!' S'I'A'I'ION 21742 }"iANC:E }'1ARDWARE, INC~ i/',i f~ 'f' ,:: F; ~:) LJ F) i~~) J_ I E ~; 21/43 I~ENNEPIN COUN'!'Y 'i'REASURER AUGUS'I' PRISONER ~^~ 21744 i~()~)KINS PAR'I'S COMPANY E CJ tJ .I F} f'''j r; I f",~ T S}"I(!j~J SLiF)j:JL_l E:S *~* fUIHL FOR i~OPKINS PAR'I'S COMPAN fy1Ui',j bLDG F) h: () F ~:) !:: F.~ i~Jh:CiF :.:>ct.o;: r;;~f'''lC!Lir'''{T 1 ().::, .. CI() )' ()() .. ()';;l 1 ;.i ~?()() ,. (Jet 13.::;1 <4 f9t~ t.~ .:;! () ~ (J () 1.1. ~ () ~z .:::. '" () Ct l~,().. ~1~:.'J 4 .1.:.~,S,. 49 .,~.n ..... ~..... .....~ .:.)..::;, ~ ':;1 t~ L .. '::::11,) F I F:E Pf~:O S E 1/..1 E Ft~ [(E. \I',i r; T t: F,: [);::: F:) [i 1_ .1 C: t: F) CITY ',;11-11".: C:.l T \( (:~ f;~ f~ B() " ()() 2:1()3... ()() l '. ~ll f9:2~;; '" ()() :s .::, '" tS ,:::! 1::,1,. '/.1 1 t~)' '. ~:,() SHADY iSLAND BRIDGE CONS _..~.----_.- 88~698..46 21145 JAY BRO'I'i~ERS, INC~ 21146 KENNE[)Y & GRAVEN ~e~! LEGAL-GENERAL ~~~t LEGAL-SMl'!'H'!'OWN RD -------- ~JF:(J.J E C: T S . ."" ."~ r".~" ..... .... ...... i~~) h: !...) j-' ~~ I:: t.< ~e~/! LEGAL~-~lARSH P'i' WA ~-~~-----_.- SEP'i" LEGAL-SR C'I'R ~~~! LEGAL-RES.iLL ~~~ 'rO'j'AL FOR KENNEDY & GRAVEN 21J41 KAR PRO[)UC'J"S Sf~"iCii~) SLJf.:JfJi._l f::S 21148 LAKE LAND ENG EQUIP CO E Q Li 1 f.:I F~~ E i~:) f;~ .1 F.~ 2J.749 LARKIN, ~iOFFMAN, DALY~~~ Ru JOJ~NSON L.t~HL 21/50 LEAGUE OF MN CI'j'IES , '..' ~", ,."".... "'. LtfL, L'L.!t::::.:> :2.1 )' .:::1,1 '-.I"'I(:.I '!' WORKERS COMP INSURA~iCE 21/52 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMEN1. .... .....' , .... ...... '. ~ ,~ v '. . '1' t: tJ~) .t 1~~J r'~ f"~ J. r',{ ! ;:5 ~ t} :;I.S ,. :s:~ C:.l T \{ G~~h: I/~i f;;~ T E F'~ lJ t:::. f.) Fo;: C! F :,:) 1:: f;f~ C: (J lJ j....{ C: .l L ," ," ~'", ,"'. ~... ," .::, , .:::!.,L.,t. ... I.,) .::1 .:::1 t.,!-j ... () () 8 .S, ~1 ,. .~~, () ~L ~ ()5!~L M ~5l t~ !:;' tS :c l{. () . l :~~ '" lt~ It'lC'.. ~l.:::l ... ","" "". ..1. ,I ,I '" t~ ':;, ..:1-' ~ ()~! ~5 :c ()() MUN BLi:)G 13~601_00 C: 1 T \( (~~~h: 2llS3 M C _I '!'E~LECOMMUNICA'!'.IONS ~t:~! L.ONG [).IS'i"ANCE MU~l Bi_DG 2.1/54 MAHONE~Y, .JAMES f:ALL WEED SPRAYIN(;-'PARKS PARKS ~ ,(,,1. / ,'::..--::! f'~1E 'l'h'Ci C::(JtJi""'{(: IL. ,~~:j'.J\; IF,;fJi...{j...-jj:::!....{"t r.!(j\iE::l'~jE ;,,; ~')L:;FiEh; j.~?E;;~~'j.!...'ij:::i'..~.J. :3E:l/.,iE::i.? L)E:: .:::tt:., ..,.:::!.:::j .il.. ~:.';f::.; ~.~~ !, :Z .::! '/ _ ;~:~ () (-)r.:;~:~ _. (.)() CI'j"Y OF St~OREWOOD CHECK APPROVAL. LIS")- FOR OC'j'w 27, 199/ COUNCIL M'!'G (:i'~EC:K# VENDOR NAME DESCRIP'!"lON DEP"I',. A~jOUN'i" -...-.-..--...-....-- _.__._----------_._---~..-_..__._._- .---.--.--------------.-------- ---'-'--'--- .--.-----.---- 2J./56 MIDWES'I' ASPHAL'j' (:ORP~ !"ACK--SMI'i'H'j'OWN PD ---------- 12J~80 21/51 MN SUN PUBLICA'I'IONS LEGAL ADS GEN GOV"i' 21/58 MOONEY & ASSOC,. EQU.iP MAIN"i'-WA'I'ERFORD PU WA"!'ER DE 21/59 WM~ MUELLER & SONS, INC~ BLACK'!"OP S T f~~EE. T S 2lJ60 MUNI'!'EC~i~ INCH j-..{C)\l . . .. .,. .... ," ~ 1/,,1 :-.~ ! t: t.t;~ i,l_,i r::1l ;::~ h: [) i::. j'''ff':{.1 r',,{ T i""~ (J \" ~3 E i,l.J 1::: Ff~ f"'-f f~1 I j....! 'f' *** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH. INC. ~; !:: {,I_,i I:: Ff~ [) I:: t:> ~ ~;.I()() ,. ()() 21/6J. NA't'lONAL ARBOR DAY F:ND'j'N MEMBERSi~IP DUES"-Cw DAVIS PARKS & .1. / {:>.( j."jr~ '\" r::iF; R E T F.; U E ".,l fi L U I::: j"Y! l..i i""'~ !::s L. iJ C:~ E: C) lJ .1 F) f'''j f~~ 1 j",{ T j~~!._L)(;~ l"'ff~.1 !...! .,. hUj",j bLDG T h: f':~ i~~ C~ (J i~.~ ~:)Th:EE: T ~:';lJi:JF)L_IE::3 ::,(::i(::i( 'j' Ci 'j' f:;~L. F Cif~r~ i""'{f;;~-\"'r::1f:"~f':'::E~ T h:lJE: ..../ r~J_ i....!l:: ~Z.l )' t;t !! r..,{ () f? T }"l E h: r"~ t:: (J lJ 1 i~) i-'il {;~ .1 j"",{ T C: 1 'j' \l r~~ r:~{h: 21/64 OUTSOURCE. INC. SR CTR CONSTRUCTION 21765 P,.A.. GLAZ.IER, INC~ ~';lJrJF)L..I E::3 :.:; 1:: i/.} E Fr~ [) E: 21/66 f:)O'f"I'S~ KENNE'I't~ N~ SEP'j'EMBER PROSEC'!'lONS F) h: [i F ~3 !::: h: :.? J. l {)"/ ~) f~ j....j ~ ::) C: L LJ J::s (;~ E: i~',{ !::: h: r1 t. ::) L,i j".J f.J L~ I E: S j"lUi"j HLDG SANI'j'!WA 20j~OO :~.1. l t;t ~~ SHORE WOOD TREE SERVICE GIDEONS WOODS CLEAN UP REMOVE TREE/HRUSH FOR SHORE WOOD TREE SERVI 'J'REE MAl 213~OO ~l2:C' ..-()() . ::,(::\(~i< 'J' Ci "j' f::1L. l:S 2:, .. :~() n, ~ _"0 ..~ ... ,I b _L ,~ ..:) ..L 1;1 L.::.,r.l ,.. 81:l I.l :$ 8 ;S() ,. ()() ~? {"j "/ (~l {~t("t .~- ~ .... . .~ .. .... .... .1.::;1 ... () () 6,. ')1. ..:).. ':),1 ... ," ." ", ..L i~:, ,. _~) / 2~~.. tS'::l .1 ::~~)' .~ ","t' 1~3 lS!~ )':~l..()() .~~ :2 .::, ... () () 1 ~ .::1()~3 N ':::1:5 :l()(~ to f9.:::, :Z.1 )' t;t ':;~ SHOREWOOD TRUE VALUE EOUIP HEi.,j'jr:iL. PARKS ~ 2.1...~u " 21110 SO LK M'J'KA PUS SAFE'!'Y DEP NOV BUDGE'j'/3RD O'J'R "t"RAFF ~)OL.ICE P 48,556...00 COlJP.t. O'!' J-9!AUG BOOKING POL_ICE P .1~22l~25 *** TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA PUB SAFET 49./8~.25 21111 '!'EMPORARIES-'i'O--GO TEMP RECEPTIONISr GEN GU'v'T ?l~5 ,. tS~:s 21/12 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC PLAN COMM MTG MINUTES PLANNING 182./5 C(:)UN(~.ll_ M'!'G MINU'j'ES GEN GOV'j' 232...50 ... T01AL FOR TIME SAVER OFF SITE 415,.25 2,lJ13 "i'WIN (::.I'j'y WA'i'E~R Cl..INIC il.,l r:;~ 1 j::: Ft~ 11:: ::3 T .I f-',{ (~ /,1.H~TER DE '.i() .. ()() SEWER DE 15~848w64 211J4 V.ISU....SEWER CLEAN & SEAL~ SEWf~R CLEANING :Z.l )' "/ .:::! i/'Ii({ '1" E:f?!~Jh:(J L. I:: (-~~ [) ~~; ~::: f:~~ L_~:) i/',i t~ "j' E f? [) !::: il..i t::: 1_ L_ f~: l:: F) f:~ .1 h~ V.,i f;:~ 'J' 1::: h: [I!:: ~~~ 'l'O.t'AL. F(Jf~ WA'j'ERPRO .L / ,I t.~ l/,,i t..) E~ E. L. E:. f? .... ,'" , " -. ,"~ ., '." v .. "_', ',"" !,_J ;"J i::< ;",: ~~.~ I J L,i r',{ :'-_":: ~.~:' .I L. \/ E h~ ;/_,1 Ci () L) j~) {{ F~ }<, ::3 ;\ F)}< ::.:'t.,;..,J!.._JL!. ~:. "-' , 1 ,..,..__.__....', L t..J 1'''1 l::) 1:::. ~-< T\_ __ ') .:?() 'c ","t.I.{. .... "',/J. ';:."j ..:- ,,,,' I ,. ...~,. .~.. r'...'... ..... ./ ... ._~~:j ,. I,) :J CITY OF SHOREWOOD C~~E~CK APPR(JYAl L.iS"i' FOR OCf. 2/. 1991 COUNCIL MTS CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT ._.._._-_._~.__. ,-,,-,,-'-"'--.-'-"-"-'--'-'-'-"---'-'--"--'-'-"- ---.-..-.-..--.---.-----.--.----.---- -----.--- --.--------- :..~.:'.1 ',I' ','I')' 1/',1 J lJ ""! E:: F< :.~ I i"',~ C~ ,. S'J'(lRM WA'!"ER REPA.iR-OMR 3;s .:i.St) ,~ .:)(} 21118 WSB AND ASSOC.IA'j'ES PROJECT OBSERVATION PROJ OBS-EUREKA RD PROJECi OBSERVATION-GEN FJROJEC"J' OBSERVA'!'!{JN'-GEN , {.:. .... 1'.1. ~;..{"'I b........L ,.-,-"J 2.::!2,,, ()() 5.5.5 .. 5,() E: r',,{ G~ 1 i-"'~ f:: E: F~ 1'.'{.(II.1- ,. (J() PROJEC1. OBS-STORM WAfER '::1.S.S I. .:::,() *~# '!'O'j'AL FOR WSB ANI) ASSOC.IA"!"ES E~ ~ :Zfsl .. .:'~l() 21lJ9 ZlEGLER~. INC~ E Q l..J .1 i~) 1'''1 f::~.l r'~ T C: 1 '!' \{ {;~:;h: 11.5.. ()l~S ::i( ;i( ::i( TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL ~'~~I .1.1 :." tS .:) ~3 ,. () ~5 . ;\< ::\( :~\( TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST 383,746.65 . Page 4 C H E. C ~<.. f.:.~ E G' 1 ,., T E R ,;) CHE.CK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAME CHECK CHECK TYPE OATE NUi1BER NUMBER Ai10UN T COt'! 1n 14 19)' 110 CONNIE O. BASTYR 212268 4l.01 'J COi1 10 14 9l 115 LAIr,IRENCE r; . BRQI.~IN 212269 1432.48 COM 10 14 9l 325 ANGELA 1.1. COLE 212210 310.69 COl.! 1() 14 9l 500 CHf-=>.RLES ,., DA\/IS 212211 l40.65 ,;). COt'! 1() 14 91 llS JAMES C Ef;KINS .2122"72 lll.60 '. COt'! 10 14 9/ 1190 Kr; T HLEEN A. HEBEf:.: T 212213 661 . l3 COi"! 10 14 9/ 1400 PA Tf.:.;l CI r; R. HELGESEN 2122/4 6.11.03 COI'1 10 14 9/ 1550 J Ai"!E S C. HURl., 2122/5 1/48 . ;::.0 CO!"1 1n 14 9"7 1601 BRIAN 0 JAKEL 212216 102.85 'J COM 10 14 91 1-,;" C'() JEFFREY A. JENSEN 2122// 9()C'.. l6 COi"! 10 14 9/ 18()() DENNIS O. JOHNSON. 2122/8 8';>';> "', __.100 COM 1() .14 9/ 1810 JEROi.!Y \AJ . JOHNSON 212219 3/ .40 COi"1 11'0 14 9/ 2100 I,AJILLIAI.j 1:= .. JOSEPHSON 212280 632.94 v COI.j 10 14 91 2200 JOSEPH S. Kr;GOL 212281 21. ().1 COI.l 11'0 14 9l 2495 i.10LL Y LA T T ERNEF< ~2.1~228~2 22.52 COi"1 10 14 91 25()O SUSAi'! j''l. LATTERNER 212283 642.68 . COrl .10 14 9)' 2550 PETER IlL LENZEN 212284 45.02 COI.1 10 14 9',7 2800 JOSEPH P. L UGOI,AJSK 1 212285 854.29 COt'1 11'0 14 '7..;' 2805 JASON R. LUND 212286 406.13 COM 1() 14 9/ 2900 RUSSELL R. i"lARI;';Oi'l 2.1228/ 32..35 COi"! 10 14 9l 3 ()()() THERESA L. NAAB 212288 6()1. .Sl COi"l 10 14 qu, 3100 LAI,AJRENCE A. N 1 CCU,..j 212289 1124.40 , I COi"i 1 -- 14 91 3400 BF-:ADLE Y J. NIELSEi"! 2.122'9() 812.89 .....1.) COI.j 10 14 9'" 3435 ANDI:.?E I,A,1 C. o T TEN 212291 1l6.85 , I COI-l J (' 14 9"7 3S()() JOSEPH E PAZANDAK 212292 .1085.65 .J COM 1" 14 QU, 358() CHRISTOPHER J. POUNDER ~2.12293 1"7l.2"7 "',1 , I COi"l .10 14 9,' 3600 DANIEL J. Rr;NDALL 2.12294 86/.26 COi"l 10 l4 9l 3101 BI~; 1 AN [-J. ROERI CK. 212295 l8.3S) COi"l 1" 14 ';) "l 3800 ALAN .J.. ROLEK 212296 .1l42.03 'vi COli 10 14 QU, 3815 l-ll CHAEL J. RUFFENr;CH 2l22'::) "7 333.. l "l , .' COr! .10 14 q'" 3Qnn CHRISTOPHER E. SCHi"l1 0 212298 448.44 , .' ,,,,, COt'! 10 14 9l 3910 R CONRr;D SCHI.j 1 D 212299 63.04 COi"! 10 14 9l ~12CI() 6F<ENDA L. Sf'll TH 2l23()() 199.35 .- COM 10 14 q'" 4Sl5 f.:.;E6ECCr; A. Tr;RVIN 212301 206.05 , I COi"1 10 14 9"/ 45"/l PAi"lELA J . HELLING 212502 209.06 COM l() 14 9l 4150 RALPH A.. i.~IEHLE 2l23()3 648.82 :0::;:::;'::;: TOT ALS::;.:::;.:::;':::;': 19624.94 Page 5