Loading...
052896 CC Reg AgP I.; ,.- ,,, . C:ITY COUNC:IL REGULAR MEET:ING C:ITY OP SHOREWOOD TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1996 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNC:IL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. AGENDA 1 . CONVENE C:ITY COUNC:IL MEET:ING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda McCarty Mayor Bean Stover Benson Shaw 2 . APPROVAL lOP M:INUTES City Council Regular Meeting Minutes May 13, 1996 (Att.- #2 Minutes) 3 . CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Approve the Extension of the Filing of the Final Plat - McCary Addition (Att.-#3A Letter from Applicant) B. A Moti,on t,o Appr,ove a Block Party Request on Glen Road for June 27, 1996 from 6:00 t,o 10:00 p.m. (Att.~#3B Party Registration and Permit Application) Applicant: Elaine and Kent Adams C. A Motion t,o Approve the Appeal and Request for Extensi,on ,of Deadline t,o Comply with Notice to Remove: (Att. -#3C Planner I s Memorandum) APpellant: Dan Ohland Location: 25070 Smitht,own Road 4 . MATTERS PROM THE FLOOR (Presentations are limited to 3 minutes. No Council action will be taken.) 5 . D:ISCUSS:ION 'W:ITH REPRESENTAT:IVE TOM WORIOIAN ON LEG:ISLAT:IVE :ISSUES . CITY COUNCIL AGB1fDA. - MAY 28, 1996 PAGE 2 01' 3 6 . PUBLIC BBARIlfG 7: 45 P .11. - UQARDIlfG ISSVueE or LEASE - PORCDSB OBLIGATIOlf AGUBJlBH A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Issuance'of a Lease/Purchase Obligation Agreement for the Southshore Senior Community Center (Att.-'6 Proposed Resolution) 7 . PLA1f1fJ:lfG - Report by R.pre.entati ve A. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Revised Setback Variance (Att.- '7A-1 Letter from Applicant, '7A-2 Letter from Applicant's Attorney) Applicant: Richard Hoyt Location: 5710 Ridge Road B. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit for AmOCo/McDonald's Car Wash Facility P.U.D. (Att.- #7B Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: D.Y.S. Properties, Represented by Larry Youngstedt Location: 5170 Vine Hill Road C. A Motion to Approve a Building Moving Permit _ Remove Detached Garage (Att.-#7C Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Mark Warren Location: 5260 St Alban's Bay Road D. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Setback Variance (Att.-#7D Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Ron Born Location: 4865 Ferncroft Drive E. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Denying a Rezoning and C.U.P. for Watten Ponds P.U.D. (Att. -#7E Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P. Location: 5340 and 5370 Eureka Road 8 . 1995 ADt1AL AUDIT UPORT - ABoo, ABOO A1f1) RICK A1f1) PUSBlfTATIOlf 01' AWARD CERTII'ICATB 01' ACBIBVBIIBR'r Ilf I'ID1fCIAL RBPOR'1'DlG (Att. -#8 Audit Report) A Motion to Accept the 1995 Annual Audit Report ~- - CITY C01'1.WCIL .A.G1OmA - MAY 28 , 199<<) PAGB 3 01' 3 9 · DISCU'SSIOIl WIn CHIBI' YOtm'G UQAJU)X.G PA'.fllOLDJQ HOU'RS 1 o. COIlSIDBRA'1'IO. 01' A 1I0'1'IO. '1'0 APPROVB VIC'1'ORU WAftlt A~ (Att. -#10 Agreement) 11. CO.SIDBRA'1'IOR 01' A 1I0'1'IO. '1'0 APPROVB :tlI'l'JI1UIB'1 DB SID POLICY O. COR'l'BIf'l' AIID IIBnODOLOQY (Att. -'11 Proposed POlicy) 12. ADJII1US'1'RATOR I: S'1'APP UPOR'1'S Engineer's Report on Status of 1996 Project Schedules 13. KAYOR I: CITY COtm'CIL UPOR'1'S 14. ADJOtJIUl TO st1B""C'1' '1'0 APPROVAL 01' CLADIS ( At t . ... #14) CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDA Y, MAY 7, 1996 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Borkon, Commissioners Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger, Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Foust. APPROV AL OF MINUTES '. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to approve the April 16, 1996 Commission meeting minutes as amended on Page 3, Paragraph 4, Line 4, replace "it" with "it's"; Page 4, Paragraph 1, Line 4, change "Thursday, April 25, they would complete the meeting format which would be submitted for changes and review" to read "Thursday, April 25, they would complete the meeting format and move into more analysis of the information." Pisula abstained. Motion passed 5/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT AND C.U.P. FOR AMOCO/MCDONALD'S/CAR WASH FACILITY P.D.D. Applicant: D.Y.S. Properties, represented by Larry Youngstedt Location: 5170 Vine Hill Road . Chair Borkon announced the case and reviewed the procedure for a public hearing. The matter will be before the City Council on Tuesday, May 28, 1996. She requested a case analysis from Planning Director Nielsen. Developer John Kosmas addressed the Commission. He stated the process he is asking for is a conceptual plan approval rather than a development plan approval or a fmal plan approval. He stated it is his understanding there would be a three part process. He stated the concept of putting Amoco and McDonald's together is new to both corporations. There are three similar facilities in lllinois. He stated this is a difficult site where grade changes occurring. There is a need to even out retaining walls and create some landscaping. He would hope to consult with the new business owners and rework some of the site with respect to the retaining walls. He further stated the issue of the property being a wetland will be addressed. While they would prefer to eliminate the pond, in the alternative they would like to move it north. The developers have had conversations with MNDOT regarding the ponding. Mr. Kosmas also stated there is a catch basin in that area, therefore the ponding area could be enlarged to reduce the amount which would have to be located on another part of the site. He further discussed traffic concerns and stated because of the slower process of clearing vehicles from the pump islands, the pump island count would be increased. .;i CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996 - PAGE 2 McDonald's would be a scaled down version without a play area. Seating is limited to 60 seats as opposed to the larger McDonald's which provide for 80 to 150 seats. The parking and drive-thru may require modifications to meet the parking requirements. The developer stated he had interpreted the code differently than staff in that he did consider pump island stalls as parking spaces. The developer felt the seating and waiting areas had been accounted for in a double ratio. Mr. Kosmas stated a correction needed to be made in that the diagram was prepared as 30 degree parking and noted as 60 degree parking. When stated as 30 degree parking, it does meet the criteria. He stated the developer had been working with their interpretation, which provided for a IS-foot setback requirement being a dual front property. There may be a need to request a five foot variance to achieve a 25-foot setback rather than 30. Part of the reason for the 30-foot setback would be to provide for more green space. Mr. Kosmas displayed a color photograph of the proposed facility. With regard to the pump island, he stated there appears to be a typical canopy using the Amoco color scheme. The canopy will have the clear height of 14 feet required for clearances. Typical canopy height would be . between 30 and 48 inches. If the canopy is 14 feet with a 30-inch fascia, it would reach 16.6 feet. The City has a IS-foot requirement, therefore this issue would need to be addressed. He further stated there is a typical car wash building. There has been nothing at this time to appropriate roof length. The three facilities in Illinois do not have car washes, therefore the issue of how the car wash will blend with the existing building is still being evaluated. Typically, a car wash would achieve a height of approximately 13 to 14 feet. After receiving the Staff Report, the developer reviewed the site in an effort to gain parking space. He commented the developers are working at the conceptual stage and would have a fmal solution at the development stage. There are other alternatives for parking, however there remains a question as to the setback issue. Mr. Kosmas stated there are limitations with what can be done with wetlands based on state requirements and guidelines. Conceptually the developer has the ability to locate the building and parking stalls on the property to meet the requirements and fulfill the needs for both parking and .. setback requirements. He stated the lighting plans will be addressed. He further commented at the concept stage, the basic ideas meet the general requirements and then proceed to the development stage, at which time any issues with landscaping, lighting, signage, adjustments for grading, etcetera, would be resolved. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Sue Dodsen, 19265 Snady Hills Road, asked if she were addressing a concept, how would she address a development? She inquired if there would be a public hearing on that as well. She stated she and her husband are opposed to the proposal for several reasons. The first was for environmental reasons. The second was that expansion of strip development is not consistent with the goals of the neighborhood or the community. The third reason is the serious safety issues which arise with respect to the traffic pattern and congestion which already exists at Vine Hill Road, Delton and Highway 7. Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to explain the public hearing process. Nielsen explained on a planned unit development, the public hearing is at the concept stage. The Planning Commission and/or the . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 3 City Council could require additional hearings, however the initial concept is when the public hearing is held. It would be up to interested residents to track the development as it progresses, however the City does announce when a particular issue will be heard. Chair Borkon mentioned a number of letters had been received and were included in the packet for each Commissioner to review and she thanked the audience for their input. Marty Zgraggen, 5210 Shady Lane, provided a hand-out to the Commission which he reviewed in detail. Mr. Zgraggen raised concerns regarding the impact of this development on surrounding property values and stated the values would be depressed significantly which is in violation of city ordinance. He further stated there was currently no lighting plan. He anticipates the lighting will encroach the abutting residence. Noise will also be of concern. Mr. Zgraggen further stated water and snow drainage would be a problem in addition to various safety issues. He further commented the both neighborhood and the City have the right to dictate the type of businesses which would be allowed in this area. Mr. Zgraggen further noted within 2.5 miles of this area there exist seven gas stations, six convenience stores, three car washes, and two McDonald's. He requested, by way of his letter, the Commission consider rezoning the property and possibly using the site for a park. Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to address the issues raised by Mr. Zgraggen. Nielsen stated the purpose of the zoning ordinance is to create compatibility between various kinds of land uses. He further stated this site has been zoned in this way since at least 1973. The current ordinance requires screening and buffering to mitigate the effects a particular site has on a residential area when they are in close proximity as well as regulating the types of uses to mitigate any adverse effect on the property values. Nielsen stated a traffic study would also be very important in this case due to the congestion problem along the service road and intersection of Vine Hill and Delton. Nielsen stated drainage would need to be handled properly. He further explained the ponding area is where snow would typically end up. Since the parking is relatively short on the plan presented, and snow cannot be piled into required parking spaces, it would need to be accommodated on site. The 50-foot buffer provides area for that, as does the ponding area, as well as the setbacks. Nielsen stated he feels snow storage is adequate on the site. Commissioner Turgeon inquired with the high water table, would the ponding be adequate to handle the drainage. Nielsen stated there are drainage concerns in that area. He stated the engineer feels it is critical there be some overflow which moves in the other direction and that it not overflow onto that property. Chair Borkon asked Nielsen for the history of the zoning. Nielsen stated the site has been zoned in this way since at least 1973. The current Comprehensive Plan carries that forward. It doesn't suggest any down-zoning. If the City were going to do a rezoning, it would need to address the value of the commercial property itself. He further stated there is no proposal to change the zoning at this time. Commissioner Turgeon inquired of the developer why they chose this site given the number of gas stations, convenience stores, car washes and McDonald's within two miles of the site. Mr. Kosmas stated it is a good strip corridor, a well traveled area, and it justifies the numbers. He further stated Minnetonka will be expanding some facilities as well and this is a viable location with the level of traffic on Highway 7. Nielsen commented with reference to putting a park on the site, there had been a referendum a couple of years ago, primarily for the development of the existing park system, however the referendum had failed. The Park Plan does not call for any additional parks or additional land ,. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MA Y 7, 1996 - PAGE 4 acquisition. There is no money for that purpose and it would entail an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the Parks Plan to designate any given area as a park. It is also possible this site would not be suitable for a park. Commissioner Rosenberger asked whether the City can dictate to the developer the specific kind of project he can develop. Nielsen stated the ordinance does not attempt to interfere with the market. The City has the authority to regulate land uses and, in this case, has extra authority in that they are virtually all conditional uses within the zoning ordinance. They can be regulated to the extent the code has requirements. Chad Moore, 5220 Vine Hill, expressed opposition to the proposed development and his belief it would result in a negative effect on property values. He stated the retaining walls and wetland .are not accurately placed. He further stated concerns for watershed and the wetland. He commented the developer's plans indicate the water will drain in one direction, however, at the present time, it drains in three different directions. Mr. Moore stated when the site was improved, MNDOT was to put in privacy fences and he would like to see something done with regard to privacy fencing. He commented if this needed to be re-done to utilize the property, it should be done at a cost to the . developer. He stated the development would bring additional congestion which will make the Vine Hill Interchange a negative area in which to be a land owner. The multi-use on this site does not mix with the community. Chair Borkon asked if the water drains from the site in three different directions. Nielsen commented that was true of the current site and there would need to be significant site alterations. The proposal would be to drain everything to the southwest with the exception of the Vine Hill Road driveway. He stated that will need to be further addressed. Chair Borkon asked if the southeast wetlands and retaining walls are accurately placed or if they would have to be moved back. Nielsen stated they are accurate as far as where the developer proposed to put them. They are also in the wetland area and would need to be moved out of that. Wetland setbacks would also need to be addressed. Chair Borkon asked if the Commission could address the privacy fences even though it had been the plan ofMNDOT. Nielsen stated the privacy fencing which was placed along the south edge of . the new intersection stopped where it did because that was the end of the right-of-way. It was decided at the time the commercial property was finished, the screening and fencing would be extended along the residential boundary rather than in front of the commercial. MNDOT went as far as they had proposed to go. Lloyd Enger, 5230 Vine Hill Road, expressed concern regarding the run-off problem going the other direction several years ago on Vine Hill Road which required culverts and drainage. He inquired as to the cost for eliminating the wetland areas when they would bring in tax dollars for a business. Where would the water go that goes into wetlands area? Is there a cost to the community or taxpayer to culvert and get the water re-routed? Mr. Enger stated a further concern for the deer, ducks, and squirrels. He stated the community misses the Skipperette and Mr. Pyle. Chair Borkon asked Planning Director Nielsen to respond to Mr. Enger's question regarding the cost of buying a wetland area and eliminating it. Nielsen stated Shorewood has had wetland requirements since the early '70s. Shorewood has become more restrictive in that regard, not "only protecting the designated wetlands which are identified as a part of that first ordinance, but it is not allowed to be counted for density purposes in the case of residential. It cannot be altered. If it is, it has to be mitigated and kept in some configuration. Nielsen also stated the Wetland Conservation Action of 1991 has been enforced. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION l\1EETING MAY 7, 1996 - PAGE 5 Cindy Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, expressed concern for the environmental impact and the effect on property values. She commented that Holiday is very close by. McDonald's would generate considerable traffic which will take away the efforts to make this a safe intersection. This would also result in increased littering. This residential area not a good location for buildings serving customers in late hours. Ms. Heimer also stated her concerns for the air and noise pollution this development would cause in the neighborhood. Ms. Heimer's letter was submitted as a part of the record. Chair Borkon inquired regarding the late hours. Nielsen stated the current hours of Holiday are 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and could be negotiated as part of a conditional use permit. He further stated the conditional use process allows the City to place additional conditions on a development such as hours of operation. Maria Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, stated seven concerns. The first, there is a gas station about a block away. This development would require cutting down trees. Noise pollution would be a factor. There would be increased traffic on an already busy intersection. There would be litter flying into the residents' yards. The increase in the number of people coming and going would be of concern for the children in the area. The development will also generate gas and food fumes. Ms. Heimer submitted her letter to the Commission. Chair Borkon thanked her for attending and expressing her opinions. Sandy Abts, 5129 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, inquired when the current commercial zoning went into effect. She commented the zoning should be reviewed to determine its appropriateness. She stated there is a vast discrepancy between the City of Minnetonka's plan to create a bike path along Vine Hill Road with the proposed plan which would drive major traffic from Highway 7 to Vine Hill Road, through an already congested intersection. She further commented the lighting will be annoying. The neighborhood is quiet and pleasant. There are many small children who ride bikes and play baseball. Ms. Abts stated when the Burger King was open, this area would serve as a shortcut for the Minnetonka High School students who were going to the market and Burger King. High school students would drive recklessly through the neighborhood causing safety hazards. She further commented this is not a problem any amount of landscaping or fencing could solve. Ms. Abts further stated the log home currently located on that site, which would have to be removed, was brought to this location from Fort Snelling and has historical significance. She further stated when the land was purchased, she had assumed it was residential and would remain so. Icy conditions on this particular roadway are a problem. She further commented the local media has been investigating questionable business practices of some of the parties involved. Chair Borkon asked Nielsen to comment on the issues of the log home to be removed and the current zoning. Nielsen stated he was not aware of any historical significance in regard to the home, however staff will research that. He further stated the zoning possibly dates back to before 1973. In terms of its appropriateness, at the time it was zoned, it was judged to be appropriate. From a planning standpoint, it may not be today. If it were appropriate, some sort of transition would probably be proposed between this site and the residential to the south. In working with existing conditions and zoning patterns, there is an effort to mitigate things through site design and regulation of uses. Nielsen also commented the traffic is a concern. A study in 1987 resulted in a recommendation that Vine Hill Road intersection should be upgraded and not closed off. That particular study identified the level of service will never achieve what an ideal situation would be. Nielsen explained to change the current zoning, the City would be looking at the potential of a taking. If the property is devalued, there could be some expense involved with that, however cities do down-zone property. Studies would have to be done to make a determination whether a change in zoning would be appropriate. He further commented the intersection size is probably not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 6 appropriate for housing, so it does suggest an alternate non-residential use might be more appropriate. Chair Borkon asked if Shorewood would be participating in the bike path proposed by Minnetonka. Nielsen commented the bike trail is on the Minnetonka side. Shorewood will include Vine Hill Road on its MSA system and agree to cooperate with any improvement of Vine Hill Road. He further stated a bike trail would be consistent with a collector street. Nielsen briefly explained the meaning of MSA and what being an MSA street entails. Tom Dousette, 5123 Valley View Road, stated in his past experience, students spent time at Burger King rather than in school. He stated when Highway 62 is finished, it will merge onto Vine Hill Road and will create additional traffic. Burger King did generate a large amount of litter. Commissioner Turgeon stated it cannot be anticipated how much additional traffic will result on Vine Hill Road from Highway 62. Bethany Hanna, 51 08 Valley View Road, commented on concerns regarding students loitering at . McDonald's rather than being in school. She stated the traffic is dangerous and would only be enhanced by bringing in a McDonald's. She further stated there are no sidewalks in the area and would like to know if the developer is prepared to absorb the cost of installing sidewalks. Ms. Hanna commented on the noise and disruption of large trucks and gas tankers coming through on a regular basis. Chair Borkon inquired of the sidewalk issue. Nielsen stated there are no pedestrian facilities to speak of in the area. Minnetonka has proposed a bike path on their side of the road. Shorewood has not proposed anything for their side. When the intersection was developed, there was discussion of creating a sidewalk. That is a possibility, however it is not programmed at this time. The right-of-way needs to be adequate for pedestrian movements. Borkon inquired who would be required to pay the cost of the sidewalks. Nielsen explained there are instances where a development comes in and the development would agree to pay for pedestrian facilities. If there was an attempt to go around the intersection, that would be a city expense. Marty Snyder, 19855 Chartwell Hill, suggested the operations in lllinois be investigated to see if . any of them are located in residential areas or possibly do some canvasing to see how people there feel about the operation. She further expressed concern to investigate the credentials of the developers. Ms. Snyder stated she also called the I-Team to report questionable practices by one of the developers. She expressed hope the City of Shorewood would work with the City of Minnetonka to develop a vision. Ms. Snyder asked if there would be a survey, such as the one the Park Commission utilized, to frod out how the residents feel about this development. She further commented the addition of high density commercial on this site will make the strip more attractive to other developments. Ms. Snyder asked what would need to be done to have this property rezoned. Chair Borkon inquired if it would be appropriate to check the credentials of the developers. Planning Director Nielsen stated the City's concerns are that the project, if approved, gets done in the manner it was approved. The City would want to confirm there would be adequate funding available to accomplish the site improvements. Cash escrows or letters of credit would be required based upon estimates of improvements. That would then be multiplied by 150 percent to arrive at the amount of the cash escrow. He further stated the City does not get into the background of the developers. The only time that would be done would be in the issuance of a liquor license. Nielsen stated the City Attorney could be consulted in that regard, however the primary concern is financial and whether or not they meet the criteria. . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7,1996 - PAGE 7 Chair Borkon stated the idea of working with Minnetonka to develop a vision is a good idea. Nielsen said the City does try to coordinate with surrounding communities and has recently had some positive. contact with Excelsior and Victoria. As far as the area in question, Nielsen stated it is mostly developed, with the exception of this site. He stated the City could confer with Minnetonka in an effort to coordinate land uses. Borkon asked how a development together would be initiated. Nielsen stated he would look into that. Jo Dahl, 5201 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka, stated it would be important to know the date the site was zoned commercial. She stated the hill is a natural buffer of intersection noise for the area. If the natural buffer were removed, it would create additional noise. She stated the car wash next door to the City offices is almost underground and is not comparable. Ms. Dahl stated when the service road was widened and smoothed, it became a raceway for teens. She expressed a concern for pedestrian traffic safety on Vine Hill Road and stated the main purpose of this development will be to increase traffic. Chair Borkon stated there appears to be an issue that possibly the zoning has been changed without the public being aware of it. Nielsen stated the rules relative to rezoning have changed drastically, however, staff will research and find the date and circumstances under which this site was rezoned. Tom Heimer, 5215 Shady Lane, stated his main concerns are the noise factor and the signs. He stated he can currently hear stereo noises from the intersection in his back yard and in his house. If additional trees are taken out, that will increase the noise. Mr. Heimer submitted a videotape of the point of view from his back yard for the Commissions' review. Chair Borkon requested Planning Director Nielsen make arrangements for the Commission to view the video tape at the next meeting. Mike Nicklaus, 5240 Vine Hill Road, commented the neighborhood has developed as a residential neighborhood. He expressed a concern for the zoning to be updated. He inquired why Jim Pyle had been turned down on his request for gas pumps on that site. Mr. Nicklaus stated the developer was trying to fit too much on a site that is too small. Chair Borkon stated the Commission was not considering Mr. Pyle's situation, however, the reason he was initially denied on his request was for trying to fit too much into too small of an area. She further stated Mr. Pyle had been faced with the same problems such as sight distance and congestion. He fmally did get approved and at that point he decided to sell. Mark Jones, 19600 Chimo West, Deephaven, stated he is a contractor/developer/partner in Waterford townhouses and Waterford commercial. He stated he is presently building Ashcroft on Vine Hill Road and he built Stratford Wood I and Stratford Wood IT which is off of Hunter's Ridge. He stated he personally feels, as a developer, the site is too small for all that is proposed. Mr. Jones stated he lost at least one, possibly two sales at Ashcroft because of the Burger King. He stated his biggest concern is the children in Stratford Wood IT will be loitering at McDonald's. Mr. Jones further commented in coming from the south to the North on Vine Hill Road and turning onto the service road, looking for the site where the car wash is proposed would be almost blind. Gary Westman, 5240 Shady Lane, described a day in the life of having Burger King in the immediate area. Tractor/trailers are brought in at non-peak hours. The sounds of the drive-thru begin early in the morning. High school students come through residential yards and garbage is left behind. He stated lighting would make a difference and is a serious concern. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996 - PAGE 8 Jim Federline, 19480 Shady Hills Road, asked if the car wash would be the traditional Amoco automatic style car wash where the customer is given a slip of paper with a code number they would need to punch into a console. Trash would be an issue with the car wash. Mr. Federline spoke of concerns regarding high school students cutting through at peak hours. He also expressed concern for the animals living in the area. He further stated the Minnetonka High School was not aware of this proposed development until May 6th. Chair Borkon inquired if the car wash would be the standard car wash consisting of the console. Mr. Kosmas stated typically all car washes are operated in this manner and the issue of what a customer does with that slip of paper would be up to that particular individual. Chair Borkon asked Mr. Nielsen to address the issue of traffic and cut throughs. Nielsen stated one suggestion would be to monitor traffic and, if necessary, channelize the intersection at Vine Hill Road and Shady Hills Road so as to restrict turning movements and through traffic. He further stated this would need to be a physical channelization. Chair Borkon suggested the Commission consider this at a future meeting. She inquired if the residents in the area would be . . notified when this subject is placed on an agenda. Nielsen stated the first step in a problem traffic area would be to monitor the traffic. There are traffic counts from the late '80s. The monitoring would need to be scheduled and the count compared with the earlier count. If it is increased, at that point, the neighborhood could be brought in to discuss solutions to that problem. Chair Borkon inquired what steps would be necessary to schedule the monitoring. Nielsen stated direction from the Planning Commission could accomplish that monitoring. Matt Larson, 5125 Vine Hill Road, expressed concern regarding the noise produced by the blowers in the car wash. If the proposed development were to be approved, a future sale of the home would be difficult. He also stated he is confident property values would decrease. Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9:52 p.m. and reconvened at 9:57 p.m. James Favor, Lot 28, 5152 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated the intersection is a safety hazard. Ice is also a problem. Cars coming from the car wash dripping wet will cause more ice on an already icy intersection. He stated the biggest issue is the safety factor. Brett Helgeson, 5640 Vine Hill Road, asked what the criteria would be for a traffic study and what would constitute a pass or fail as far as this particular development. He stated in approximately 1990 there was a discussion regarding the speed on Vine Hill Road. A study concluded the average speed was 50 mph which the residents felt to be very accurate. Mr. Helgeson stated another concern is the Crosstown into Delton. He further stated he believed the developers were aware Crosstown will come into Vine Hill Road at some point and they are counting on that traffic. A traffic study at this time will not identify that traffic and he asks the Planning Commission to take those future considerations into account when considering the proposed development. Chair Borkon stated Highway 62 will be a traffic generator. She asked Nielsen to explain the criteria for a traffic study. Nielsen stated traffic studies in that area do anticipate the completion of Crosstown. He further stated a traffic study would be looking for total volume as well as peak hour volumes of traffic to make a determination whether the roads which serve the property are adequate to handle that. The effect of the amount of traffic versus the capacity of those streets would be evaluated. Nielsen explained that if the traffic generated by the proposed use exceeds the capacity of the road, it fails. He further explained when the traffic study was completed, 50 mph was the top speed rather than the average speed. . . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996 - PAGE 9 Tom Dousette, 5123 Valley View Road, Minnetonka, stated several members of the Valley View Road neighborhood had contacted McDonald's. He further stated McDonald's expressed concerned because they were not aware of any opposition to the proposed development. It was McDonald's understanding from the developer there was very little opposition. The neighborhood informed McDonald's of the petition in opposition containing in excess of 100 names of the residents who live in the immediate area. Mr. Dousette expressed concern there may have been some misrepresentation to McDonald's on the initial plan. Amoco was contacted, but did not wish to discuss this development. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:04 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad inquired about the inconsistent use between the zoning and the fact there is a house on the property. Nielsen stated this could be researched. Kolstad stated a concern of the C-3 zoning which has had a house on it for 30 to 40 years. She further inquired if the developer's plan was still feasible with the wetland setbacks on it. Nielsen stated it is not identified on the site, so the extent to which it requires modification is not clear at this point. Mr. Kosmas stated this was new information, however, it would be their intent to make this work. Kolstad questioned if the developer would be able to meet the requirements for parking taking the setbacks into consideration. Mr. Kosmas stated he would be able to meet those requirements. Commissioner Kolstad read the purpose of a conditional use permit from the Shorewood City Ordinance, Section 1201.04, subd. 3, Conditional Use Permits. Kolstad stated on that provision, the discussion heard, and a view of the site, the Commission would be justified in not accepting this use, since a conditional use permit would be required under the ordinance. Kolstad moved, Rosenberger seconded, a motion to recommend denial of the Application of D.Y.S. Properties for Preliminary Plat and C.U.P. for Amoco/McDonald's/Car Wash Facility P.U.D., 5170 Vine Hill Road. Commissioners Rosenberger and Pisula stated this development is too large for the site. Rosenberger commented this was not to say this site would not get some kind of commercial operation. He stated the Commission will discuss rezoning the site. Commissioner Turgeon stated she would like to have entertained a discretionary EA W had this development proceeded or had another project of similar usage been proposed. Because of problems with regard to air quality, contaminated soil potential, contaminated ground water potential, traffic and vehicle air emission, there would be nothing that would not reach the environmental guidelines for an EA W. She further conunented even if this development were to proceed, she would want an EA W. Chair Borkon stated she shares the views of the Commission. She further stated this issue would likely be confronted again since the site is zoned conunercial at this point. She conunented she would like to discuss the procedure for re-examining the zoning of the site as well as the traffic cut- through which will be reviewed. Borkon stated she would also like to discuss the possibility of working with the City of Minnetonka to develop a vision for this area so neighborhood objectives could be met. Commissioner Kolstad clarified that the request for a conditional use permit was being denied because it does not meet the requirements of a conditional use permit as outlined in Shorewood City Ordinances, Section 1201.04, subd. 3, Conditional Use Permits. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 10 Mr. Kosmas asked to clarify the procedures to be followed at this point Planning Director Nielsen stated there would not be a public hearing with the City Council unless the Council were to determine an additional public hearing were appropriate. He further explained the Council is the Board of Adjustment on appeals. Mr. Kosmas asked if he was correct in stating the motion was denied based on the ordinance which was read by Commissioner Kolstad. Commissioner Kolstad stated the denial was based on the criteria set forth in Section 1201.04. Mr. Kosmas stated he wanted to be very clear on the denial because the parties are very interested in this site. He further stated modifications couId be done to the building and it is his belief the question of the wetlands can be resolved and that it is an overriding factor. He stated his understanding if the request goes through appeal or deny, the developers would still have the opportunity to come back and go through the process again. Planning Director Nielsen stated that a similar application could not be submitted for six months.. Chair Borkon explained to Mr. Kosmas the development he proposed was not at all acceptable. She stated there was very little the Commission could concur with. Commissioner Rosenberger informed Mr. Kosmas he could ask that the request not be presented to the City Council and he could then present a different proposal to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kosmas stated he does recognize the concerns of the neighbors, although he does not agree with all of them. . 2. PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE Applicant: Ronald Born Location: 4865 Ferncroft Drive Chair Borkon announced the case and asked Planning Director Nielsen to review the case. Mr. Born stated he had just recently received the recommendations on the cost of closing up the . present structure and the cost of removing the shed. For this reason, he has not had an opportunity to obtain an estimate from a contractor. He stated he will obtain an estimate at which time the escrow could be calculated. Mr. Born explained with regard to the existing storage shed which was to be removed, he has made arrangements to take the structure down with the assistance of a friend, however, he would like to have the proposed garage built before disassembling the shed since it serves as storage for various equipment Mr. Born also inquired if he would be bound to the dimensions of the structure as listed in the proposal. He explained that each builder utilizes different dimension. Mr. Born asked if the building was within the required square foot dimensions, would it be possible to change the dimensions. Nielsen stated that with a variance, whatever is presented as a part of the variance is what he would need to comply with. The building permit would have to be consistent with what is approved as a part of the variance. Nielsen suggested the proposal state the structure will not be inconsistent by more than four feet in either direction. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 11 Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:27 p.m. Hearing no response, Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:27 p.m. Commissioner Turgeon asked the applicant if it was his intention to house his other vehicles which are inoperable in the new facility. Mr. Born stated he would be removing the inoperable vehicles and the vehicle which is currently stored under his deck will be stored in the new garage. Turgeon moved, Rosenberger seconded a motion to recommend approving the setback variance for Ronald Born with the recommendations that the dimensions of the garage do not vary by four feet of the proposed 26 x 38 dimensions in the staff report and not to exceed 1,000 square feet, that the project be completed within six months of the issuance of the permit and that escrow be posted. Motion passed 6/0. Chair Borkon informed the applicant this request will come before the City Council on May 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. . 3. PUBLIC HEARING. SETBACK VARIANCE. REVISED Referred by City Council on 22 April 1996 Applicant: Richard Hoyt Location: 5710 Ridge Road . Chair Borkon announced the case. Planning Director Nielsen reviewed the case. Upon going before the City Council, the applicant suggested he would be willing to revise his proposal in order to comply with city zoning regulations. Nielsen reviewed the applicant's letter which outlines his proposal. He commented the numbers in the proposal do not quite come up to the amount of the deck, however, Mr. Hoyt's attorney had conveyed that Mr. Hoyt would be willing to remove approximately 200 square feet of concrete, which is part of a dog kennel, on the lake side of the property and that the resulting hard cover would actually be a net reduction by about 100 square feet. Nielsen stated his recommendation would be to reconsider the previous motion with a stipulation as to when the corrections would take place. Planning Director Nielsen stated it had been placed on the City Council's agenda because the Planning Commission had taken action on it, so it was required to be placed on the agenda. He also stated the delays have been a result of scheduling. He further stated the Council, at its last meeting, did refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of the revisions. Mr. Hoyt stated that since he had appeared in December, he had attempted to address the two main issues which were the aesthetics and the run off. Mr. Hoyt explained in detail how these issues have been addressed. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:38 p.m. Bruce Benson stated this problem started in connection with the DNR requirement for 75-foot setbacks. He stated there has been a history of this type of thing occurring on Christmas Lake for years. He stated he didn't feel the applicant was asking for any more than anyone else had always had. Mr. Benson further stated he did a calculation which included people with decks, boat houses, houses, large houses, and whole houses in the setback requirement and approximately 56 percent of the people on the lake are in violation. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996 - PAGE 12 Benson further stated the Planning Commission tries to reflect the zoning of what is existing rather than what is coming up. He stated the percentage would be higher than 56 if enforcement had not been occurring. He stated one building which had been required to be removed was part of the character of the lake. He stated the Commission wants to change the 75-foot requirement, but the lake is the way it is and part of the charm of it is that people have decks down at the lake due to a hardship or some other reason. Benson went on to say that what Mr. Hoyt was asking to do was relatively small. He commented on the structure at Kowalski's. He stated Mr. Hoyt has a screen porch and a deck behind the trees, however, the Commission gave two more floors to a building which is entirely in the setback requirement. He stated the request came about because the owner wanted a garage and expanded from a garage, which was seen as a hardship, to a building which gained more floors. Benson related another instance where an historic building, which is also entirely within the setback, received approval for a new roof. That came about as a result of the owner requesting a garage by the road. Benson stated the hardship in Mr. Hoyt's case is that he isn't asking for any more than what is . reflected or in place. He stated as far as a delay tactic is concerned, it hasn't been delayed. He stated he could probably get a 4/5 vote, however he stated he would not be able to get a 5/5 vote. He further commented the applicant has made changes and if the Commission is satisfied with the changes, he would like to see it approved since what he is asking for is really no different than others have. He stated the resident who filed the complaint had actually wanted to do the same with his property. Benson stated what should be reflected is what is existing. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. Commissioner Kolstad stated although she agrees with Benson, there is a 75-foot setback. She asked if the rules should be changed for the east side of Christmas Lake. If every residence is in violation of the zoning, perhaps the zoning is not consistent with that neighborhood and needs to be looked at. She further commented she is not certain it is a hardship to not have deck down by the lake. Chair Borkon inquired what it would take to examine the ordinances as the City has them and . would it be realistic to make changes to them in order to bring these homes into compliance. Nielsen stated any zoning ordinances are subject to periodic review and, in some cases, revision. He further stated the City would need to contend with the Shoreland Management Regulations. It would be contrary to everything in the Comprehensive Plan to reduce the setback to the extent it would allow structures in close proximity to the water. Commissioner Rosenberger stated, to a certain degree, the City is driven by the requirements of the DNR. He further stated he was in agreement with Commissioner Kolstad and feels it is important to remain consistent. The purpose of rules and guidelines is to do just that, provide guidance. Commissioner Lizee stated it was upsetting to think that granting a variance would set a precedence around the lake which would need to be upheld. The applicant's alternative plan reduces the pre- deck total hard cover by one-third of one percent. The deck, which is now built illegally, would add one-half of one percent of hard cover to just under 2.5 acres the applicant owns. She further stated hard cover is not the issue, however zoning regulations are the issue. Nothing has changed since December 5th. Lizee suggested reading the criteria for granting a variance contained in Planning Director Nielsen's memo dated November 28, 1995, Pages 2 and 3. Lizee also stated her disappointment in having been directed to revisit this issue when there is no new information to . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 13 review and in light of the many issues currently on the Planning Commission's schedule which have merit, that is where the Commission's time and energy would be best utilized. Unpleasant decisions need to be made and although this is an unfortunate situation, it is the role of the Planning Commission to uphold city codes and zoning regulations for the benefit and safety of the entire community. Commissioner Pisula stated the mission of the Planning Commission is to enforce the law as the Commission sees it. Chair Borkon stated this was particularly difficult since she is a neighbor, however there is no manner of enforcement and the Commission needs to address that. She stated this is an unfortunate situation, however, the property is not in compliance with the ordinance and there is nothing which can be done to put it in compliance. She further stated she also agrees with Council Liaison Benson and his argument has merit. Commissioner Turgeon reiterated the fact there is variance criteria which was established by higher powers than the Commission. She stated there are Shoreland Management Ordinances, and bluff requirements. She further commented she does not appreciate Mr. Benson's comment in regard to a 4/5 vote. Turgeon stated it does no good to have ordinances if they are not going to be followed. She further stated if a building permit had been pulled, this situation could have been avoided. Commissioner Rosenberger stated that the point of the guidelines which are given to the Commission is to provide guidelines. He stated one of the major aspects of the guidelines is the hardship case. Chair Borkon stated hardship cases are open to interpretation. Commissioner Turgeon stated this does not apply only to Christmas Lake. Therefore, if it is acceptable to do something on Christmas Lake, the it is acceptable to do it on all of the other lakes. Planning Director Nielsen stated a very conscious decision had been made to handle these situations on a complaint by complaint basis. Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded a motion to recommend denying the setback variance request of Richard Hoyt, 5710 Ridge Road. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. Chair Borkon informed the applicant he would have an opportunity to appear before the City Council on May 28, 1996, at 7:30 p.m. 4. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT - REMOVE DETACHED GARAGE Applicant: Mark Warren Location: 5260 St. Alban's Bay Road Chair Borkon announced the case and requested Planning Director Nielsen review the case. . The applicant stated he had given the structure to another person who had, in turn, hired a mover. He further explained he was not aware of the fact a permit was needed. Mr. Warren inquired if the driver had provided a copy of his license and bond. Nielsen stated he had not received those items and that he would also need copies of the approvals which had been obtained. Rosenberger moved, Lizee seconded a motion approving the building moving permit to remove a detached garage by Mark Warren, 5260 St. Alban's Bay Road. Motion passed 6/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996 - PAGE 14 5. MA TTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 6. REPORTS Commissioner Kolstad stated almost 800 snowmobile survey responses have been received. The first draft shows 753 responses and approximately one-third voted to ban snowmobiling while the remaining were looking at other alternatives. The alternatives being considered involve education, training and safety. Kolstad will prepare a summary for the next Commission meeting. The survey will give the Task Force considerable direction with respect to decision making. The Task Force has begun looking at various policy areas and will proceed with the analysis and recommendation making. Commissioner Turgeon spoke of the land use session which she attended along with Commissioners Lizee and Kolstad in which the topic was Comprehensive Plans. City Attorney Keane addressed this issue in a memorandum. Planning Director Nielsen explained the Comprehensive Plan and zoning need to be consistent, however, the Comprehensive Plan does not . supersede the zoning process. Chair Borkon inquired about park dedications. Nielsen stated the City cannot charge park dedication fees if they are not going to build and develop parks. The City does not plan on acquiring more land, however, there are development plans for parks, which are allowable. Planning Director Nielsen stated there was an issue with regard to interim use permits which 'will be discussed at some future time. Commissioner Turgeon stated there was a suggestion that when conducting public hearings, copies of staff reports should be made available for the audience to look at. Chair Borkon stated that information would be available upon request. Nielsen stated it would be very difficult to anticipate the number of copies needed. Commissioner Turgeon stated the other issue discussed was the 60 day requirement and problems which could be encountered if someone other than the Planning Director were to accept the application. Nielsen stated the process exceeds 60 days, therefore the application form was . modified to contain an acknowledgment the applicant must sign indicating they understand the process will take longer than 60 days and up to 120 days and they are waiving that right. He further stated the application would have to be reviewed within 10 days of being submitted. If it is incomplete, the applicant must be notified. Chair Borkon inquired if the Christmas Lake Management Plan for May 1996 had been submitted. Nielsen confirmed it had. Nielsen stated the Commission will receive a tabulation of the priorities which will be reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan. Council Liaison Benson stated the Senior Center is up for bid. He also stated he would appreciate any input on police coverage. Excelsior wants to cut 500 hours of patrol time. Benson suggested perhaps the City should consider its own police force. Commissioner Rosenberger stated a separate fire and police district may be appropriate. ~... . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 7, 1996-PAGE 15 7. ADJOURNMENT Turgeon moved, Pisula seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:40 p.m. . Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 . (612)474-3236 EXECU~S~RY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAy 28,1996 ~. ! \ {j~ !J Agenda Item #3A: Carl Zinn, representing Thomas McCary, has requested an extension for filing the final plat for the McCary Addition, a two-lot subdivision on Ridge Road. The City Code provides for no more than two, six-month extensions. The Planning Director recommends approval of the extension. Agenda Item #3B: Everything seems to be in order for this block party request to close off a small area at the end of Glen Road between 6:00 and 10:00 p.m., Thursday, June 27. The public safety departments are aware of the request and have no concern. In the event of rain, the party will be held on Monday, July 1. Agenda Item #3C: Mr. Dan Ohland has requested additional time to comply with a "notice to remove". While some grading work remains to be completed, most of the offensive materials have been removed from the site. It is recommended that Mr. Ohland be given no more than 30 days to comply with the Code. Agenda Item #5: Representative Tom Workman has asked time on this agenda to discuss legislative issues which affect Shorewood. Agenda Item #6: This public hearing is a requirement in advance of executing our lease purchase obligation agreement regarding the Senior Community Center. Finance Director Al Rolek will explain the agreement before Council asks for public comment and before considering the resolution of approval. Agenda Item #7 A: Richard Hoyt returned to the Planning Commission with a revised variance request which proposed to remove the new building and an existing building near the lake as well as removing additional hardcover to total less than what exists today. Although the Planning Director recommended that this appeared to be a reasonable compromise, the Planning Commission recommended unanimously to deny the revised request. The Council should direct staff to prepare findings of fact either approving or denying the variance, keeping in mind that anything less than four affirmative votes constitutes a denial. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Executive Summary for City Council Agenda of May 28, 1996 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #7B: DYS Properties has requested conditional use permits for a fast food, convenience store with gas, and a car wash on property zoned C-3, General Commercial, located at 5170 Vine Hill Road. The staff report for the application cites a number of issues and areas where the plans do not comply with Shorewood Code requirements. The . Planning Commission, concerned with existing and potential traffic problems and the general affect on neighboring residential property, both in Minnetonka as. well as Shorewood, voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request. The Council should direct staff to prepare findings of fact. Agenda Item #7C: The staff and Planning Commission recommend approval of a permit for Mark Warren to move an existing garage out of the City, subject to conditions. Approval requires a simple majority. Agenda Item #7D: Ron Born proposes to build a detached garage within 10 feet of a designated fire lane. The Planning Director recommended that the common lot line between the applicant's lot and the fire lane should be treated as a typical side yard rather than a . street right-of-way, citing precedence which has been established on Lake William and the Eureka Road fIre lanes. The Planning Commission agreed unanimously to recommend approval of the variance. The Council should direct staff to prepare a fmdings of fact. Approval requires a four-fifths vote of the Council. Agenda Item #7E: At the last meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a fmdings of fact denying the application for the Watten Ponds development. The developer has since requested that no action be taken on the 12-lot proposal, and that he be able to return to the Planning Commission with a revised plat. Staff has advised the developer to request that the statutory deadline for processing the application be extended. Depending on when the developer can submit revised plans, this item would be scheduled for review by the Planning Commission at its first meeting in July. Since the direction of both the Planning Commission and the Council was to process the application as a P.D.D. zoning district rather than a rezoning to R -1 C, a second public hearing is required at the Council level, subsequent to the Planning Commission making its recommendation. Agenda Item #8: Gary Groen from Abdo, Abdo and Eick will be present to review the City's 1995 fmancial audit report. He also will present us with a Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting. .. Agenda Item #9: Chief Richard Young will be present to discuss with the City Council details regarding the City of Excelsior's inquiry about the City of Shorewood absorbing several hundred hours of patrol. Agenda Item #10: Enclosed in the packet is the agreement for water service with the City of Victoria. Although the City of Shorewood has approved the agreement in principle previously, some changes have been made since that action, therefore the Council should authorize execution of this fmal agreement. Agenda Item #11: Teri Naab has been working with a citizen volunteer committee to develop Shorewood's web site on the Internet. The policy for our web site is enclosed in the packet for your review and consideration. It is recommended that you approve this policy by motion. Any future policy changes can be made administratively upon reporting the changes to the Council. . . " CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SHOREWOOD MONDA Y, MAY 13, 1996 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DRAFT. Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.rn. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, McCarty, Shaw, Stover; City Administrator Hurm; City Attorney Keane; Planning Director Brad Nielsen; City Engineer Larry Brown and Finance Director Alan Rolek. Review Agenda B. McCarty moved, Shaw seconded to approve the agenda for May 13, 1996, as amended to add Item lIB Change Order to Caterpillar Grader 140H. Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Review and Acceptance of Statement of Purpose, Statement of Goals, Statement of City Values and City Council Priorities for 1996. Stover moved, McCarty seconded to accept the Statement of Purpose, Statement of Goals, Statement of City Values and City Council Priorities for 1996. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Reconvened Board of Review Minutes - April 22, 1996 Stover moved, Benson seconded to approve the Reconvened Board of Review Minutes of April 22, 1996, as amended on Page 1, Item 3, change Peach Drive to read Peach Circle; Page 1, Item 3, change Elbert Port to reach Elbert Point. Motion passed 5/0. B . City Council Regular Meeting Minutes - April 22, 1996 Benson moved, Stover seconded to approve the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 13, Line 2, insert a space between "right-of-way" and "so"; Page 3, Paragraph 3, Line 3, should read "due to the poor quality"; Page 3, Paragraph 7, Line 1, insert a space between "be" and "brought"; Page 4, Paragraph 2, Line 2 change "approve" to "approving". Page 6, Paragraph 3, change "he" to "Nielsen." Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes - April 22, 1996 McCarty moved, Benson seconded to approve the City Council Work Session Meeting Minutes of April 22, 1996. Motion passed 5/0. D. City Council Special Meeting Minutes - May 1, 1996 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 2 ., Stover moved, McCarty seconded to approve the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of May 1, 1996. Motion passed 5/0. E. Mayor to Report on Special Council Meeting held May 1, 1996 Mayor Bean explained a Special Council Meeting was held on May 1, 1996, to discuss the final floor and site plans for the senior community center. The plans and specifications had not been available for the regular Council meeting prior to May 1 st. The Council did not want to delay the opportunity to obtain bids and keep the project moving. Due to conflicting schedules, it was not possible to televise the meeting. Bids should be received on this project by June 6, 1996. The next step will be to analyze cost versus budget. The Council also approved a proclamation designating Mayas "Older Americans' Month" in recognition of the contributions of the senior citizens in the community. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Bean read the Consent Agenda for May 13, 1996. Stover moved, Shaw seconded to approve the Motions on the Consent Agenda and . to adopt the Resolutions therein: A. RESOLUTION NO. 96-38, "A Resolution Appointing 1996 Election Clerk. " B. RESOLUTION NO. 96-39, "A Resolution Approving an On-Sale and Sunday Liquor License for the Minnetonka Country Club." C. RESOLUTION NO. 96-40. "A Resolution Assuming Responsibility for Roads and Utilities in Smithtown Way Easement." D. RESOLUTION NO. 96-41, "A Resolution Making Appointments to the Shorewood Park Foundation Board of Directors." 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Christine Lizee, 27055 Smithtown Road, spoke in favor of the Smithtown Road hiking and biking trail. Smithtown Road is a popular route for strolling, hiking, biking, running and children walking to the elementary school. Being a collector route, it is also popular with motorized vehicles and many vehicles do not adhere to the posted speed limit. The trail will bring safety to all who use it. . Karen Anderson, 25920 Smithtown Road, also spoke in favor of the Smithtown Road trail. She stated the neighborhood is well traveled. She expressed the need for a road system for children to get to parks and school. Traffic has increased dramatically with the new development and this presents a serious safety issue. Ms. Anderson also stated the implementation of the trail would not jeopardize the country atmosphere of the area as the anti-trail groups have suggested. 5 . PARKS - Report by Representative Park Commissioner Dallman reviewed the actions taken and recommendations made by the Commission at its April 23, 1996 meeting (detailed in the minutes of that meeting). . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 3 Mayor Bean noted the new members on the Park Foundation are Jim Wilson, Scott Hansen, Robert Noren, Ken Dallman and Bill Keeler. 6. PLANNING - Report by Representative Planning Commissioner Pisula reviewed the actions taken and recommendations made by the Commission at its May 7, 1996 meeting at which the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the request for rezoning and conditional use permit for Watten Ponds P.U.D. (detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact regarding a Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit - Watten Ponds P.U.D. Applicant: Location: Dahlstrom Abingdon L.L.P. 5340 and 5370 Eureka Road Nielsen reviewed his report in detail as well as the actions and recommendations of the Planning Commission. He advised the request has been forwarded to the City Council with a negative recommendation. Mayor Bean asked Nielsen to expand on the issue surrounding the EA W as far as State statute rules. Nielsen explained in a project of this magnitude and nature, the City would be unable to require an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Attorney Keane stated there is a minimum threshold. The proposal did not meet the requirement for a Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Mayor Bean inquired if there were new proposals by the developer. Rod Krass, attorney for the developer, informed the Council no new proposals had been made. Mayor Bean asked for some points of clarification with regard to Exhibit E and the building pad designation. Nielsen indicated the building pad sizes were considered to be unrealistic relative to the size homes that are built by Tony Eiden & Company. Mayor Bean stated, based upon a review of the materials and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the size of structures is one of the significant concerns of the residences in the area. He asked Nielsen if there was an architectural ordinance which states a developer cannot exceed a certain percent of hardcover. Nielsen stated that would be true under traditional zoning, however, under P.U.D., the City can address building sizes, color, material, etc., although it does not usually come down to that type of detail. Nielsen explained a P.U.D. is negotiated between the developer and the Council. He stated the Planning Commission did not want to go that route and dictate the size of the buildings although they were concerned about the large size of the building compared to the lot. Nielsen stated in speaking with the developer, he did not feel the developer was willing to consider smaller buildings for the smaller lots. Mayor Bean asked Mr. Krass if the size of the homes was a negotiable point if the Council were to consider a P.U.D. Mr. Krass responded if the Council were to approve the zoning but not the P.U.D. as proposed, the developer would be willing to discuss options. Mayor Bean inquired if the developer would consider a 20,000 square foot lot. Mr. Krass stated that was probably not a possibility. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 4 Mayor Bean felt the proposed homes should be more consistent with the neighborhood. He asked if 12 units was a minimum regardless of P. U.D. and Mr. Krass stated the developer needs 12 units to make the development work. Mayor Bean asked for clarification on the work the Planning Commission had done with regard to tree preservation. Nielsen stated the tree preservation policy was developed this year and does not prohibit cutting of trees. It attempts to save trees wherever possible, but if trees are removed for purposes of roads, utilities and houses, the policy then calls for replacement of trees that are lost up to a maximum of eight trees per acre. The Planning Commission and staff felt existing trees on this development would be better preserved through planning and development rather than under traditional zoning or the current tree preservation plan. Mayor Bean clarified if the City could be more specific than the tree preservation policy indicates as far as identifying a tree and protecting the tree. Nielsen indicated that was correct. Mayor Bean stated there was a discrepancy between the zoning map and the Comprehensive Plan which dates back to the 1981 plan. Nielsen stated the discrepancy comes up with the updated . Comprehensive Plan. The difference between the two is that in 1981, the Comprehensive Plan simply recommended that the property be designated with a land use designation of one to two units per acre. It did not go on to say what zoning should be used to implement that designation. In the Comprehensive Plan update, the Planning Commission suggested that in areas where zoning is not reflective of the land use plan, the City should rezone the property. In the update, the recommendation is that it should be rezoned from R-IA to R-IC and that it should be done through the Planned Unit Development process. Nielsen explained if the Planning Commission had arrived at some plan they felt was acceptable and the developer didn't follow through, the zoning would revert back to the existing R-IA. If the zoning were changed to R-IC and the developer decided he could not do the project, that zoning would be attached to the property at that point. Mayor Bean stated when the planning process was underway, zoning breaks were looked for on properties backed up to one another as opposed to on the street. He asked Nielsen to explain that principle. Nielsen explained the theory is that there are like zonings meeting at back yards versus across the streets because of the front yard setback requirement. When they come together at the . rear of the property, it is not as noticeable. Also, the active recreational areas are in the rear yards with the ability to fence with 6' fences to create separations at the rear lot lines better than could be done at front lot lines. Mayor Bean noted there would be a fairly significant buffer from the one acre properties to the properties to the rear. Nielsen stated the one acre properties on V alley Wood are separated both by wetland and, in the proposed plan, by large lots. On the south and to the east, those lots are smaller, but there would be a separation by that wetland as well. Councilmember Stover stated that this particular property is conducive to P.U.D. zoning. The original P.U.D. in 1980 emphasized the preservation of natural amenities. She further stated she was under the assumption something could be zoned P.U.D., however, if the application did not work out the property would revert to its original zone. Nielsen stated that could be done, however, the actual zoning occurs at the fmal plan stage in a P. U.D. The concept would have to be approved, then the development stage plan and then the final plan stage is where the rezoning actually takes place. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ,MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 5 . Councilmember Stover stated one of the purposes of the P.U.D. is to give the land owner reasonable assurance of ultimate approval while assuring the City the property would retain the characteristics and vision at the time it occurs. She asked if that was still the intent and how both of those things would be accomplished at the same time. Nielsen stated when you approve a concept plan, it gives the developer the assurance to go ahead with more detailed plans. He further stated the actual act ofP.U.D. zoning does not occur until the final plan stage in conjunction with the development agreement. Councilmember Stover stated the objective is to preserve and enhance site characteristics and end up with a more desirable environment than is possible through strict application of zoning regulations. She further stated this did not appear to be a logical place to have straight zoning. Whether the development occurs or not, this particular property should be thought of as a P. U.D. and currently that is the way the Comprehensive Plan looks at it. Councilmembers Benson, McCarty and Shaw stated they do not agree with the size of the lots. Councilmember McCarty stated the property should be P.U.D. and she would not be able to support the proposed configuration. Mayor Bean stated P.U.D. is appropriate for this property rather than a straight zoning. He noted a significant problem with the lot sizes, particularly along the side where the lots are 15,000 square feet. Councilmember Stover stated she would like the developer to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation of a ten unit P.U.D. Benson moved, McCarty seconded to direct Staff to prepare a Findings of Fact denying the request for rezoning from R-IA to R-IC and denying the P.U.D. as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Shaw stated, while he is not impressed with this proposal, whatever happens on this property will be somewhat similar and will probably happen soon. Councilmember Stover stated she would like to have the Findings of Fact state P.U.D. is an appropriate tool to be used on this piece of property. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. and reconvened at 9:03 p.m. . 7. PRESENTATION BY EUREKA ROAD RESIDENTS ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Steve Croissant, 26025 Birch Bluff, stated he obtained information from City Hall and reviewed Planning Commission and City Council minutes. He stated his belief the views of the Council and those of his neighbors were in conflict. Mr. Croissant referred to a memorandum from City Attorney Frank Kelly dated December 8, 1980. At that time, Councilmember Stover had presented to the Planning Commission there was a promise in the City Policy that no property owner would be assessed for water who did not want to have water, that no property owner would ever be required to hook up to municipal water, and that water would never be extended where not requested. Mr. Croissant stated he was not able to obtain a copy of that policy. He proceeded with a detailed chronological summary of the water issue. Mr. Croissant stated it was his understanding there was a change in site for the water tower which resulted in a cost of $16,000 to $60,000 to the tax payers. He gave a detailed review of his calculations of the costs involved in the implementation and monthly charges for municipal water. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 6 Mr. Croissant stated only 42 houses were requesting water out of 1,641. He stated the assessment along with Hennepin County taxes will increase his taxes to $1,173.90 per year. He estimates it will cost $2,300 to hook up. Mr. Croissant stated his understanding Mayor Bean had had two house fires and both happened on city water. Mayor Bean clarified one home was on city water and one was not. Mr. Croissant stated through the process he had gotten to know his neighbors. He stated he has found only two people in favor of city water versus the 70 to 75 percent the Council stated approximately a year ago. He expressed his belief when speaking with the City and in making presentations no one listens. Mr. Croissant expressed that many of his neighbors would like to feel they are in a democracy, however most of them feel the City is communist. He stated this goes back to wwn in that the City does not want ethnic cleansing, but rather economic cleansing. He expressed concern for residents who are receiving Social Security Income and their ability to pay the assessment. Jerry O'Neill. 25540 Nelsine Drive. spoke regarding assessed value. He had asked the appraiser for proof of the $5.000 assessment. He stated he had received a copy of a letter from C.E. . LaSalle, Real Estate Appraisers and Consultants, which was addressed to the City of Shorewood dated April 1. 1996, regarding comparables used for water/sewer analysis. Mr. O'Neill questioned the procedure used by the consultant in detennining the difference between a home with a well and a home with city water. He stated the difference is $1.000. He has researched the issue and was informed the average price for putting in a well is $4,200 which also raises the value of the lot. He pointed out empty lots were used as comparables, yet most people being assessed have functioning wells. Mr. O'Neill encourages the residents to appeal the assessment because there is no proof of a $5,000 improvement to a house with a functioning well. Kate Lynch Bix. 25545 Orchard Circle, stated she reviewed a 1992 mailing she had received from the City which concluded there was not majority support for water. This conclusion was based upon a survey. She stated since there has not been another survey, where is the documentation which would support there being a majority of the residents in favor of municipal water. Mayor Bean clarified the process which had occurred since the winter of 1995 as a result of several years of Planning Commission efforts to update the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is the guiding document which the Council is operating under at this time. Mayor Bean explained the Comprehensive Plan called for a need over the long term for a municipal water system. He further explained Shorewood does have a fractured water system in terms of the Amesbury facility. the southeast facility, the Badger facility, the Woodhaven facility, and Boulder Bridge. The system. in its entirety, is not efficient. Mayor Bean stated many options were considered such as selling the system to Minnetonka. capping wells or expanding and completing the system to ensure its viability for 20 to 50 years. Mayor Bean related many residents inquired why this was not completed in 1971 when the sewer system was installed. History reflects. the City could not afford it at the time. Discussion continued and this was formulated in the Comprehensive Plan. As far as notification, a number of things were done in an effort to communicate through cable television presentations, neighborhood meetings. newsletters from the City. and feature articles in the Sailor. A public hearing was held on the Comprehensive Plan in the spring of 1995. . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 'MAY 13, 1996 . PAGE 7 Mayor Bean referred to the articles in the newspaper relating to the City proceeding street by street in an attempt to divide and conquer. He stated this is a controversial issue, however the Council has a responsibility to look at fiscal responsibility, stewardship of city dollars and take this issue very seriously. Mayor Bean stated there was a debate on the Council relative to what should be done. He stated Councilmember Stover was very articulate in identifying a lot of the downside of a municipal water system. The Council went further and identified themselves as a working group in addition to three citizens who were asked to assist in that process. The Council felt in that process they were able to identify some people who would bring a full spectrum of discussion to the table. Mayor Bean stated the issue of what the assessment would be was a very difficult process. Consideration was given to where other cities have set their assessment and this seemed to be a reasonable number. The City ultimately retained a certified appraiser to determine the appropriateness of the assessment amount. Many hours were spent brainstonning and reaching alternatives. Mayor Bean stated with regard to municipal water quality, residents situated on the. west end have indicated their water is horrible. The water quality out of the Boulder Bridge well far exceeds the quality of what they are able to get from private wells. Mayor Bean explained with regard to the location of the water tower, a 10-acre parcel adjacent to the Minnewashta property became available as the result of a tax foreclosure. The City was the entity which had the right to acquire the property at an auction. The school district had a strong interest in acquiring the property to expand the land which was available for the elementary school. As a part of the negotiation on that, in exchange for the City's cooperation, a future site for a water tower was identified. Last summer the City entered into discussions with the school district as to where to put the tower. Ultimately four or five particular locations were identified, some more desirable to the school and some more desirable to the City. According to Metropolitan Council a year ago, there were 6,300 residents in Shorewood. The 1990 census reflects 5,700 residents. Projections suggest a population of approximately 9,000 by 2020 which is where Shorewood will have peaked in terms of development and expansion. Shorewood is expected to have a 30 percent population growth before reaching a plateau. Mayor Bean explained with regard to house fires in the Bean family, in the 1960's Mayor Bean's parents .lived in Deephaven and had a fire serviced by the Excelsior Fire Department. That particular house was a total loss. The Bean family had another fire when residing on Vine Hill which was serviced by municipal water hydrants by the Minnetonka Fire Department. In reviewing the response records of those two calls, they were less than a minute apart. Mayor Bean also commented on the fire in Deephaven this past February where there was substantial fire. The response had to be with tankers. There are a couple of minutes of flow from a tanker before it would need to be refilled. There were very harsh conditions. Mayor Bean recognized the Excelsior Fire Department on an heroic effort in fighting that particular fire. There was severe weather, and they ran out of water in five minutes. He stated it may have no bearing on that particular property and a five minute gap may not be significant, however, Mayor Bean's concern is if one of the tankers would have had a collision in route or some other type of mechanical problem and water would have been denied to that site for 10 to 20 minutes. Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 9:42 p.m. and reconvened at 9:43 p.m. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MA Y 13, 1996 - PAGE 8 Councilmember Stover commented in the Excelsior Fire experience, the Fire Department's report stated water supply was not the problem. Mayor Bean suggested the fire could have been much worse. There was a significant coordination effort between Chanhassen and Minnetonka, to keep tanker trucks on site. The question is had there been a mechanical problem and one of the tankers had failed to operate as well as they did. would the outcome have been significantly different and how close could the City come in the case of an elementary school and relative to other homes in the area. Mayor Bean commented per the City code. municipal water is not an item which requires a referendum. Relative to the democracy versus republic. the Council is a body by representation. This is not a Town Hall form of government where everyone gets together and comes aid a decision. The Council is a representative group elected by all of the community to make the best decisions possible within guidelines. Attorney Keane explained there is a deferment process for senior citizens. The Council has the authority on case by case requests to grant deferments of special assessments for senior citizens. There is also a process of deferments for people who are in a position of economic hardship as well as permanent disabilities. Mayor Bean asked Attorney Keane to comment on the appeal process for the assessment amount. Attorney Keane explained the City did undertake the services of a licensed appraiser with significant credentials in the valuation business. The City wanted to be sure the proposed assessment amount was one that was defensible from the benefit standpoint. The City's first burden is to demonstrate that the benefit to the raw property exceeds the cost of the assessment. Attorney Keane further explained individual property owners have an opportunity to challenge that assessment. All fee owners of each affected parcel will receive notice of an assessment hearing. There will also be two notices published in the newspaper of assessment hearings and the City will give each property owner significant advance notice. The property owner must object prior to or at that hearing in order to preserve their right to appeal. An appeal of an assessment would be made to District Court within 30 days after the assessment hearing. . Councilmember Stover commented this was an extremely difficult decision and because the decisions of the Council are a majority of the Council, that is the decision the City makes. She further stated this happens to be a decision she does not agree with. . Councilmember Stover explained the basic reasons for promoting city water usually include the fire department, possibly reducing insurance premiums and quality of water. She further explained she has witnessed a house bum to the ground with city water more than once. She stated she feels the local fire department is excellent and can fight fires with both systems. Councilmember Stover further commented with regard to the southeast well system. it is financially solvent on its own, does work. and is probably supporting more residents than many of the city wells in the State of Minnesota. Councilmember Stover stated as far as the quality of water, every private well has a different amount of impurities. The southeast water system was upgraded with a treatment plant which was not originally planned because of the quality of their water. Financially, private water is less expensive than city water over the long run. Councilmember McCarty stated a prior councilmember had contacted her and stated they had had the opportunity to do this and they should have done it. The councilmember stated he was proud the Council was going forward. She further stated it is more responsible fiscally to connect the . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 'MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 9 elements of the existing system to make it the best system possible. She stated the Council has put a lot of thought, effort and soul searching into the decision and she is comfortable with it Councilmember Benson stated his agreement with Councilmember McCarty. He stated the Council has made the decision with their hearts and their minds. He also stated he is offended when he is accused of being a communist. He stated he is a lifelong resident of the community and is on the Council because he feels he can help the community. He stated there was no financial incentive to make this decision. Mayor Bean thanked the audience for coming and expressing their concerns. 8. PRESENTATION BY SMITHTOWN COMMITTEE ON PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Tom Dahlberg, 25270 Smithtown Road, stated he had two random sample surveys to share with the Council. He stated at the outset he would like to make an observation about watching the whole process, listening to the City Council sincerely articulating the fact they have a vision and certain ideas about what is good for Shorewood. He stated the Council is missing the point. All of these people are saying it's their city, and whether they are right or wrong, they should have the right to make that decision. Mr. Dahlberg stated there is no law prohibiting a referendum which keeps the Council from being responsive to the people. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Council's decision is not based on a democratic majority. He further stated he respects the fact the Council has strong convictions for what they feel is right for the city, however, the Council appears to be an activist government with their own view of how things should be and simply take advantage of the way the city is legally organized in order to bring about their own views. Mr. Dahlberg stated lawyers are threatening the city with lawsuits because the Council's view of how government works in the city is completely different from the residents. He stated the residents' view of city government is that it can be representative, that it is not incompatible with democracy and you can fight over whatever you believe. Mr. Dahlberg stated in February several residents came to the City Hall to review the plan for the Smithtown Road trail. At that time he was surprised to find there were plans for a trail which would take up to 17 feet from the front yards of properties where there was little more than 17 feet between the door of the house and the street to begin with. He suggested very little planning had been done and no contact had been initiated with the residents of Smithtown Road. Mr. Dahlberg commented the City intended to put a 17' wide trail on Smithtown which he stated is unconstitutional and out of step with Minnesota case law. He stated it now appears, according to his lawyer, that the City has a 33' right-of-way on Smithtown Road based on actual use. He stated the area and actual use of Smithtown Road was measured and found to be 29 feet. He stated a jury could be brought to Smithtown Road to do the fact fmding themselves. Mr. Dahlberg stated he was referring to the Barfnecht v. Town Board of Hollywood Township case which was circulated and the other case which his lawyer cited. Both cases put into question the adverse use doctrine in the State of Minnesota. He stated the Council is wrong about all of their facts. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Constitution requires if the City is going to take a resident's property in any way, shape or form, including a utility easement, it has to compensate the resident. Mr. Dahlberg reviewed in detail the two random surveys he provided. The Smithtown Committee poll was based on a simple random sampling of 49 households on the first survey and 43 households on the second. He stated he has a business background in market research and knows how to select a true random sample and he knows how to enforce the randomness of that sample REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MA Y 13, 1996 . PAGE 10 by telemarketing. He stated from the viewpoint of the Smithtown Committee, it is not so much what the Council is doing, it's the elitist, dictatorial fashion in which it is being done. Mr. Dahlberg stated the survey included people who are currently on city water and have curb and gutter. He stated the Smithtown Committee is asking the Council to prove the City has the constitutional right to reconstruct Smithtown Road or they will ask the courts to stop the reconstruction. Mr. Dahlberg stated he appreciated receiving a response from City Attorney Keane regarding the main issues. Mr. Dahlberg stated with regard to the Zimmerman case which was cited by City Attorney Keane, his attorney considers the case not on point. He further commented it is an old case and there are Supreme Court decisions since that case which invalidate Zimmerman. Mr. Dahlberg stated the Council has not given the evidence the Smithtown Committee has asked for, that the City has the legal right and the property rights to reconstruct the road. Mayor Bean stated in no way, shape or form was the City going to take property. He stated the City has an established street and right-of-way under definition. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is the opinion of his attorney the Barfnecht case includes aspects which are . unconstitutional. He further stated it was possible this case would go to the Supreme Court where he feels the Smithtown Committee would win. He stated this issue deals with the adverse use doctrine in the State of Minnesota. City Attorney Keane assured Mr. Dahlberg, as an officer of the Court, that no one's constitutional rights would be violated. He further stated the Constitution provides if there is a taking for public purposes, the City would be obligated to compensate the property owner. He noted there is no unconstitutional conduct being undertaken as suggested and there will not be any unconstitutional acts undertaken by the City in the future. Councilmember McCarty commended Mr. Dahlberg on the work on his survey, despite the fact it is a small percentage of people. She commented she has some familiarity with surveys. Councilmember McCarty stated with respect to the question regarding the expansion of high density housing in Shorewood, the City is not looking at any apartment buildings or any of that sort of housing other than perhaps very small four unit developments. The only exception to that would be affordable senior housing. She stated she wanted to clarify that because it appears to be . a very leading question rather than a neutral question. Councilmember McCarty also inquired if, when asking about forced hook -up to city water, was it explained to people they would have 18 months or that the City is possibly looking at a policy where they would not have to hook up? She stated she is simply pointing out a good job was done on the survey, however many of the questions were leading. Councilmember Stover stated a survey was completed a number of years ago and analyzed by a professional consultant. The result of the survey demonstrated the majority did not want city water. Consideration was given to that response. Council has considered updating the survey, however, it was felt a public hearing would provide that kind of information. Councilmember Stover also commented there is the philosophy between representative government or leadership, a person elected can have a different philosophy between those two or someplace in between. She stated some feel one way and some feel the other way, both have merit and it is just a different style of conscientiously trying to do a good job. . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 11 9. CONSIDERA TION OF MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONSULTING ENGINEERING CONTRACT FOR 1996 PROJECTS Engineer Larry Brown reviewed the matter. Mayor Bean inquired if staff was concerned about the ability of OSM to perform considering the number of people who have the left the firm. recently. Brown stated the City has been receiving good professional design services from OSM. Brown stated the services the City receives through the construction inspection will determine if there is a need to reconsider. Brown will keep the Council posted. Brown stated there is a new field representative who is energetic and experienced. He has solved a number of problems. Stover asked if any other outside engineering firms had been considered regarding the projects. Brown stated there has been a modification to the scheduling of projects early on and it forced the City to quicken the schedule to make a firm bidding atmosphere. Possibly in the 1997 improvements staff will look at investigating what it would cost to go with another firm. Brown stated as he understands it, as far as their profession goes, it is not ethical to bid for professional engineering services. City Attorney Keane stated it is not required. Brown further stated it is a pattern that has been going on, however the Board that oversees the profession takes a dim view of that. Staff could investigate that further, should the Council wish to move ahead. Brown asked the Council to realize the City has asked OSM to proceed with some of the design aspects of the project and are trying to keep firm bidding ground here. Brown stated the City has paid for records with OSM being the steward of them. In an effort to update City records, Paul Hornby and Brown have agreed to transfer records over a period of time. Councilmember Stover inquired if it would make a difference that personnel has changed. Brown stated it is fortunate in that the individual currently serving as project manager was the former design engineer. Paul Hornby received a promotion and is familiar with all of the background information. Brown stated Attorney Keane will have an opportunity to review those agreements. McCarty moved, Benson seconded approving: RESOLUTION NO. 96-42, "A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for Project 95- 14, Eureka Road Improvements; RESOLUTION NO. 96-43. "A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for Project 95- 15, Smithtown Road Watermain Extension from Boulder Bridge Circle to south City limits; RESOLUTION NO. 96-44, "A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services for Project 95- 16, Smithtown Road Improvements from Eureka Rod to Country Club Road; REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 12 RESOLUTION NO. 96-45, " A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Agreement for Professional Engineering Services on Project 95- 17, Strawberry Lane Improvements." Motion passed 5/0. Brown asked for clarification if the Council would desire staff investigate a consultant services process. Mayor Bean expressed concern in the turnover with the senior people at OSM and asked for input from the City Attorney. City Attorney Keane stated that would be a fair question when there is a high level of change in personnel and staffing in a short period of time. The City, as a client, could inquire as to what is occurring and does the fIrm have the critical mass of expertise to service the needs of the City. City Administrator Hurm stated the City went through a process some years ago and he would rely on Brown's opinion on the working relationship he has with them. City Attorney Keane further added the City may want to take this opportunity to have OSM come in for a discussion and to also make clear the understanding that all of the work product they have generated is the intellectual property of Shorewood and that the engineer does not have an interest or claim. If in the future there were to be a transition of services, or the City wishes to obtain . certain documents, these should be made immediately available. Councilmember McCarty stated she would rely on Brown's opinion since he is the staff person who deals with them on a day to day basis and knows their expertise. Brown stated the overriding key from a civil engineering standpoint would be how effective the field personnel is. 10. CONSIDERATION OF A UTILITY FEE REDUCTION ON FINAL BILLING - nM AND CONNIE VOLLING, 6200 SIERRA CIRCLE Finance Director Alan Rolek reviewed the matter stating the V ollings are requesting an abatement of a portion of their final utility bill. They feel the consumption was too high given the length of time (20 to 25 days) they were living in the house that month. Rolek stated it is possible something could have been left on in the house which would generated . higher volumes of water consumption such as faucet dripping, toilet running, etc. He further stated it could be a malfunctioning meter. However, in discussing the matter with Engineer Brown, when a meter malfunctions, it is generally to the benefit of the property owner. Councilmember Stover inquired since people were not living in the home, and if something was left dripping, how many gallons would that be? Brown stated if something were leaking, that would not add up to four gallons per minute. The consumption would more likely be a large flow such as a garden hose. Rolek stated it is possible the meter was misread in the previous quarter. Mayor Bean asked if the previous month wouldn't have been unusually low. Rolek stated the consumption for that home has been consistent for the last four quarters, but considerably lower than in previous years. Rolek stated what would normally be done is the charges would stay against the property and would transfer to the new owner. Mayor Bean suggested the V ollings be billed, but that the charges not transfer to the new owner. Stover moved, Benson seconded to deny a utility fee reduction on final billing 0 f Jim and Connie Volling, 6200 Sierra Circle. Motion passed 5/0. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 13 11A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AGREEMENT. Stover moved, McCarty seconded adopting RESOLUTION NO. 96-46, "A Resolution Authorizing Execution of an Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Agreement." Motion passed 5/0. Councilmember Shaw asked if the agreement had been reviewed by the City Attorney. Attorney Keane confIrmed that it had. City Administrator Hurm stated this is a new policy for Hennepin County. lIB. CONSIDERA TION OF A MOTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO CA TERPILLAR GRADER 140H PURCHASE . City Engineer Brown reviewed the matter. City Administrator Hurm indicated this is approximately $14,000 under what was budgeted. McCarty moved, Shaw seconded to approve a change order to caterpillar grader 140H purchase. Motion passed 5/0. 12. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS A. Report on Recycling Chipboard Hurm reported the recycling fIrm has indicated there is no market for chipboard at this point. It consists mostly of recycled materials and it would cost the City to dispose of it. - B. Report on Voice Mail System at City Hall Hurm stated the V oiceMail System is being utilized. A newsletter will be sent to residents to make them aware of the new system. Councilmember Stover stated her approval of the system. . C. Report on Development of Home Page Hurm reported the City is continuously looking for ways to communicate with the residents. The City will be asking several questions in the survey which is going out in the newsletter regarding use of the internet. In a previous newsletter, the City asked for volunteers to assist in developing the Home Page and a committee was establish to assist in that development. Planning Director Nielsen stated there is a developer interested in senior housing. He has extended an invitation to the City Council and the Planning Commission to tour the new senior housing project in Chanhassen. Nielsen will notify the developer to send invitations. 13. MA YOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Shaw announced the annual meeting/community breakfast of the Community Education and Services of Minnetonka on May 30th at the Minnetonka Baptist Church. Councilmember Stover reminded the Council of the Hennepin County Parks Meeting and urged as many people as possible to attend. She also stated she would like to remind everyone that home occupations require a permit. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES MAY 13, 1996 . PAGE 14 Mayor Bean stated it was noted in the Sailor Deephaven's decision to withhold their contribution for the senior center was relative to getting fmal plans and specification. Hurm stated they have been supplied. 14. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS . . . . REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES .MAY 13, 1996 - PAGE 15 Shaw moved, McCarty seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting at 11:19 p.m., subject to approval of claims. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULL Y SUBMITTED, Cheryl Wallat, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST: ROBERT-jf-BEA~-MAYOR------ JAMEs-c:-IfuRM;CITY ADMINISTRATOR FILE COpy May 10, 1996 Mayor Robert B. Bean and Shorewood City Council and Brad Nielsen, City Planning City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood,MN 55331-8927 FR: Carl Zinn, Applicant, on behalf of Thomas and Mary McCary, Owners. . RE: REQUEST FOR-A-4S-D~ENSION FOR THE FILING OF THE FINAL PLAT OF THE MCCARY ADDITION---. ----... _ _. . . .;. . _~,..=..,.T_.... '-"- Dear Mr. Nielson, -'-_~A~__ ~_.- The delay in the filing of final plat has been the result of several factors. A.) It took over 60 days to get a name of the person who could sign the Mylars for the mortgage company. The sale of Investors Mortgage to Firstar and the transfer of the loans to Milwaukee caused a huge amount of confusion on the lenders part. I still am waiting for the Corporate officer to find the files of this mortgage. B.) We have been unable to complete the widening of Ridge Road until now. The two car parking/passing area will be black topped at the end of the month. . C.) The owners delayed their return to Minnesota from California from May 1 until June 1. I have been assured by the lender that we will be able to get the appropriate signatures by the end of May. Accordingly, on behalf of the owners, Tom and Mary McCary I request a 45 day extension in which to file the final plat. Sincerely, Carl Zinn 474-4444 Applicant #-3 A City of Shorewood . PARTY REGISTRATION AND PERMIT Pifrsuant-to-cn:apter 505 of the Municipal Code application for a party is ~liadc.a5:::::-- follows: ----.;;:;-..-. Party to ~~ Re~istered: A?Y person or persons sponsoring a party at which it may reasonably be antIcIpated that there will be more than seventy five (75) persons in attendance shall. prior thereto. register such party with the City Clerk, giving the location, date. time. purpose. names of all sponsors and the number of persons it is anticipated will be in attendance. Permit for Additional parties: Within a period of six (6) months following such party. no additional party or parties. at which it may reasonably be anticipated that there will be more than seventy five (75) persons in attendance, shall be permitted at the same location unless the person or persons who propose to sponsor the same shall first have obtained a special permit therefor approved by the City Council. Application for such permit shall be made to the City Clerk. ~o ~ b\~ Q.c~ . Party Location: Number of Persons to Attend: I:c.n ~ -e...u~t- ~ Date of Party: ~lv'V'\..D... a 7"'-trQ..lt"lI1'4 will~ Time: M~cl~ITv-C~ I) Purpose: ~,=-",- \>C . Sponsor's Name(s): '\;. ~\10~ ~ ~,... ~~ ~ 75 b-\.C~ Special Parking or Safety Provisions: tv 7~--\CO C>~ ~~~~) <(b ~ o~ -\\..Q.. R..\.G,.~~ Number of people to attend (approximately): Registered with: '0\00 - . Applicant's Signature: Prohibitions: a. No person shall. between the hours of ten o'clock (10:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M.. congregate because of or participate in any party or gathering of people from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume so as to disturb the peace. quiet or repose of persons residing in any residential area. b. No person shall visit or remain within any residential dwelling unit wherein such p~ or gathering is taking place except persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abatIng the disturbance. (Ord. 101. 8-14-78) Enforcement: A police officer may order all persons present in ,any suc~ grou~ or g:atherir:g from. which such noise emanates. other than the owners or tenants ot a dwellmg umt. to munedIately dIsperse from said party in lieu of being charged under this Chapter. (1987 Code) Oringinal: City of Shorewood Copy to: South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department Applicant #38 ~.... CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612)474.3236 :MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 24 May 1996 Ohland, Dan - Appeal Notice to Remove Property - 25070 Smithtown Road Mr. Dan Ohland has requested additional time to comply with a notice to remove which was sent to him on 29 April 1996 (see Exhibit A, attached). The subject property was inspected on 23 May and much of the offensive material has been cleaned up. Only some grading corrections remain to be completed. It is recommended that Mr. Ohland be given no more than 30 days to bring his property into compliance with City Codes. .. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to the meeting on Tuesday. . cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joe pazandak Dan Ohland #3G A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~~ . CITY OF SHOREWOOD "'", M" i=loben s~ COUNC"'\( :. Krlstl SIOV~~"'. Bruce Bensen Jennifer McCany Doug Malam 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331.8927 . (612)474-3236 DAlE: 29 April 1996 Dan and Keelo Ohland 3860 North Shore Drive ~ound,~ 55364 PROPERTY LOCATION: 25070 Smithtown Road PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO.: 33-117-23-24-0002 TO: . NOTICE TO REMOVE Offensive and Unhealthv Substances NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there exists a condition on the above referenced property which is in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.01 of the Shorewood City Code, a copy of which Section is enclosed. The offensive matter to be removed from the property includes, but is not limited to the following: Approximately: 2000 cu. yds. dirt; 10 cu. yds. concrete debris; 15 cu. yds. scrap aluminum; 100 cu. yds. logs; 60 cu.yds. rocks; 10 cu. yds. construction and misc~ debris (metal, barrels, pails, pipes, wood, plywood, etc.) . Also tires, large tank, pipes, fencing, truck box. GRADING WITHOUT A PERMIT. You are hereby required to remove the above-described matter and any other offensive matter located on the property and in violation of Chapter 501, Section 501.01 within ten (10) days from the date hereof. In the alternative, you may file a written notice of appeal at the Shore wood City Hall within ten (10) days, in which case your appeal will be set for hearing at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. If you do not respond to this Notice within ten (10) days, the City shall take whatever action as may be necessary to have the offensive matter removed. The costs incurred by the City for such removal shall be charged to the property owner and become a lein against the property. *** PLEAS~ GIVE TffiS MATTER YOUR IMMEDIATE ATTENTION *** BY ORDER OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL Exhibit A 1'1 Cl__:...i__.:_1 1"'___.._:_. __ 1 _:~_ .....:___.__;.;_,_ r'_...... . . .. May 9, 1996 -. \i ..- ..------- City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood,:rvrn 55331-8927 Attn: Brad Neilsen Per your letter dated April 29, 1996 and our conversation of May 8, 1996, we would like to request an additional 30 days in order to remove the items that you have stated in said letter. Please make note that our address is: 25070 Smithtown Road Shorewood, MN 55331 The letter dated April 29, 1996 went to our old address in Mound Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to give us a call at 470- 6848. Sincerely, ~~ oj2j-J) Dan and Keelo Ohland RESOLUTION NO. 96- A RESOLUTION APPROVING FINANCING FOR THE SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF LEASE DOCUMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has entered into a cooperative agreement with the Cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood and Tonka Bay to construct a Senior Community Center; and, WHEREAS, the City has considered options for financing its share of the construction cost from external sources; and, . WHEREAS, the City has received a proposal from Norwest Investment Services, Inc. for a Non-Appropriation Lease-Purchase Agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City finds the terms of the agreement to be consistent with its financing needs and its long-term interest in the Senior Community Center; and, WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 96-30 approving such agreement with Norwest Investment Services, Inc.; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147 (f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the City has given proper notice and held a public hearing on such financing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the Non-Appropriation Lease Purchase Agreement with Norwest Investment Services, attached hereto, is hereby re-approved, such agreement to be for a term of 12 years at an interest rate not to exceed 6.32 percent per annum. . 2. That the Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute such agreement, subject to the review of legal counsel. 1996. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 28th day of May, Robert B. Bean, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk #/p GROUND LEASE THIS GROUND LEASE, made and entered into as of the _ day of "Ground Lease"), by and between the City Shorewood (the "Munil:ipality") investment Servkes, a Minnesota Corporation, (the "Ground Lessee"), , I ~~o. (The and Norwest WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Munidpality owns an undivided 50 percent interest as a tenant in common with Cities of Excelsior, Deephaven. Greenwood and Tonka Bay (with the Munil:ipality, collectively the "Cities") in certain land 10l:ated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally desl:fibed in Exhibit A attached here to (the "Land"), upon whil:h the Cities have determined to construct a community center for senior citizens (the "Project Building"), to serve the needs of the Cities, all pursuant to that certain Cooperative Agreement for the Southshore Senior/Community Center dated March 4, I~~() by and among the Cities (the "Cooperative Agreement"): and . WHEREAS, the Munil:ipality intends that the Land and the facility constructed thereon provide security to the Ground Lessee for the financing of the l:onstruction of the facility in al:cordance with the Cooperative Agreement: and WHEREAS, the Ground Lessee proposes to lease from the Munidpality the Municipality's undivided 50 percent interest in the Land, to lease or purchase from the Municipality the Municipality's undivided 50 percent interest in any portion of the Project Building thereon and to cause the Munil:ipality to complete construction of the Project Building thereon ("the Project") and to lease back to the Municipality the Municipality's undivided 50 percent interest in the Land and the Project Building pursuant to the Lease and Purchase Option Agreement dated as of , 1990, by and between the Ground Lessee, as lessor, and the Municipality, as lessee ("the Lease"): and . WHEREAS, hereaftel the teml~ Land, Project and Project Building shall be deemed to rder to the Municipality's 50 percent undivided interest therein unless expressly stated otherwise. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto hereby formally covenant, agree and bind themselves as follows: .-",",1" '__; : l . ARTICLE [ Warranties Sel:tion 1'<)2. Warranties of the Munil:ipalitv. The Munidpality I:ovenants and warrant~ to the Ground Lessee: (1) That the Munkipality is the owner of the Land. has the authority to enter into, to exel:ute and to deliver this Ground Lease and has duly authorized the exel:ution and delivery of this Ground Lease: (2) That the Land is not subject to any dedkation. easement, fight of way. reservation in patent, I:ovenant. I:ondition, restril:tion. lien or enl:umbranl:e that would prohibit or would interfere materially with the Projel:t or the use of the Land as sel:urity for the financing as contemplated by the Lease other than as set forth in the Cooperative Agreement and the Lease . dated , IlJlJfl from the Cities to the Friends of South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center (the "Friends Lease"); (3) That all taxes. assessments or impositions of any kind with respel:t to the Projel:t Building, eXl:ept current taxes. have been paid in full: (4) That the Land is properly zoned for the uses thereof I:ontemplated by the Lease; (5) That the Projel:t is necessary to the Municipality in order for the Municipality to perform its essential governmental funl:tions. Section 1.03. Warranties of the Ground Lessee. The Ground Lessee covenants and warrants to the Munidpality that the Ground Lessee has the authority to enter into. to execute and to deliver this Ground Lease. has duly authorized the execution and the delivery of this Ground Lease, and will record this Ground Lease. . (The balance of this page is intentionally left blank. I 2 . . ARTICLE rr Lease of Leased Property The Municipality hereby demises and leases to the Ground Lessee and the Ground Lessee hereby takes and leases from the Municipality for the sum of one dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration. the receipt and the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged. the Municipality's interest in the Land. together with its interest in all buildings and improvements thereon. whether now existing or hereafter constructed. for a term commem:ing on the date first above written and ending in thirty years. or earlier on the date this Ground Lease is terminated in aCl:ordance with Sel:tion 3.0 I hereof IThe balance of this page is intentionally left blank. I 3 ARTICLE III Termination Section 3.0 I. Termination. Subjel..t to the other provision~ of this Ground Lease. this Ground Lease shall terminate upon the ol:l:urrenl:e of anyone of the following events: (a) the Lease. The payment by the Municipality of all Rent owing to the Ground Lessee under (b) The exercise by the Municipality of it..; option to prepay by payment of the scheduled Termination Value and other sums due in aCl:ordance with the terms and conditions of the Lease. (c) The termination of the Lease Term by the Municipality for annual appropriation . pursuant to Section 5 of the Lease and the rel:eipt by the Ground Lessee of amounts from the . sublease or sale of the Ground Lessee's interest in the Projel:t Building and the Land sufficient to: ( I) Reimburse the Ground Lessee for all administrative costs and expenses. including reasonable attorney fees. inl:urred by the Ground Lessee as a result of the termination of the Lease and the sublease of the Project Building; and (2) Reimburse the Ground Lessee for all capital I:osts and expenses in any manner incurred by the Ground Lessee with respect to making the Project Building suitable for sublease for commercial or other lawful purposes; and (3) Pay to the Ground Lessee an amount that will equal the principal component of all rent stated to become due under the Lease through . (d) The termination of the Lease Term upon the occupanl:e of an Event of Default by the Municipality under Section 22 of the Lease and the receipt by the Ground Lessee of amounts from the sublease or sale of the Ground Lessee's interest in the Projel:t Building and the Land sufficient to: ( I) Reimburse the Ground Lessee for all administrative costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the Ground Lessee as a result of the Event of Default and the termination of the Lease and the sublease of the Proje<.:t Building; and (2) Reimburse the Ground Lessee for all capital costs and expenses in any manner in<.:urred by the Ground Lessee with respel:t to making the Project Building suitable for sublease for commercial or other lawful purposes: and (3) Pay to the Ground Lessee an amount that will equal the principal component of all rent stated to become due under the Lease through -. 4 Section 3.02. Use of Lease Rentals. In the event of a termination of the Lease Term by the Municipality because of an annual appropriation pursuant to Section 5 of the Lease, or a termination of the Lease upon the occurrence of an Event of Default under Section 22 of the Lease, the amounts referred to in numbered paragraphs (I), (2) and (3) of Subsection 3.0I(c) or 3.01(d), shall be known as the "Reimbursement Amount." The Reimbursement Amount shall be recovered by the Ground Lessee as contemplated in Subsection 3.lll(c) by allowing the Ground Lessee first to retain from any sublease rentals an amount necessary to recover ongoing administrative costs. Thereafter, the Ground Lessee shall be entitled to interest on the outstanding Reimbursement Amount at the rate per annum sufficient to permit the payment of interest at the stated rates on all outstanding Participations in the Lease. Any amounts received by the Ground Lessee pursuant to this Section after payment of such administrative costs and interest and shall be credited to the payment of the Reimbursement Amount. Use of the Project Building by the Ground Lessee or any subsidiary or affiliate of the Ground Lessee, other than for the purpose of assuming control, making necessary l:hanges in the Project Building, and the initial subleasing thereof, shall be treated as the sublease thereof on a monthly basis at market value. . . Section 3J,3. Reports. In the event that the Lease Term is terminated by the Ground Lessee because of annual appropriation pursuant to Section 5 of the Lease or terminated by the Ground Lessee as a result of the occurrence of an Event of Default by the Municipality thereunder, the Ground Lessee shall keep complete and accurate rel:ords regarding any sublease of the Project Building and shall, within sixty (()O) days after the end of each Fiscal Year of the Municipality, deliver a written report to the Municipality showing: (a) all amounts received by the Ground Lessee from any sublease of the Project Building; (b) an analysis as to whether the Ground Lessee has received the Reimbursement Amount. with all supporting cakulations- and (c) the date, if any, in the next Fisl:al Year of the Municipality on whkh the Ground Lessee expects to receive the Reimbursement Amount. Such written report shall be verified by a certified public accountant or firm of certified public accountants not within the regular employ of the Ground Lessee. The Municipality shall have the right, at it" own expense, to examine the Ground Lessee's records insofar as they relate to the Project Building. Such examination shall be made at the Ground Lessee's offices during normal business hours. Section 3.04. Municipality's OPtion to Pay Reimbursement Amount. In the event that the Lease Term is terminated by the Ground Lessee because of annual appropriation pursuant to Section 5 of the Lease or terminated by the Ground Lessee as a result of the occurrence of an Event of Default by the Municipality thereunder, any amounts necessary to cause the termination of this Ground Lease pursuant to Subsection 3.01(c) or 3.01(d), may be paid by the Municipality at any time. Upon such payment, this Ground Lease and the Ground Lessee's interest in the Projel:t Building shall terminate; provided, that if the Ground Lessee's interest in the Project Building has been subleased to any sublessee pursuant to any subleases that are still in effect, this Ground Lease shall not tenninate but the Ground Lessee shall assign and set over the Municipality all of the Ground Lessee's interest in the Project Building granted under this Ground Lease, subject to all existing rights created in such subleases of the Project Building by any such sublease and the Municipality shall be entitled to all rent payment'i with respect to any sublease of the Project Building. [The balam.:e of this page is intentionally left blank. I J :.' _ c I.'~ 5 ARTICLE IV Easement, Use Sel:tion 4.0 I. Granting Easements. The Munidpality shall promptly request the Cities to grant sUl:h permanent easements in the property on whil.:h the Projel:t Building will be l:onstructed as set forth in the attal:hments hereto and in sUl:h form and <.:ontent as are determined by the Ground Lessee and the Munkipality to be reasonably nel:essary: (a) To l:onstruct and maintain the Projel:t building: (b) To exerdse the Ground Lessee's rights and obligations under the Lease and this Ground Lease induding, but not limited to, its right~ to exercise its remedies under the Lease and its rights in the event of termination of the Lease. Sel:tion 4.02. Additional Soal:e. The Munil:ipality, during the Construl:tion Period will set aside . additional space as is determined to be required by the Ground Lessee or the l:ontractor for the deliber:.lte and efficient l:onstrm.:tion of the Projel:t Building. If required by the Ground Lessee. the Munil:ipality will promptly request the Cities to grant temporary easements for sUl:h spa<.:e in such form and l:ontent as the Ground Lessee shall deem nel:essary. The Ground Lessee will use its best efforts to minimize interference with the operation of the Municipality during the period of constru<.:tion. Sel:tion 4.03. Quiet Use and Enjovment. Subject to the terms of the Lease, the Muni<.:ipality hereby covenants to provide the Ground Lessee during the tenn of this Ground Lease with quiet use and enjoyment of the Project Building without suit, trouble or hindrance from the Munidpality. [The balance of this page is intentionally left blank.] . 'j 6 ':~ ~ r- ARTICLE V Use of Leased Property; Surrender, Assignment Section 5.01. Use of Proier.:t Building. The Ground Lessee agrees to use the Land solely for the purpose of the ar.:quisition. the r.:onstrur.:tion. the equipping and the leasing pursuant to the Lease of the Project Building unless the Lease Term is terminated by the Municipality because of annual appropriation or is terminated by the Ground Lessee as a result of an Event of Default by the Munkipality, in which event the Ground Lessee may use and/or may sublease the Project Building for any purpose authorized by applkable zoning laws and the Cooperative Agreement and the Friends Lease. . Section 5.02. Surrender of Proiect Site. The Ground Lessee agrees that upon the termination of this Ground Lease it will surrender the Project Building to the Municipality free and dear of all liens and enr.:umbranr.:es, except Permitted Encumbranr.:es. In the event that the Project Building is subje\:t to the rights of any sublessee of the Ground Lessee granted under any sublease entered into in accordance with the terms of this Ground Lease after the termination of the Lease Term ber.:a'jse of annual appropriation or as a result of an Event of Default by the Municipality. the Ground Lessee's entire interest in the Projer.:t Building granted under this Ground Lease, subjer.:t only to Permitted Enr.:umbrances, and the rig~ts of such sublessees under any such subieases will revert to the Municipality. Section 5.03. Assignment. The Ground Lessee will not assign or otherwise dispose of or encumber this Ground Lease without the written consent of the Municipality. unless the Lease Term is terminated by the Ground Lessee because of annual appropriation or terminated by the Ground Lessee as a result of an Event of Default by the Municipality. in which event the Ground Lessee may use and/or may sublease the Proje<.:t Building without consent of the Municipality. but subject to the Cooperative Agreement and the Friends Lease. . [The balance of this page is intentionally left blank. I " '..J. i 7 ARTICLE VI Misl:ellaneous Sel:tion (dJ I. Definitions. AlIl:apitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Ground Lease shall have the meanings set forth therein in the Lease. Sel:tion n.02. Severability. If any terms or provisions of this Ground Lease or the applkation thereof to any person or I:irl:umstanl:es shall be invalid or unenforl:eable to any extent. the remainder of this Ground Lease or the applit.:ation of sUl:h term or provision to persons or to I:irl:umstanl:es, other than those as to whil:h it is invalid or unenforl:eable. shall not be affel:ted thereby. and eal:h term and provision of this Ground Lease shall be valid and enforl:eable to the fullest extent permitted by law. Sel:tion (>.lB. Notil:es and Demands. Any notil:e. demand or other I:ommunkation under this Ground Lease by either party to the other shall be suffkiently given or delivered if dispatl:hed by registered or I:ertified mail. postage prepaid and return rel:eipt requested or delivered personally and, in the I:ase of either the Munkipality or the Ground Lessee, at the address for sUl:h party set forth in the Lease. . Section 6.04. Bindinc Effel:t. This Ground Lease shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Ground Lessee and the Munil:ipality and their respel:tive sUl:l:essors and assigns. Section 6.05. Counterparts. This Ground Lease may be exel:uted in I:ounterparts. eal:h of whil:h shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section n.On. Applicable Law. This Ground Lease shall be interpreted and enforced 111 aCl:ordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Ground Lease as of the date first . above wri tten. x . . [Signature Page to Ground Leasel NorweSt Investment Services, Inc. Ground Lessee By Its Vic.:e President And By Its Senior Vic.:e President ST ATE OF M INNESOT A ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was ac.:knowledged before me this day of , I I)\)6 by Pam Lang. and Mkbael S. Olauson. the Vke President and Senior Vice President of Norwest Investment Services, Inc.. a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of said Corporation. Notary Public, State of Mmnesota ~,_, ::' i . ~ l) City of Shorewood Municipality By Its Mayor And By Its City Administrator/Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1,:}96, by and the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk, respectively, of the City of Shorewood, on behalf of said City. Notary PublIc, State of Mmnesota Instrument Drafted By: Norwest Investment Services, Inc. 1400 Norwest Center Sixth Street & Marquette Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55479-0146 "r:r , .~ i _ c.. 10 . . EXHIBIT A to GROUND LEASE dated as of , IYY6 between City of Shorewood and Norwest Investment Servic.:es, Inc. . As Ground Lessee . A-I EXHIBIT B co GROUND LEASE dated as of . IY<}o Permitted Em:umbram:es . . B-1 LEASE AND PURCHASE OPTION AGREEMENT Name and Address of Lessee: Lessor: City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood. MN 55331-8927 Norwest Investment Services. Inc. Sixth and Marquette Minneapolis. MN 55402 WHEREAS. Lessee has entered into that certain Cooperative Agreement for the Southshore Senior/Community Center dated March 4. IYYo (the "Cooperative Agreement") among Lessee, the City of Excelsior, the City of Deephaven, the City of Greenwood and the City of Tonka Bay (collectively, the "Cities"); and . WHEREAS, the Cities have heretofore entered or propose to enter into a construction contract for the construction of a community center for senior citizens on property owned by the Cities as tenants in common which is legally described in Exhibit A hereto (the "Land") (the Land and the community center building are referred to hereafter as the "Project"); and WHEREAS, under the Cooperative Agreement the Lessee's ownership interest in the Project is 50 percent, which share is proportionate to Lessee's prospective investment in the Project; and WHEREAS, the Project has been leased by the Cities to the Friends of South Lake Minnetonka Senior Community Center (the "Tenant"), a nonprofit corporation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1 Y80, as amended (the "Code"); and . WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council of the Lessee conducted a public hearing on May 28, 1 Y80, on the proposal to undertake and finance construction of the Project; and WHEREAS, the Lessor has agreed to lease the Lessee's undivided 50 percent interest in the Land from the Lessee pursuant to a Ground Lease of even date herewith (the "Ground Lease"); and WHEREAS, the Lessor will provide financing for the Project through this Lease and Purchase Option Agreement. The Lessee and the Lessee agree as follows: 1. LEASE. The Lessor hereby agrees to lease to the Lessee, and the Lessee hereby agrees to lease from the Lessor, the Lessor's leasehold interest in the Land under the Ground Lease, together with an undivided 50 percent interest in the Project (the "Leased Property"), and all replacements, repairs and additions incorporated therein or affixed thereto. upon the terms and conditions set forth in the related Supplement. 2. ACCEPTANCE. The Lessee will evidence its acceptance of the Leased Property by delivering to the Lessor an Acceptance Certificate (herein so called) in the fonn to be provided by Lessor, executed by the Lessee. 7t4L 1 ,,' ~':...j" L .-:,.',- 3. TERM. The term of this Lease shall begin on the date the Leased Property is a<:<:epted by the Lessee and shall <:ontinue from the rent <:ommen<:ement date shown in the related Suppiement unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The rent commen<:ement date is the Ac<.:eptan<.:e Date as recorded on the Acceptance Certificate. 4. RENT. The Lessee shall pay as basic rent for the full term of this Lease the amount shown in the related Supplement as Total Rent, and a portion of each rent payment is paid as and represent,; the payment of interest, and Exhibit "A" attached to the related Supplement sets forth the interest component of each rent payment during the term. The Total Rent shall be payable in installments each in the amount of the basic rental payment set forth in the related Supplement. The Lessee shall pay rent in installments as shown in the related Supplement. The rental payments will be absolute and unconditional in all events and will not be subject to any set-off, defense, counterclaim or re<:oupment for any reason whatsoever. 5. TERMINATION BY LESSEE UPON NON-APPROPRIATION. The Lessee shan have the right to terminate this Lease, in whole but not in part, at the end of any fiscal year of the Lessee, in the manner and subject to the terms specified in this Section, in the sole event that the governing body of the Lessee fails to appropriate money sufficient for the continued performance of this Lease by the Lessee after the end of such fiscal year, as evidenced by the passage of an ordinance or resolution specifically prohibiting the Lessee from performing its obligations under this Lease and from using any moneys to pay the rent due under this Lease in the next succeeding tiscal year and all subsequent fiscal years. The Lessee may effect such termination by giving the Lessor a written notice of termination as provided in this Section and by paying to the Lessor any rent and other amounts which are due and have not ben paid at or before the end of its then current fiscal year. The Lessee shall give notice to the Lessor of termination pursuant to this Section not less than sixty (60) days prior to the end of the then current fiscal year, and shall notify the Lessor of any anticipated termination. In the event of termination of this Lease as provided in this Section, the Lessee shan deliver possession of the Leased property to the Lessor and shan convey to the Lessor or release its interest in the Leased Property within ten (10) days after the termination of this Lease. Upon termination of this Lease as provided in this Section, the Lessee shall not be responsible for the payment of any rent coming due with respect to succeeding fiscal years, but if the Lessee has not delivered possession of the Leased Property to the Lessor and conveyed to the Lessor or released its interest in the Leased Property within ten (10) days after the termination of this Lease, the tennination shall nevertheless be effective, but the Lessee shall be responsible for the payment of damages in an amount equal to the amount of the rent thereafter coming due under Section 4 hereof which is attributable to the number of days after such ten (10) day period during which the Lessee fails to take such actions and for any other loss suffered by the Lessor as a result of the Lessee's failure to take such action as required. If this Lease is terminated by the Lessee in accordance with this Section, the Lessee agrees not to lease or rent property to perform the same functions as, or functions taking the place of, those performed by the Leased Property, for a period of sixty (00) days from the date of the notice required by this Section; provided, however, that these restrictions shall not be applicable in the event the Leased Property shall be sold by the Lessor and the amount received from such sale, less all costs of such sale, is suffkient to pay the then applil;able termination value as set forth ~nT ' -:'u. ."' 2 . . in Exhibit A to the related Supplement or if or to the extent that the applil:ation of these restrictions would affel:t the validity of this Lease. 6. AGREEMENT TO CONSTRUCT PROJECT. The Lessor agrees to l:ause the l:onstrul:tion of the Projel:t to be l:ompleted in full al:cordanl:e with the Cooperative Agreement. In order to assure the expeditious I.:ompletion of the Projel.:t. the Lessor hereby appoints the Lessee as its agent to cause l:onstruction of the Projel:t in aCl:ordance with the terms of the Coopelative Agreement. The Lessee agrees to use all reasonably efforts to cause the Project and all other facilities and equipment necessary in connel:tion therewith to be acquired. construl:ted and installed as soon as feasible. 7. AGREEMENT TO CREATE CONSTRUCTION FUND. [n order to provide funds for payment of the cost of acquisition. installation and construction provided for in payment of the cost of the acquisition. installation and construction provided for in Section 0 hereof. the Lessor has, or will have, upon execution of this Lease. deposited $311,000 in a construction fund held by Lessee to be used by the Lessee for the payment of costs of the Project. . x. REPRESENTATIONS AND W ARRANT[ES OF LESSEE. The Lessee represents and warrants and, so long as this Lease is in effect or any part of Lessee's obligations to the Lessee remain unfulfilled, shall continue to warrant at all times, that: (a) The Lessee is a duly organized and existing municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. (b) The Lessee has been duly authorized by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including the Act. and by a resolution of its governing body to execute and deliver this Lease and each Supplement and to carry out its obligations hereunder. . (c) All requirements have been met, and prOl.:edures have occurred in order to insure the enforceability of this Lease. (d) The Leased Property will be used by Lessee only for the purpose of performing one or more governmental functions of Lessee consistent with the permissible scope of Lessee's authority, and by the Tenant only for the purpose of performing one or more exempt purposes of the Tenant, and will not be used in any "unrelated trade or business" of the Tenant within the meaning of Section 513 of the Code and will not be used in a trade or business of any person or entity other than the Cities and the Tenant. (e) This Lease constitutes a valid, legal and binding obligation of the Lessee enforceable against the Lessee in al:cordance with the respel:tive terms hereof. (f) This Lease is not an arbitmge bond for purposes of Section 148 of the Code. (g) The Lessee shall maintain records relating to the Lessor and its assigns sufficient to comply with the registration requirements of Section .14<1(a) of the Code. .J!.fL l:.'C,'~','~ l ~H 1 ,~C,i 3 (h) This Lease is not and shall not become a "private activity bond" other than a "qualified 501(c)(3) bond," within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code. (i) The Lessee shall comply with all provisions of the Code which are necessary to preserve the tax-exempt status of the interest component of the payments made and to be made under the Lease, including. without limitation, the investment and rebate provisions of Section 148, the prohibition against federal guaranties under Section 14<)(b) and the information reporting requirements of Section 14<)( e). (j) The average expected economic life of the Leased Property is at least equal to the full tenn of the Lease and the Lease. (k) There is no litigation pending, or to the best of its knowledge threatened. against the Lessee relating to the acquisition or installation of the Leased Property or financing of the Leased Property or this Lease. <). COVENANT TO MAINTAIN RENT FUND. Lessee agrees that the unrestricted and unencumbered balance in a rent fund designated by Lessee for the purposes of this covenant (the "Rent Fund") on December 31 of each year during the term of this Lease shall not be less than 15% of the unpaid principal balance of rent due under this Lease as of such valuation date. The Lessee may otherwise freely transfer or pledge any amount on deposit in the Rent Fund. It is understood and agreed that nothing herein creates any pledge of, lien on, or security interest in the Rent Fund or any amounts on deposit therein. The requirement of this section shall be deemed satisfied upon submission by Lessee to Lessor, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each fiscal year of Lessee, of audited financial statements showing the requisite minimum balance in the Rent Fund as of the previous December 31. 10. WARRANTIES. The Lessee agrees that it has selected the Leased Property based upon its own judgment and disclaims any reliance upon any statements or representations made by the Lessor. THE LESSOR MAKES NO WARRANTY WITH RESPECT TO THE LEASED PROPERTY. EXPRESSED OR RELIED, AND THE LESSOR SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND OF FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND ANY LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE LEASED PROPERTY. The Lessee agrees to make rental and other payments required hereunder without regard to the condition of the Leased Property. 11. TITLE. Upon acceptance of the Leased Property hereunder. title to the Leased Property will vest in the Lessee; provided. however, that (i) upon the occurrence of an Event of Default. as that term is defined herein. or (ii) in the event that the Lessee's purchase option. if any, has not been exercised prior to the expiration date thereof, title will immediately vest in the Lessor or its assignee. For as long as title to the Leased Property vests in Lessee, Lessee at its expense shall piotect and defend the title and keep it free of all claims and liens other than the rights of the Lessee hereunder and claims and liens created by or arising through the Lessor. The Lessee agrees to take such action at its expense as may be necessary to prevent any third party from al.:quiring any interest in the Leased Property. ,-"ML ~ nl:.'~17 L ;.H - ( 4 . . 12. SECURITY AGREEMENT: FURTHER ASSURANCES. To secure the performance of all the Lessee's obligations hereunder, the Lessee in a Security Agreement of even date herewith grants to the Lessor a set:urity interest constituting a first lien on the Leased Property and on all additions, attachments, repairs, replacements and modifit:ations thereto or therefor, including all after-acquired Leased Property, and on any proceeds therefrom. The Lessee agrees (0 exel,;ute or deliver such additional documents, induding, without limitation, financing statements, opinions of t:ounsel, notices and similar instruments, in form satisfactory to the Lessor, which the Lessor deems necessary or appropriate to establish and maintain its security interest in the Leased Property or for the confirmation or perfection of this Lease and the Lessor's rights hereunder. The Lessor is hereby authorized to file financing statements signed only by the Lessor in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code or signed by the Lessor as the Lessee's attorney in fact. . 13. LAWS AND TAXES. The Lessee shaH comply with all laws and regulations relating to the Leased Property and its use and shall promptly pay when due all sales, use, property, excise and other taxes and all license and registration fees now or hereafter imposed by any governmental body or agency upon the Leased Property or its use or the rentals hereunder excluding, however, any taxes on or measured by the Lessor's net income. Upon request by the Lessor, the Lessee shall prepare and file all tax returns relating to taxes for which the Lessee is responsible hereunder which the Lessee is permitted to file under the laws of the applicable taxing jurisdiction. 14. fNDEMNfTY. The Lessee hereby indemnifies and agrees to save the Lessor hannless from any and all liability and expense arising out of the ownership, use, condition, rehabilitation or operation of the Leased Property during the term of this Lease, induding liability for death or injury to persons, damage to property, strict liability under the laws or judicial decisions of any state or the United States, and legal expenses in defending any claim brought to enforce any such liability or expense, but excluding any liability for which the Lessee is not responsible under Section 13. . 15. ASSfGNMENT. Without the Lessor's prior written consent, the Lessee will not sell, assign, sublet, pledge, or otherwise encumber or permit a lien arising through the Lessee to exist on or against any interest in this Lease or the Leased Property. The Lessor may assign its interest in this Lease and the Lease and sell or grant a security interest in all or any part of the Leased Property without the Lessee's consent. The Lessee agrees not to assert against any assignee of the Lessor any claim or defense the Lessee may have against the Lessor. 16. INSPECffON. The Lessor may inspect the Leased Property at any time and from time to time during regular business hours. 17 . REPAIRS. The Lessee will use the Leased Property with due care and for the purpose for which it is intended. The Lessee will maintain the Leased Property in good repair, condition and working order and will furnish all repair required therefor, all at its expense. All such repair when furnished shall immediately become the property of the Lessor and part of the Leased Property for all purposes hereof. T~-1L ~:__~,~.rj-l 5 I R. LOSS OR DAMAGE. In the event the Leased Property shall bel:ome destroyed, damaged beyond repair or rendered permanently unfit for use for any reason, or in the event of condemnation or seizure of the Leased Property, the Lessee shall promptly pay to the Lessor (a) the amount of all rent and other amounts payable by the Lessee hereunder with respel:t to sUl:h item due but unpaid at the date of sUl:h payment plus (b) the amount stated in Exhibit A to the Supplement as the Termination Balanl:e. Upon payment of sUl:h amount to the Lessor, sUl:h item shall bel:ome the property of the Lessee. the Lessor will transfer to the Lessee. without recourse or warranty, all of the Lessor's right. title and interest therein and the rent with respel:t to sUl:h item shall terminate, and the basic rental payments on the remaining items shall be reduced aCl:ordingly. The Lessee shall pay any sales and use taxes due on such transfer. Any insurance or condemnation proceeds received shall be I:redited to the Lessee's obligation under this paragraph and the Lessee shall be entitled to any surplus. 19. INSURANCE. The Lessee shall obtain and maintain on or with respect to the Leased Property at its own expense (a) liability insurance against liability for bodily injury and property damage with a minimum limit of $500.()OO combined single limit and (b) physical damage insuranl:e insuring against loss or damage to the Leased Property in an amount not less than the full replacement value of the Leased Property or the amount stated in the Supplement or an exhibit thereto as the Termination Balance. The Lessee shall furnish the Lessor with certificates of insurance evidencing the issuanl:e of a polil:Y or policies to the Lessee in at least the minimum amounts required herein. naming the Lessor as an additional insured thereunder for the liability coverage and as loss payee for the property damage coverage. Each such policy shall be in such form and with such insurers as may be satisfactory to the Lessor, and shall contain a clause requiring the insurer to give to the Lessor at least 1 () days' prior written notice of any alteration in the tenus of such policy or the cancellation thereof. and a clause specifying that no action or misrepresentation by the Lessee shall invalidate such policy. The Lessor shall be under no duty to ascertain the existence of or to examine any such policy or to advise the Lessee in the event any such policy shaH not comply with the requirements hereof. In the event that the Lessee has been permitted to self-insure. the Lessee will furnish the Lessor with a letter or certificate to such effect. 20. ADDITIONAL ACTION. The Lessee will promptly execute and deliver to the Lessor such further documents and take such further action as the Lessor may request in order tu more effectively carry out the intent and purpose of this Lease. including the execution and delivery of appropriate financing statements to fully protect the Lessor's interest hereunder in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code or other applil:able law. 21. LATE CHARGES. If any installment of basic rent is not paid when due or within 5 days thereafter, the Lessor may impose a late charge of up to 5% of the amount of the installment but in any event not more than permitted by applicable law. Payments thereafter received shall be applied first to delinquent installments and then to current installment~. 22. DEFAULT. Each of the following evenL'\ shall constitute an "Event of Default" hereunder: (a) the Lessee shall fail to pay when due any installment of basic rent; (b) the Lessee shall fail to observe or perform any other agreement to be observed or performed by the Lessee hereunder and the continuance thereof for 1 () I:alendar days following written notice thereof by the Lessor to the Lessee: (c) any warranty. representation or statement made or furnished to the .ir.-F ;. ~ 6 . . Lessor by or on behalf of the Lessee proves to have been false or misleading in any material respel.:t: or (d) the Lessee shall voluntarily file, or have filed against it involuntarily, a petition for liquidation, reorganization, adjustment of debt. or similar relief under the federal Bankruptl.:Y Code or any other present or future federal or state bankruptl.:Y or insolvenl.:Y law, or a trustee, receiver. or liquidator shall be appointed of it or all of a substantial part of its assets. 23. REMEDIES. The Lessor and the Lessee agree that the Lessor's damages suffered by reason of an Event of Default arc unl.:ertain and not I.:apable of exact measurement at the time this Lease is executed bel.:ause the value of the Leased Property at the expiration of this Lease is unl.:ertain, and therefore they agree that for purposes of this Section. the "Lessor's Loss" as of any date shall be the sum of the following: (I) the amount of all rent and other amounts payable by the Lessee hereunder due but unpaid as of sUl.:h date, plus (2) the amount stated in the Supplement or an exhibit thereto as the Termination Balance. . Upon the oCl.:urrence of an Event of Default and at any time thereafter, the Lessor may exercise anyone or more of the remedies listed below as the Lessor in its sole discretion may lawfully elect. A. The Lessor may, by written notice to the Lessee. terminate this Lease and declare an amount equal to the Lessor's Loss as of the date of such notice to be immediately due and payable, and the same shall thereupon be and become immediately due and payable without further notke or demand, and all right~ of the Lessee to use the Leased Property shall terminate. but the Lessee shall be and remain liable as provided in this Sel.:tion. The Lessor may also enter upon the premises and take immediate possession of the same with or without instituting legal proceedings. B. The Lessor may proceed by appropriate court action to enforce performance by the Lessee of the applicable covenant..; of this Lease or to recover. for breach of this Lease. the Lessor's Loss as of the date the Lessor' s Loss is declared due and payable hereunder: provided. however, that upon recovery of the Lessor's Loss in any such action without having to repossess and dispose of the Leased Property, ownership of the Leased Property shall vest in the Lessee. . C. In the event the Lessor repossesses the Leased Property, the Lessor shall either retain the Leased Property in full satisfaction of the Lessee's obligation hereunder or sell or lease the Leased Property in such a manner and upon such terms as the Lessor may in its sole discretion determine. The proceeds of such sale or lease shall be applied to reimburse the Lessor for the Lessor's Loss and any additional amount due under clause (D) or (E) below. The Lessee shall be entitled to any surplus and the Lessee shall remain liable for any deficiency. For purposes of this subparagraph. the proceeds of any lease of all or any part of the Leased Property by the Lessor shall be the amount reasonably assigned by the Lessor as the cost of such Leased Property in determining the rent under such lease. D. The Lessor may recover interest on the unpaid balance of the Lessor's loss from the date it becomes payable until fully paid at a rate of % per annum. E. The Lessor may exercise any other right or remedy available to it by law or by agreement, and may in any event rel.:over legal fees and other expenses incurred by reason of an Event of rt.fL, l.,'j= ~:f! ;.: c 7 Default or to the exen.:ise of any remedy hereunder. induding expenses of repossession. repair. and disposition of the Leased Property. No remedy given in this sel:tion is intended to be exdusive. and eal.:h shall tx I:umulative but only to the extent nel:essary to permit the Lessor to rel:over amounts for whil:h the Lessee is liable hereunder. No express or implied waiver by the Lessor of any Event of Default shall constitute a waiver of any other Event of Default. F. Notwithstanding anything to the l:ontrary hereunder. anyone of the Cities shall have the right to cure any Event of Default in al:l:ordanl.:e with the terms of this Lease. 24. NOTICES. Any written notice hereunder to the Lessee shall be deemed to have been given when delivered personally or deposited in the United States mails. postage prepaid. addressed to the Lessee at its address set forth above or at sUl:h other address as may be last known to the Lessor. 25. NET LEASE AND UNCONDITIONAL OBLlGA TION. This Lease is a completely net lease and the Lessee's obligation to pay the rent and other amounts payable by the Lessee hereunder is unl:onditional and not subjel:t to any abatement. redul:tion. setoff or defense of any kind except as expressly provided herein. . 26. OPTIONAL PREPAYMENT. The Lessee may prepay the Total Rent due under any related Supplement to this Lease, in whole but not in part. on any payment date set forth on Exhibit A attal:hed to the related Supplement by payment to the Lessor on such payment date the sum of (a) the amount of all rent and other amount'i payable by the Lessee under this Lease which are due but unpaid on the date of such prepayment. (b) the Termination Value set forth opposite the payment date on Exhibit A on which prepayment is to OCI:Ur. The Lessee shall give written notil.:e of its intention to prepay the amounts due under this Lease and terminat~ this Lease to the Lessor at least 30 days prior to the proposed prepayment date. The notice shall indude the date on whil.:h prepayment will occur, the number of the Supplement to be prepaid, and the amount due and payable by the Lessee on such date. . 27. NON-CANCELABLE LEASE. This Lease cannot be canceled or terminated except as expressly provided herein. 2~. SURVIV AL OF INDEMNITIES. The Lessee's obligations under Sections 13 and 14 shall survive termination of this Lease. 29. LIMITATION OF LESSEE'S LlABILITY. It is understood and agreed by the Lessee that the Lease shall not be a general obligation of the Lessee or give rise to a charge against the general <.:redit or taxing powers of the Lessee, but rather shall be a special obligation payable solely from revenues pledged and assigned to the payment thereof and se<.:ured by this Lease. Neither the Lessor nor any subsequent owner of the Lease shall ever have the right to <.:ompel any exercise of the taxing power of the Lessee to pay the Lease or the rent due hereunder, nor to enforce payment thereof against any property of the Lessee except the amounts appropriated for the project of this Lease. 30. MISCELLANEOUS. Any provision of this Lease which is unenforceable in any jurisdktion shall, as to jurisdiction. be ineffective to the extent of such unenforceability without ~~.n.n x '- . . invalidating the remaining provIsions of this Lease, and any sut:h unenfort:eability in any jurisdktion shall not render unenforceable such provision in any other jurisdiction. This Lease shall in all respects be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the substantive laws of the State of Minnesota. DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 ';.11, l' ,0 '171 ::H 1,"-, ~-, J y /Signature Page to Lease and Pun:hase Option Agreement I Dated as of . I(Nn LESSEE: CITY OF SHOREWOOD By Its Mayor By __. Its City Administrator/Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of _____________ 199n by ________________. the Mayor and . the City Administrator/Clerk of the City of Shorewood. on behalf of the City. Notary Public '>!L t 10 . . _10 '. . . I Signature Page to Lease and Purchase Option Agreement I Dated as of , Il.)l.)n LESSOR: NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES By Its By Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1996 by , the of NOR WEST INVESTMENT SERVICES, a Minnesota corporation on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public P,tL; !.,~,,)-:- i 'H L ,(< -! II , FILE COpy i f April 25, 1996 Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Nielsen, . On October 3, 1995 I requested a variance for the deck i caused to be constructed on my property at 5710 Ridge Road in June 1994. That petition was heard before the Shorewood Planning Commission on December 5, 1995 and denied. In view of said outcome, I hereby respectively request that the Shorewood Planning Commission consider the following alternative plan .for a variance to the above referenced structure: . 1. Removal of the concrete pump house (63 sq.ft.) (See attached hard cover tabulation prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering Co. On October 7, 1995. Relevant line items have highlighted for easy reference); 2. Removal of the steel holding tank on the south side of the concrete pump house (45 sq. ft. - not shown on hard cover survey); 3. Removal of all of the steps and the wood bench erected on the north side of the property (368 sq. ft.); and, . 4. Removal of the entire screen porch on top of the proposed deck. The combined effect of these changes will be essentially a zero increase to hard cover (100 sq. ft.). In addition to the above proposed changes, considerable aesthetic landscaping has already been effectuated to provide screening of the structure as viewed from the water; and, the entire shoreline (185 ft). was recently covered with 6" to 24" fieldstone and fabric liner, in order to totally eliminate the possibility of erosion (see attached proposal by Concept Landscaping, Inc. dated 10/31/95). Please call if you have any questions or wish additional information regarding any aspect of this revised variance application. Sincerely. Richard C. Hoyt -# 7A.j ADVANCE 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (612) 474 7964 Fax (612) 474 8267 HARD COVER TABULATION FOR: RICHARD HOYT October 7, 1995 JOB NO. 95734 DesCRIRT LENGTH wiDTH AREA EXISTING HARD COVER Home #5710 Ridae Road 13.5 22 297 Home #5710 Ridae Road 24.5 39 956 Home #5710 Ridge Road 10.75 27 290 Home #5710 Ridge Road 12.5 22 275 Home #5710 Ridge Road 61.3 23 1410 Home #5710 Ridae Road 3 29.5 89 Home #5710 Ridae Road 17.5 9 158 Total Area of Home #5710 Ridge Road 3474 Concrete Patio 20.5 13 267 Concrete Patio 7 4 28 Concrete Patio 8.7 21.5 187 Concrete Kennel 9 23 207 Concrete Patio 22 4 88 Concrete Patio 10 4 40 Tota! Concrete Patios 817 ood decks & stees 7 17.5 123 Oed decks & stees 8 22.5 180 ood decks & stees 7 20 140 ood decks & stees 5 32 160 ood decks & steps 8 24 192 ood decks & steps 10 5 50 ood decks & steps 25.5 4 102 ood decks & steps 22 4 88 Oed decks & stees 26 4 104 ood bench 12 2 24 Oed decks & steps 24 24 576 Total wood decks and steps, bench 1739 Rock and concrete walk, steps. ret walls 401 2 802 Shed 9 7 63 rollev Tracks 134 4 536 Decorative Rock Landscaping 8 35 280 Decorative Rock Landscaeina 51 7 357 otal Landscapina 714 Bituminous Driveway 38 46 1748 Bituminous Driveway 17 8.5 145 Bituminous Driyeway 11 10 110 Bituminous Drivewav 6 16 96 Bituminous Drivewav 38.5 15.5 597 Bituminous Drivewav 15 4 60 Bituminous Drivewav 27 16 432 Bituminous Drivewav 25 16 400 Bituminous Drivs',,-:av 7, 17 119 Bituminous Drivewav 82 16 1312 Bituminous Drivewav 15 4 60 Bituminous Driveway 8.5 23 196 Bituminous Driveway 70.5 16 1128 Bituminous Driveway 62.5 16.5 1031 Bituminous Drivewav 9 18 162 Bituminous Drivewav 16 120 1920 Bituminous Driveway 15 73.5 1103 Bituminous Driveway 7 151 105 Total Bituminous Driveway 10723 Total hard cover 18866 Total Lot Area = 103.938 sauare feet 103938 Percent hard cover 18% LIMITATIONS: 1. We urge you to check with the City to see whether all of the items shown constitute hard cover under their ordinance. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this tabulation was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer Professional Surveyor unde ws of th State of Minnesota. , . . 'ir LJ \'ul~\'E:.r I U\nu;,\,,,,rln\:l, In\,. o REMODELING, INC. o CONCEPT LANDSCAPING & ROCK o RITCHIE CONCEPT GROUP, INC. 3153 Priest Lane Mound, MN 55364 472-4118 or 750-4374 PHONE 1./74-30'11 STREET JOB NAME <1-- 5'"100 JOB LOCATION DATE OF PI.ANS JOB PHONE We hereby submit specifications and estimates for: ~~~~~~~~-=-- l~----..!.+~ _.._.._.~l.~~__...-=-*~_.___.__:.. ....m_ _.m': ~_ ........_ . _._._.___.-!L1_~J.~.~.__._..._._ --~~~"~---- .-------t~-~~ ~~-! __._...__.__.....m._.__._.._.._.._._u._____...._u_.._...___._.__....___u__u ~~____Q~-_~__..m._____..__.____.._._......_..._._u..; . -4 i ~ 100 : . ..- ---------------..-------.--....-.---.--.----..---..-..............1 i -r; iJ. -II roO g~ I .__1__._.._....--..---.---.........1 i i ---.-----.---.-----.----..1 I ___..__.._....______....J ...-..- .-\.-.....--.-----................... .....__...__.___._.............m....._..._u.........._....m.....u.....u._._._.._........_..__.__.____._____ . - ~-----_'*!_..__..__........._-_...-_.._... _'10 ,. I lIt Jropost hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specifications. for the sum of: dollars ($ ). Payment to be made as follows: ~o'o t>J. +-- All material is guaranteed to be as specified. All work to be compteted in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra casl$ will be executed only upon written orders. and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon strikes. accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. tornado and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workman's Compensation Insurance. Authorized Signature I i I I I I days< I I Note: This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within Acceptance of 'roposal- The above prices. specifICations and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment will be made as outlined above. Signature Dale of Acceptance: Signature GENERAL PERMIT MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICf SHORELINE EROSION PROTECTION FAST TRACK PERMIT # 95- 2CV5 I, R ~~0J\a. ~C)",--t (Property Owner) <1 residing at 51, 0 R ~ ~ ~ We ea Rot (Street Address) ~\'OJU..~e-o~ (City) I request approval to install riprap ~~ (street address) , -rf'lm Ss':-:'<l I (State, Zip) shoreline erosion protection on property described as . PH: 4 7 "I - ~ 0 -.j , , located in (City) 8~-.:J3 .",;/ OOOJ-'" (PID # ated on tax statement) The riprap installation will consist of I g ~ along the shoreline of (Lineal feet) (County) . , c.k.\:a-\~ (Lake) (Bay) Guideline for riprap placement, as published) required for issuance of a Fast Track General Permit. I have contracted with Cme....e..pt ~~~f~, ~(S~ fJ\~ '-~ (Nhme of Company) (Address) , in full accordance with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Oistirct Shoreline Protection -rYl 0 ~ "'fYl,.,... SS; ~<.. 4/- . (City, State, Zip) "-lil - 4//'9 , (Phone) 9S-01 (MCWD License #) to perform the work who is familiar with the technical requirements. I have read and understand the requirements of the MCWD relating to Shoreline Erosion Protection. e if;; /r;r Date Subscribed and sworn to before me this /4 day of ~u.~v , 19 %-. Uuu C. ~ ~,t't-~ @ EIl.EENC. UcGINN C ~ublic .II. NOTARYPU8UC.M~A CARVER COUNTY Mr CommIsslan Explm J:In. 31. 2llOO Approved by: .f';"- 6~1~Q ~n7&,-,-- I f ~cl7s- MCWD,Eiistrict Director Date permit ~n6erflzy BallJ Qffices JAMES G. PENBERTHY 264 WATER STREET EXCELSIOR. MINNESOTA 55331 PHONE (6121 474-1188 FAX (6121474-1180 May 21, 1996 Mayor Robert Bean and Councilmembers Re: Variance Application of Richard and Ingrid Hoyt Dear Mayor Bean and Councilmembers: ~ I represent Richard and Ingrid Hoyt in regard to the above matter. Dr. and Mrs. Hoyt will be appearing before you on Tuesday May 28, 1996, for the purpose of presenting their variance application and in that regard I enclose Memorandum In Support Of Application For Variance By Richard and Ingrid Hoyt. You will be able to observe the unique nature of this situation when you visit the site prior to your meeting but I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you any questions and concerns you may have at your early convenience. I will contact you after you have had the opportunity to review the enclosed Memorandum. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me at my office or at my home. My home number is 474-4390. ~ Penberthy JGP/jp Enclosure cc: Richard and Ingrid Hoyt Brad Nielsen t.f 1A.7. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPOR~ OF APPLICA~ION FOR VARIANCE BY RICHARD AND INGRID HOY~ I. S~A~EMEE OF FAC~S Richard and Ingrid Hoyt (hereinafter called "Hoyts") live at 5710 Ridge Road in Shorewood. Their home rests upon the highest lot on Ridge Road. The property is covered by heavy vegetation and is characterized by an extremely steep slope to Christmas Lake, dropping off nearly 100 feet from its highest point. . Hoyts contructed a deck approximately 6 feet from the ordinary high water level of Christmas Lake at its nearest corner without first having secured a building permit. On October 3, 1995, Hoyts applied for a variance from the Shorewood Zoning Code which requires that structures be located at least 75 feet back from the ordinary high water level of Christmas Lake. On December 5, 1995, Hoyts appeared before the Shorewood Planning Commission for the purpose of presenting their application. The Planning Commission denied the application in its entirety. Objections to the application at the meeting were as follows: 1. To grant this application would establish a precedent and "open it up to all lakes around"; . 2. There is no hardship established; 3. The property can be put to reasonable use, i.e. lake access, use of the lake and the installation of a dock; 4. The circumstances giving rise to the variance request were created by the applicants; 5. In any event, if the structure is located in the set- back area there can be no variance granted. On April 22, 1996, the matter was referred back to the Planning Commission by the City Council for the purpose of addressing a revised plan submitted by Hoyts which attempted to address the concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 1995 as they related to the applicable statutes. On May 7, 1996, the revised plan was presented to the Planning Commission. The revised plan proposed to remove an existing pump house and steel holding tank, remove wooden steps and bench and remove four linear feet from the rear of the deck. Also, additional landscaping was added to obscure the deck and increase absorption of runoff water. The end result was more screening, more absorption and less hardcover on the property than existed before the deck was constructed. The Planning Commission again denied the application in its entirety. Objections by the Commissioners to the revised plan were as follows: 1. The structure cannot be located in the 75' set-back area; 2. Granting this application would be establishing a precedent and a denial of a same or similar application in the future would be "arbitrary"; . 3. Hardcover is not the issue; 4. Disappointment because the revised application contains nothing new and has no merit; 5. Does not meet any of the variance criteria; 6. Other residents have been required to remove non- conforming structures. The revised plan is now before the City Council. II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 1. Hovts have demonstrated "Undue Hardship". . Minnesota Statutes S 462.357, Subd. 6 (2) reads in material part as follows: Appeals and adjustments. ...The board of appeals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning ordinance: (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue Hardship" as used in connection with the granting of a variance means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the 2 landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. ... The board of appeals and adjustments or the governing body as the case may be, may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. ...The board or governing body as the case may be may impose conditions in the granting of variances to insure compliance and to protected adjacent properties. (Emphasis added). Shorewood Ordinance No. 1201.05 reads in material part as follows: Subd. 1. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide for: ...2) variances from the literal provisions of this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardshi'P because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance. (Emphasis added). . Subd. 2. Conditions Governing Consideration of Variance Requests: a. In considering all requests for a variance and in taking subsequent action, the City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council serving as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall make a finding of fact that the proposed action will not: . ( 1 ) Impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property. (2) Unreasonably increase the congestion in the public street. safety. (3) Increase the danger of fire or endanger the public (4) Unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood, or in any other way be contrary to the intent of this Ordinance. (5) Violate the intent and purpose of the City Comprehensive Plan. b. A variance from the terms of this Ordinance shall not be granted unless it can be demonstrated that: 3 (1) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. (a) Special conditions may include exceptional topographic or water conditions or, in the case of an existing lot or parcel of record, narrowness, shallowness or shape of the property. (b) Special conditions and circumstances may not be primarily economic in nature. (2) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. (3) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. . (4) Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. By adopting the precise language of the enabling statute the Shorewood Ordinance grants the City Council the same power to grant variances as is allowed by Minnesota Statute S 462.357 subd. 6 (2). Thus, if the variance is permitted by the statute it is also permitted by the ordinance. Rowell v. Board of Adjustment 446 N.W.2d 917 (Minn. app. 1989). There are three requirements which must be met hardship as defined by the above statute. demonstrated that the property cannot be put without the variance. to demonstrate undue First, it must be to a reasonable use . The Minnesota Court of Appeals has interpreted this first part of the definition of · undue hardship. as requiring a showing that the property owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the Ordinance. Rowell, supra, 922. On the facts of this case the issue is whether it would be reasonable to allow Hoyts to build their deck as presently located or require them to build this deck 75 feet back from the ordinary high water mark. It is submitted that given the applicable statutes, uniqueness of the property and the surrounding uses, requiring Hoyts to build 75 feet back from the ordinary high water mark would dictate an unreasonable use of this property. 4 . . This property contains a bluff as defined by the Shorewood ordinance. Construction more than 75 feet back from the ordinary high water mark would require construction in a bluff impact zone which is prohibited under the same ordinance. Thus, a variance would be required in any event. Hoyts have taken extraordinary steps to address the two underlying principles of the ordinance, ~. e. aesthetic and environmental concerns, and given the surrounding uses, it is reasonable to grant their variance request. It is conceivable that the aesthetic and environmental requirements of the ordinance could not be met if the deck were constructed in the bluff impact zone because of extraordinary construction measures which would be required in that case. It would be extremely difficult to avoid "clearcutting", for example. !I'his would in turn create the possibility of significant erosion. As it is now constructed, the deck rests outside the "toe" of the bluff and avoids the above problems. The second requirement of the statute is that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Again, this property is the highest lot on Ridge Road and contains a bluff. These factors are circumstances unique to the property not created by the applicant. Hoyts built a deck without a building permit to be sure but they did not create the circumstances unique to this property. A reading of the cases in which our appellate courts held that the plight of the applicant was caused by the applicant tells us that those cases involved either situations where the applicant purchased land with actual or constructive knowledge that the applicant's later proposed use violated the ordinance and/or raised health, safety and general welfare concerns. Here, the use (deck) is permitted and clearly raises no question of health, safety or general welfare. The third requirement for undue hardship is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicants have planted considerable shrubbery and have done considerable landscaping to add to the already thick vegetation on the property. In addition, there has been a complete rip rapping of the shoreline. Once the vegetation grows the structure will not be visible from the lake nor from the neighboring properties and the essential character of the locality will be thus preserved. The properties on both sides of the subject property are developed and the adjacent property immediately to the South has a deck much closer to the ordinary high water mark than the deck constructed by Hoyts. 5 Shorewood ordinance 1201.26 Subd. 5. provides an opportunity to address this unique situation further by providing that "...Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site, buildinq setbacks mav be altered to more closely conform to adiacent buildinq setbacks. The statute also provides that reasonable conditions may be imposed to provide protection against any alteration of the character of the community or to protect against any violation of the intent of the ordinance. The proposed removal of the previous hardcover and removal of a portion of the deck by Hoyts may certainly be incorporated as conditions to the grant of a variance by this Council to provide the above assurances. The proposal and agreement with these conditions by Hoyts adds further to the uniqueness of this property and situation. The requirements of the statute and thus the ordinance have been met and a hardship has been established. 2. Intent of the Statute in reqard to Set-Backs. Normally setback requirements are enacted for aesthetic purposes but also to provide a buffer between the private property and the traffic noise, dirt, and other activity of the public. In this case, the setback has been enacted for aesthetic reasons and to provide for proper preservation of the environment. Both of these objectives are tied directly to the health, safety and general welfare of the area. . These "performance standards" or criteria carrying out this intent have all been met. As indicated above, there has been substantial landscaping, rip rapping, and under the present proposal, the removal of hard cover so that the end result will be less hardcover and less run off than would have been the case had no deck been built. From an aesthetic standpoint, as indicated, the landscaping . and surrounding vegetation will assure that the deck will not be visible from the lake nor from abutting properties. Shorewood ordinance 1201.26 subd. 7 refers to a restriction on the removal of natural vegetation to prevent erosion into public waters, to consume nutri.ents in the soil, and to preserve shoreline aesthetics. There has been no clear cutting. To the contrary, natural vegetation has been increased overall and restored insofar as feasible around the construction area of the deck. There is ample cover to make the structure "visually inconspicuous when viewed from the water" as required by the ordinance. The statute and ordinance contain specific standards governing the exercise of discretionary power by the city council. In this case the standards, i. e. criteria, are met. Once the standards are met, the variance language becomes positive language. That is to say, 6 instead of language that says this deck cannot be built it is language that says this deck may be built. 3. Precedent. Granting this application will not affect the orderly development of the city. In the event this variance is granted, there can be no argument from a future applicant that a variance would be required and that the city council would be obligated to grant a variance in the future based upon similar circumstances. If that were the case, the granting of one variance would likely result in the destruction of the entire zoning scheme. In the Matter of the Variance Request of Waldo and Judith Johnson, 404 N.W.2d, 98 (Minn. App. 1987.) The Minnesota Supreme Court has also stated that if for no other reason, a future variance request would be separated in space and time from the current application. Therefore, granting this variance application does not create a precedent. . The reverse applies also. That is to say that because the council has required other people to remove non-conforming uses, legal and illegal, does not establish a precedent which would require the council to require the removal of this structure in this case. The variance procedure is by definition unique and the facts in this case are unique. In any event, Hoyts ~ proposing to remove existing hardcover (legal non-conforming uses) so as to have less hardcover than existed before the deck construction. . "After The Fact Variance Request". The Minnesota Supreme Court has said that in the event of an H after the fact variance request", the council is obligated to view the matter as though it were an application "before the fact.. for a variance. Newcomb v. Teske, 223, 227 (1948). III. CO.CLUSION Based upon the above application of the statutes and case law to the unique facts of this situation, it is clear that Hoyts should have their variance application granted as proposed. 7 ectfully Submitted, DATED: 1117 ..2. I; (1f1 y nberthy Attorney for Richard and Ingrid Hoyt 264 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 (612) 474-1188 8 . . OS/24/1996 13:11 6123386175 THE KUESTER GROUP PAGE 02 - ---. -- Gerri & Kevin Kuester 5885 Christmas Lake Road shOt'4U/o0r;4 MN 5:5331 612-470-9083 . May 23, 1996 Roberr Bean Mayor City Of Shorevlood Country Club Road Shorewood. MN 55331 cc: Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer Me Carry TaddShaw . RE: Hoyt Property Variance request on ChristmaS Lake Dear Mayor Bean: I was surprised to learn of yet Imother variance request fur the Hoyt property. It seems to me that there are more important issues our city's resources need to be addressing than repeated requests for permitS and variances tift.,. illegal structures have been constructed. As a Shorewood resident on Christmas Lake, I urge you to ~ any variances for structureS of any kind within the setback areas and remove those already ouc of compliance. Preserving the beauty and quality of our lake shore should be of extreme importance to chis council. For far coo long, Shorewood bas chosen co look the other way in similar sitWltions. To do so again will simply ,n&Durag'l future construction along our lake shore. Again, I urge you to uphold tbe laws and regulations in place to protect our environment and property values. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 . (612) 474.3236 MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DAlE: RE: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 30 April 1996 AmocolMcDonald's - Conditional Use Permit for Motor Fuel Station, Car Wash and Convenience Food with Drive-Up Facility FILE NO.: 405 (96.05) BACKGROUND KK Design has submitted plans, on behalf of DYS Properties, for the construction of an Amoco convenience store with gas pumps and an automatic car wash and a McDonald's fast food restaurant on property located at 5170 Vine Hill Road. As can be seen on Exhibit A, attached, the site extends between the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection on its west side and Vine Hill Road on its east side. . The proposed site consists of two parcels containing a total area of 2.52 acres. The easterly site is occupied by a single-family dwelling and a small outbuilding. The westerly parcel is currently vacant. Both parcels are zoned C-3, General Commercial. Surrounding land use and zoning are as follows: North: office buildings and proposed coffee shop; zoned C-3 East: Vine Hill Road, then single-family residential (in Minnetonka); zoned residential . single-family homes (3); zoned R-IC service road for Highway 7 and the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection South: West: As can be seen on Exhibit D, the applicant proposes a 60' x 93' principal building, in which the convenience store and McDonald's would be located. Gas pumps with an overhead canopy are located to the west of the building and the freestanding car wash is located to the north. The site is accessed from the Highway 7 service road on the west side and from Vine Hill Road on the east side. The McDonald's includes drive-up windows on the north side of the building, with over 330 feet of stacking space for cars. Stacking space for the car wash is approximately 140 feet long. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 16 Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.U.P. for Motor Fuel/Car WashIFood Drive-Up 30 April 1996 The site is characterized by relatively dramatic changes in topography (see Exhibit C). The high point in the north center of the property is at a 996 elevation, while the low point in the southeast comer of the site is at 964 el. Substantial site alteration is evidenced by the proposed grading plan (Exhibit E). For example, nine feet of material will be removed at the car wash location and in the pond area. Eight feet is removed from the northeast comer of the site. Six feet will be filled in on the south side of the pond and as much as 22 feet of fill will be placed in the southeast comer of the site. Significant retaining walls are proposed for the north, east and south sides of the site. . Since motor fuel facilities, car washes, convenience food and drive-in facilities are all listed as conditional uses in the C-3 zoning district, and given the multiple uses proposed for the site, the applicant has been advised to apply for a commercial planned unit development. This review evaluates the concept stage of the approval process. In addition to the exhibits cited above, the following exhibits are attached for your review: Exhibit B - Applicant's Request Letter Exhibit F - Landscape Plan . Exhibit G - Utility Plan Exhibit H - Floor Plan - Principal Building Exhibit I. - Building Elevations - Principal Building To date, building plans for the gas canopy and car wash have not been received. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Given the relatively high intensity of the proposed development, there are numerous issues which need to be addressed in the evaluation of the applicant's plans. Based upon staff s review of the plans and pertinent sections of the Shorewood Zoning Code (Chapter 1201), the following should be considered: A. General C-3 Requirements (Section 1201.22) . Land Uses. With the exception of the convenience store, all of the proposed uses of the site are listed as conditional. Specific conditions for each are set forth in the Code and will be addressed in detail in subsequent section~ of this report. The convenience store (without the gas) is a permitted use in the C-3 District. 2. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. There are no specific lot area or width requirements in the C-3 District. Following is how the applicant's plans conform to C-3 building setback requirements: 1. Front: Rear: Side: Side Abutting Residential: Required 30' 30' 15' 50' Proposed 44' 63' 15' 137.5' Building height in the C-3 District is limited to three stories or 40 feet. The applicant's plans propose a one story building, twenty-two feet high. It is not known how tall the gas canopy and the car wash building are. However, accessory buildings are limited to 15 feet in height. 2 Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.U.P. for Motor FueVCar Wash/Food Drive-Up 30 April 1996 3 . In the review of this request it was discovered that a small designated wetland exists approximately 120 feet south of the existing home. The applicant's fill and retaining walls encroach into the wetland. It is recommended that a wetland delineation be required and that the site plan be adjusted, observing the 50 foot setback from the wetland. B. Convenience Food Requirements (Sect. 1201.21 Subd. 4.a.) (1) Building elevations for the principal structure are shown on Exhibit I. As mentioned, we have not received plans for the canopy or the car wash building. The preliminary drawings depict fairly typical.commercial architecture. What is not shown is the proposed materials for the building. While adequate for concept review, the plans should specify proposed construction materials. If the Planning Commission has preferences in this regard, direction should be given to the applicant at this time. The site is bounded on two sides by residential development. Consequently, screening and landscaping are considered to be critical on the south and east sides of the site. The proposed landscape plan (Exhibit F) is considered very conceptual. Although general types of plant materials are shown, size, spacing and species are not shown. Also, although the applicant's letter suggests an attempt to preserve as many trees as possible, the site alteration proposed within the 50-foot southerly setback is considered drastic. . . (3) (4) (5) (2) The grading plan (Exhibit E) proposes an earth berm, approximately six feet high between the pond and the residential properties to the south. It should be realized that an earthen berm would ultimately provide the most effective buffer for properties to the south, particularly if properly landscaped. It is suggested that the ponding area and berm be moved northward on the site to preserve more trees in the 50-foot setback area. It is further suggested that the developer and the City seek approval from MNDOT to use part of the triangular shaped parcel in front of the site for part of the ponding area. Landscaping and screening are considered key to the acceptability of this proposal. It is suggested that revised plans be prepared which concentrate on protecting residential properties from view as well as,noise. The use of numerous and large evergreens and fencing is highly recommended along the south and east sides of the site. The applicant's letter states that lighting will be directed down and away from residential properties. Not only should a detailed lighting plan be submitted, but consideration may wish to be given to hours of operation, similar to the Waterford commercial area. Screening of parking is addressed in (2) above. In order to effectively evaluate proposed screening and landscaping, it is recommended that the applicant prepare cross-section drawings showing the relationship of the buildings and parking to homes on the south and east sides of the site. Parking. Although the plan does not specify, it appears to propose perimeter curbing around all parking and driveways. The angled parking on the east side of 3 Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.U.P. for Motor Fuel/Car Wash/Food Drive-Up 30 April 1996 the site does not comply with Section 1201.03 Subd. 5.d.(7) of the Zoning Code, which requires 21 feet of stall depth and 18 feet of aisle width for 6O-degree parking spaces. Also, since Vine Hill Road is technically the rear of this site, no parking is allowed within 30 feet of the rear property line, abutting a residential zoning district. Consequently, the parking must be moved 15 feet to the west. This will provide greater opportunity for screening and landscaping. Perhaps more difficult to correct is the number of spaces which are required for the proposed uses. The applicant's plans propose 52 spaces, counting room at the gas pumps as parking. This is considered inadequate and does not comply with Section 1201.03 Subd. 5.h. of the Zoning Code. Following is how the number of required spaces is calculated: . Convenience Food: dining area 866 + 40 = 21.7 waiting area 250 + 15 = 16.7 kitchen area 1038 + 8 = 13.0 51.4 C-store: 2690 - 10% = 2421 + 200 = 12.1 Gas/Car Wash: no additional spaces ~ Total Required: 64 spaces The grade shown on the Vine Hill Road entry to the site is between 6 and 7.7 percent. The Code limits parking lot grades (including driveways) to five percent. This is particularly critical given the proximity of the car wash exit to Vine Hill Road. (6) The service road driveway location was determined by MNDOT when the Vine Hill Road intersection was designed. The Vine Hill Road entry is located as far north on the site as possible. The City Engineer has been asked to evaluate site distances on the Vine Hill Road access. While the location of access points may be appropriate, the amount of traffic which will be generated by the three proposed uses on the site is of great concern. Despite the recent reconstruction and improvement of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection, MNDOT advises us that is anticipated to operate at a lower than desired level of service due to the right- of-way limitations which affected its design. In discussing this issue with the City Engineer, we both strongly recommend that the applicant be required to have a traffic study prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed uses on local traffic patterns. The study should address the likelihood that traffic on the service road may shortcut through the site to avoid the congestion which occurs at Vine Hill Road and Delton Avenue. . (7) Lighting - see (3) above. (8) It appears that the majority of site drainage will be conducted to the pond in the southwest comer of the site. Only the Vine Hill Road driveway itself will drain to the east. Despite this limited area, drainage from the car wash exit poses a concern. Experience shows that car wash usage is high in winter months and that cars tend to drip water as they leave the site. This can create icy conditions on the adjoining roadway. Concern has already been expressed about the grade of the Vine Hill Road driveway. 4 Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.U.P. for Motor Fuel/Car Wash/Food Drive-Up 30 April 1996 (9) Drainage will be addressed further by the City Engineer under separate cover. Although not specifically shown on the proposed plans, it is anticipated that portions of the site which are not paved will be landscaped and sodded. Signage plans are inadequate for review at this time. The applicant's letter suggests that additional signage will be required due to the multiple uses on the site. While the Zoning Code allows multiple signage by conditional use permit, freestanding signs should be limited to one. (10) . It should be noted that gas stations seem to need or desire an inordinate amount of signage. Some of this is necessary due to regulatory warning signs. Gas price signs are inherent. Our past experience with such facilities suggests an ongoing struggle to enforce the City's sign regulations. Development agreements with current owners seem to be forgotten with future owners. In this regard, the City needs to explore more effective enforcement measures. For example can we require a development contract whereby the owner agrees that the City can summarily remove banners, signs and other attention-getting devices for which no permit has been issued? The City Attorney will be asked to address this question and to suggest enforceable techniques short of litigation. Another issue related to signage is outdoor display and storage. Gas/convenience stores often end up displaying merchandise in front of the building. A good example of this exists at Highway 101 and Highway 7. A very attractive building was constructed in the northeast quadrant of the intersection. The brick and copper facade was soon obliterated by antifreeze, fire wood and rock salt displayed outside. While no such display is indicated on the proposed plans, it should be made clear in any approval that outdoor display, sales or storage is not allowed. C. Car Wash Requirements (Sect. 1201.21 Subd.4.b.) (1) Architectural drawings of the proposed car wash building have not been submitted . as of this writing. . (2) Although stacking for the convenience food facility is very adequate, additional information is necessary relative to the car wash. The applicant should advise us as to how long one car takes to go though the wash. From this, stacking space sufficient to handle cars for 30 minutes is required. (3) Landscaping - see R(2) herein. (4) Lighting - see R(3) herein. (5) Car washes accessory to motor fuel stations require no additional parking spaces. (6) Surfacing - see R(9) herein. (7) Drainage - see R(8) herein. (8) Lighting - see B.(3) herein. (9) Access/Circulation - see R(6) herein. 5 Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.U.P. for Motor Fuel/Car WashfFood Drive-Up 30 April 1996 (10) Signage - see B.(1O) herein. (11) Although dust is not anticipated to present a problem, there is some concern about noise. It is not anticipated that the car wash will adversely affect residents to the south of the site. However, the exit for the car wash is approximately 200 feet from homes to the east. The applicant should be required to submit information regarding noise levels from blow-drying equipment at that distance. The Planning Commission and Council may wish to visit the property across the street from the car wash north of City Hall to determine the effects of noise on adjoining property. D. Gas Station Requirements (Sect. 1201.21 Subd.4.c.) (1) . (2) The plans have been forwarded to the Fire Marshal for his review and comments. If a gas facility is to be allowed, conditions relative to pollution (e.g. double wall storage tanks, etc.) - similar to the Waterford commercial site should be included in the approval. Architectural Appearance - plans for the gas canopy have not been submitted to dme. . (3) Surfacing - see B.(9) herein. (4) Drainage. In addition to comments in B.(8) it is necessary that the outflow structure for the pond include oil skimming devices. This will be addressed by the City Engineer under separate cover. (5) In 1993 the City reviewed and amended its requirements for parking relative to convenience stores with accessory gas facilities. The Code was amended so as to not require additional parking space for the gas operation, but not to allow the spaces at the pumps to be counted as parking. Consequently, the total site is short of parking as mentioned in B.(5) by 21 spaces. Lighting - see B.(3) herein. . (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Plans for the fuel operation must include pump islands around the pump. Landscaping - see B.(2) herein. Screening - see B.(2) herein. Access - see B.( 6) herein. Signage - see B.(1O) herein. Although modem gas facilities no longer have the bell which announces the arrival of each car, they do include public address systems for communication between the customer and the store. Occasionally music is piped through such systems. The applicant should be required to address this issue and it may suggest that limitations to the hours of operation would be appropriate. 6 Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.D.P. for Motor Fuel/Car Wash/Food Drive-Up 30 April 1996 (13) It should be noted that no outdoor display or storage is indicated on the applicant's plans. Even trash facilities have been incorporated inside the building - see also B.( 10) herein. RECOMMENDATION . 6. 7. 8. 9. . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Given the number of issues raised herein, it is not possible to make a recommendation, even c.onceptually, at this time. The applicant should be directed to address the issues raised herein, as summarized below: 1 . Submit a wetland delineation for the site and revised site plan to observe 50-foot setback. 2. Provide plans for the actual buildings which are proposed - the principal structure, the gas canopy and the car wash building. Proposed materials should be shown on the plans. 3 . Prepare a detailed landscape plan which preserves more of the existing trees along the south edge of the site, moves the pond and the proposed berm, and provides effective screening along the south and east sides of the site. Significant evergreen trees as well as fencing are recommended. 4. . Contact MNDOT regarding use of part of the right-of-way for ponding purposes. 5. Submit an engineered lighting plan. Prepare cross-sectional drawings showing the relationship of the proposed facilities to the homes on the south and east sides of the site. Revise plans to comply with parking quantity and design requirements. Correct driveway grade so as to not exceed five percent. -Prepare a traffic study relative to the proposed use. In the past the City has hired the traffic consultant and required the developer to post an escrow to cover the cost. Address drainage from the car wash exit area relative to Vine Hill Road. Submit a detailed signage plan - indicating size and location of all signage including informational, directional and menu board. Suggest ways to effectively control future site signage. Provide data on car wash facility so as to determine amount of stacking necessary. Provide information relative to noise and discuss measures to mitigate (car wash as well as any public address system). Approval of motor fuel facilities should follow the conditions imposed on the Waterford commercial development. Provide details for water quality and control of pollution. 17. Do not count spaces at pumps as required parking. 7 . . Re: AmocolMcDonald's C.U.P. for Motor Fuel/Car Wash/Food Drive-Up 30 April 1996 18. The applicant should advise the City how long revised plans, wetland delineation and the traffic study will take to prepare. Allowing adequate time for staff review, the applicant must submit a letter requesting additional review time in compliance with the 60-day review laws. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Larry Brown John Kosmas 8 !~.,. .'\~- d t'- <~ ~'-r.. 5 .~ (lO) \C '3 'I'f! \ UL- 1""~T''35 ' ;,; . I;&' , . '90 5 I 't". ~ ;rr iJF ~ar . ..1:E ~ILL ( I<:) ;II"~~/ 11<.1)4 '. \ ~ '. ..::U; ::i;; :r" . J ~ ~,~ \ \-:...(~\ ~_\51):J.~ :~, ~ . ~~'" 1<0;' ::ro ._ ~ ,I I '4 '1~~ I I i z W 3 (1) .~ ; ~ j) I . ~ 3 = ('31) i ('30) I' I lOll ! i ~ 1.- I . :! (z9) i :<:iI I . fJorlk I JH=2-DC :m.~ - 110. '05 II ~. 06. ~ IS,cl ~ (m~ i.... ...-1 :cs I I! PO !UII (1) (~J ~~~ . )'0 i'-'- \- 5 ....2::; _.l._J (451 /. ,- ~ ,c__.._~-- , . .<-.' . 'Ii'; ,,51.~ I .,....---.:. ~+":;'\'. 5 i ;P .. ~~~~:s ,~.., .:; /' .# j_~ :~:.;::T~ ~.~..~ ::i (S) Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Amoco/McDonald's C.U.P. E: I~ I i. 1- ,', ,.~. "7 :.J'aS. ~ \ '_:"'~' 'C}.~/.-~~., .,;."""':~", ....~___., - ., -"". ~'" ",\ ~ '7 2..,'. 0Y" - ,-~..' , _i .J"'-~:ill -. I: ....~ t "'~-',-,,-..., = ~ ~~. -; ......;._.::!., ~- ~~: -'::'.~__.;.;;;.~--/.'loo'.~'; .s.. .;- ... . ,:.,.--: -.~ KK I:l:SGN 6112 EXCELSIa< BL\JOoMINNSAFaIS, MN. 55416 (612J922-322c DIVISION OF FCAD Cor~RNIOI . . April 2, 1996 City of Shorewood Attn: Brad Nielsen, Planning Dept. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Amoco I McDonald's Facility 5170 Vine Hill Road Shorewood, MN Dear Brad, Enclosed are five (5) copies of the initial drawings for the proposed Amoco/McDonald's facility at 5170 Vine Hill Road, Shorewood, MN. The site located at the southeast quadrant of the new intersection of Vine Hill Road, (frontage road) and Highway 7. Based on our previous conversations I have prepared the application to include the Preliminary and Final Plat, along with a Planned Unit Development. It is my understanding that the current zoning, C-3, allows the proposed uses under a Conditional Use Permit, yet with the three uses you recommend that the P.U.D. process be utilized. The following data is provided to help answer any questions concerning the proposed use and layout: Proposed Use: Amoco / McDonald's facility with detached Car Wash building. Providing sale of motor fuel, retail sales (Convince Store), convince food sales (on site and take-away) and automatic roll- over carwash facility. Location: Southeast quadrant of the intersection located at Vine Hill Road and Highway 7. Zoning: Current zoning is C-3, General Commercial District. No zoning changes proposed. Current zoning allows proposed facility as Permitted Use or Conditional Use. Utilities: Existing services for the property will meet the anticipated needs for the proposed uses. Exhibit B APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 2 April 1996 Page 2 Re: Amoco I McDonald's Shorewood, MN Setback and Parking: All setbacks either exceed or meet city zoning regulations. All parking requirements are satisfied with additional customer stalls located at the pump islands. The stacking for both the car wash and drive-thru window exceed industry standards of five (5) cars per lane. Lot area, width and depth are not effected in the C-3 district. Building Height: Proposed building is one (1) story structure, and the building height at it highest roof peak is about 22'-0". Less then the allowable three (3) stories and 40'-0" height. . Landscape and grading: The proposed landscaping plan has attempted to retain as many of the existing trees and natural plants as possible. Replacement trees will occur based on the proposed replacement policy of eight (8) trees per acre. The proposed plantings are developed to screen both the parked cars and drive thru cars from the adjacent residential properties. Due to the grade changes which occur on the site, various retaining walls will be required to maintain a reasonable slope at the southeast comer of the site. These walls will be landscaped to help soften the overall appearance. . Site Lighting: The proposed site lighting and canopy lighting will be directed away form the adjacent residential properties and will not exceed the city lighting criteria. Signage: Site and building signage will be developed to meet the guidelines developed by the city. Since both Amoco and McDonald's function as two businesses, two (2) site signs are required. Drawings included: Original survey, Preliminary Plat, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, Grading and Erosion Control Plan, Utility Plan and partial floor plan and elevation of the primary building. When the carwash building drawings become available they will be forwarded to you. If you have any further questions or need additional copies please contact my office. Thank you, d{LUG~ John Kosmas _.. _.. _.. _.' _.. _" _" _.. _.. _., _.. ~-..=..'-'~-:-=--..=.-.=.. _ .._~.-I~n.~.~p~.~'-,:1--~~~-. .~_ -.-.=~.'-=-:.--j-'=-~-=~'. 111M ]NV\ 'Cj' 101 '1M' "J ...... '0 '" \.;..... ~..;-. J ~ ;' g' -~'"!. ;'.- ~ lit \.(' ) "'- '... i ~l:i ei8 2;1 ",. 0.1 ~7 ~: ~i~ I~ i.. ~9 ma: ''-.'' " \ \ ..", \. i IS i o i ,/ Z ( :) ~ I - - i I ( - ~l :l ~ , f' j , ~ , :l -f- ~ c:( >oJ. ;~ ~ '/) 1Il-i t; a. W >- I ~ :l 0 i :l .u '/) ::> 1. ::> :x: 1. 00:2 .....sB :!!~i'" lfll_t:li ~ IIwf~.o :; fi - ..., it. lio3'!!'~<l5 c-'li. OS;- ..,5.......0 p.a i~-i~ __,,:5.c:JSa. "~ i - .S s"i:;~~HI 1 ~ i~-" &fi ~ ~IJpl"~ :18 Ji li~~ ..sp :!!",.S" ",cc.S.S'~1l If,,,,t .... BJ!:!!-:!!8~ lie ~ ~ :Siis:j- .Sx ~ !~5~1:!! i:; 5~:!! I~ .ll~ ~ ~ c_ .S ill ;8.. "!ss~i.1I ~K~ .~:; J ci ~S_ sw~ ~l ~.jx.s:!!8~S~~" "'~s l~~i~lI;t~ ,,~:; s 3 .i~~Jrl!t !SS ~~~ __ a o. " o ~N~O"'OS : _ ~~ij;ilt.s lj! ~~; ~lIl1~1~ill'" ~~~ ~!I a.ij. "w ~S~ so", .o.~Ji3l ~~.l il-. S.sSS:Si~g s._ "~5 :;"'0 "oI;sl. ~S'" "''''1; g ~ r H - 01; a..-< - ~ h II J !i!~i~3!~ ~!~ ~I; ~ o.a;j:!!i~Sl ;~I;;r:.ti c "';~lOlI-_S_ sS. "5.li il '5",3lii"'SlEs" i s ~lit '1;~ ~ i JHj!HH I!i ~:! II:,,~ c( i i".i.5il~ Jd i ~ Q. x IItl1..SUlSll5""l iE~ ~ II lI:~ t!-<'1;Il~col;i~ 8~ &i~ ~~ ~ I 15~~h~:h J1: I~li i~" 0" 8 OI-"~!~ 011 I:!! - ~"5 : l;i!I!;;~~ ~i~ ~iJ Hi ..J g ia~SliSIl~~5 ~~~ ~~~ .-5 o ~ ~i!!lihi:i.: iS5 :~: S~li'~ x ::J ~ _ i U c I "') "'~ ~ 01" 5 ,,_ a; . x t:o_ll.i.i ~ ~ 11-- ."1'''' OJ; ."a."iS"S- "s'" II" .- ll- :> \l! 6 c: " ~ K ~ li ""- S i. · - -... .!l 1 ~ . o 0 " .. Ii... c'i" - X s So "'c 5" ~ d ~ oIIi~s&H.i~ :.S ~~i~ ot5~ "C.... -s"UC:,,:f.ll. !.!'" i-;;3li 5g'=O < i hib!~iil~ ~~1 ~~~I Jii! ~ t~ i;!h~d~: ~t.; ~!;~l ~iJ~ . S - o I i. n 5'8 '1;5 r J .....~".~.. ............ i z ~ iii ~ ~d < ..... m ~ a. ~ I ~ ~ I!! ..... i5 is ~:I ~ :r ~ ::J iii . <> . !) <1 .. + g a r./) z o ....... t: o z o u ~ ....... r./) d .,...~ u ~ .t:: E-< i :9r./) i'~ ;i ~~ . 0 ~ ,r~) I..LHLI ~~~.~ , :f~ ~ fi ,""", ,...." , 'Nw+1.vt,tW gNl/}..,,' ' ~ . '_........ _~ '" . - 6 ~~ ]~::_._u__.__ I. j' ;1q....... -- -~-_._-~- .' 'j /' - ---... .....--- ('~- 111 J"..... ...-t, !:98~J -, It nt i r- / .--/ i i I \ ;. i \ I \ .... . \10 D 0 ~ ~ 10- :~ ;!];; g 0 ~ ~i ~'" ~ .~t... I ~~ .. 0'" s 0 ~~ i:3 -.t I i' ~ai _~ ~ ~iE d -11< :I", . 82 iii.. ... "- z 8t;~~ie. ~~g~~ I , I o- N o~ ~w ;1:"'-< ~~~I~ . ~ ~~id S~iil if I <( 5t5 m ~ 0 0 Ul I ffi~ " ~-! "7 to. '-"':'i:::~:~----'-- i . -----------.i\ i . ---T~"'-"',,, \ i \ .~f)~ ,~ el, 4! '. I ~.~ ~.e - (~,!f .\" ~ .~1; \~: ..fIa'" ,./' I! \, 1f. .-- --./ / ." f ci 10 it- 'Ul <( W Q. '-<.J CJ ,1 ~1'lIdljlJ;-HH ;j::fv/,JIlI()8 ~OI~Ij)X.:J (.ll9.' ,.' '" .' "J~\fIM'I NOI1Jm/lSNO:>-~NINNY1d- JHll1:>JIIH:Jll~ N~'S3a ')t ')t 133M15 4109 153M lOOS OVO~l1'H 3N'^ OL l!; , ,. J ,_I . ~" . J,." ~d: .1M 'SNOISII\311 ~ z -< .....:l ~ l.L1 t:: ^NVd~OJ 110 OJO~V S(OlVNOO:>~ / OJO~V - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - -' - - - - -- o 055 ..~o .o~ .....0 ~~ l.L1~ ] N I ^ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -....- - - - - - - - -- ~ 1- r;-lj\~ - U. J;.t -- I;~ - ;~ I 111 ~ .1 , ~ i ; I il I I I d. ..I-.n ..o-.It Q 't( 0 H , , H .'.ur H.IJlOS ----------------- 1'1YM t)NlNr\'DH MlN i I I I ,-( '-1- -, ~~::l r-ill---r- ~ ~ '-1=1..1-. III 81'!~' ~~~ -=-~-L ~n ~... --------- I 'It D *1 ~i." ~ D II ~i ~ ~ I t :; ,- ~ Q. I,'. ,.~ :~,: ~ .~- ~:j--I - I I I I _=---_ R===-_~_~_~=__ =_J b , 10 ..I.dOHY:tlexU ---~s~~~<<------------------------- "'""'US _d 1NOlU .o-,~I II ------------,- J ..".ct.O M , I I --------- -------------- ~ (] ~ ~ __________ (] if .~ ~ ' ............-.......... ..J "", ...~, ~ '" "" ~ ",'-., ~ "" ~ , \ ~ ~ \ '\' '\J \ \ 1\ \ .0-, : I 81 II L_ . . ffi~ m , t' ~I i! " Ri ~, .. ~ Ii 2 0 e: ~ ~ iii ~ I. i- ~ 1----- .. I ~-- I -- . w -.-- ~I --- 51 i: I , I 11 :i :1 I I I , i I , ~ o,~: I <0 ; i. Z ::s n.. w !::: (f) 0 ~;; ,,;; ;:l9B :l. 'J;; "f ... II, ..;...; vi tit toot Ctt I:! ....:"i ,.. .- "l 1::';" !:! ;; 2 "'~! of :1\ ,,; ~ f !II : III~~ ~ ~ Iw ~ I I I~~ " ~ . ~ ~ II , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I ~ , I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I t I I , I I I I I I I I I , I , I I I I I I B;S I : ill: \ It..' \, III 1 \ litl I , ' , I , I , I , I , I 1 I I I I , I , I '~ \ , \ I L_____-.J .oo.ct M "10.10..0 N " - I " rt<J. " " " ... ..~~f.f' . " tfi TREE KEY " ... " " 05-. 10' COTTONw:lOO "".":. ;..~* " 9, 12" HACKBERRY ;~;, ~*B LEGEND g: ::: :::: -______.~.,.. ~ t..::::f"' .___--________ /' ",'" 0 NANHOLE I';::L. 18- OiERRY '_ .. _ ........ --. /,,, t.:::J.. _.____.... " . CATCH BASIN ~. __..-___....._ ./... . 20 IRON.ooo ...:r-..-:=.-;.:::=.::'-:=--= /~ ~ ~ ----- ---- ~ -6- HYDRANT . 22' POPAL rl" l.;f · GAlt VALlIE @< 24" IIAPLE "s: rr (I UGHT POLE Be 26' BIRCH " ~ PO~ POLE (3. 28' OAK & 30' ASH 8z 32" ELM .0 10" SPRUCE .. 12" PINE ..-...--..- ---. --. -- '-~---- - ..-....---. ------- ..-..-. - -... -..... -..... .------.....--- ....-- : =-=-_....-....-. .. ....--.--.......-- ~ =.... - ----..... : ==:r=--t.....1 ;, ,.,..---............- ) ----------- ~_..---_.._- -------~.... -.-.-------.- -..~_...... ..----..-..- -......-. --. -~-- -..---------- -..---.,,-------..- ......... ....... -...-. ... - - ..---.. -------------- .....-..-....-----.....-.-- .............--.............- - - ... --.... -..... .--....- --.......--. :--=,..-.:..-.;:..:: =-- -.... ...... ............-.-------..- .----.--.-....,- ...............------- -.----.. .....----....................... :.=-: ~":":'--""" -........... " " -e: - - - =~1'>);,..,(..... _.) ~ (6 I'lL r.... 1IDICM IUI/R n.ow tx. ....., + UNE EX~G out: lIEST fROII TIlE PONT OF COUIlfHCu[NT - \ -',,-- EAST ~U~iF; ~~..~~tnr.:,~:U1,;,u.u_u~;::.::.:.::.-==..=..:.;::~:;n=: :10.; ;zt;rU1:..:.~U;l1..:;:I;~.. ~~ /j" .~IUH.l.Ul,.UUll.:~L~...u.~~~.U.LU."U..ULl~~~;. ',;:; :."~ . . .-0a3; ;; ...r'\, = :~~-'ll ~ ," ';. . ) ..J : 1/ ~ ;.; " 66 90'0'0' =.00 5 150.00 ~. ~::/'- I': 986 IlIII;. .... euu. _.lIICID ..."./IItL I .. 2_ " 'c ., Ii! ! 1$ . i;!t '~J2 .. '. ., l .\ ~>''1 7.. ~;, ~ '. 1 '" ...\ 1".~" ." SILT FrNcr DlTAlI 911, I."'; CONSTRucnON ENTRANCE III ltLE. BOX ~~~ - SIGN ,. .. 330.00 ~~ 61 --..-- CONSTRuaTON ENTRANCE ; I .~! "~I '~I I : 'f 'l' '" ! SCAlE IN FEET l -,~./! ....' i ~~ f I ~,7f" - ~- I I I I o A I 'ER OUAUTY TREA TME:NT ~GE AREA - 2.61 ACRES I TREA llAENT STORAGE REOUIREtl TREAllAENT STORAGE PROVIDED = BERM a = 985,a: .' I :~;:~ (100YR) _: .~.~~"~ I aOTTOM = 976.0 L WATER DEPTH - 7.0 I AT N~ .. 696.4 SF ABLE DISCHARGE - 2.12 CFS I ; 12" PE 0 -1.0" 0 ELEV. 983,.0 PVC INSERT FOR FlOW CONTRdL ------ i i '",I I " l.... "I ~,:. ;>\'t:'-' . ~ ~. ~--l'''' ~ i ", . .' i ~ ~I i /J'!'-. '1.. I ~I g i 'r"-'~ 51 ~ S~I I~CL ~! ~ -~~ ~i ~ ... :J: ~ ., ........ .... ~ ~ I, . ~ j. F ,: W ~." :',~::> I ~l..~ .. 9'4; I ~ " "-0 I ~ li I ';.(1) / ~ 11 .oJ ,:.. .....~ ;: I 1 $, ~NE HIlL l~.--nm____........--t . o L- r1' ;\ G -e f~O~ ~ _ '-\." ...-~ \. .."'....#"..- .~~ . "l~ ~5--" -:-.. -.. '\ -', f' ,. -. 1: "'. ..?-. . t/,i j-i' n ?~ (' ,," j~-' '/ .~/ ;., 51 \ .r / .~.., ~ '~4_1 lJ " 6;" /. .;;/.... ~ :~ " ~O~J..). ;:/ ~j1o.. i : ~~ , :r h , -?~ / "YaH \'lr... , /.'. 179.56 ". " ,~: '~~.I~~=~~.i ' WI e'-v-:J""l ICCESS NStEi< : :' . : . , If. .' : " t i (,. A\~ t, ... -r ~- c f' f' j:) .1 i/~" -f~ 100.00 " l' ,41 At .45 AF .,. ... f EAST a.8.21. eb-1 c. ~_....,...-.': :I";~ '-. r. l .. " ~ .; -.;I....;~ :.". N .... cci o , ....- \ \ '" '" " ., ,f l.U '-.. . "~- , " _.110 WAU,: l, .~., \ tJ cr....----r-:-I,-~-~r-~..,. i " ~ , \, ~::;: .~..':'.:, ....-\ , " .... 0' ,. .. ,-.-fI/), ' f,... ........~ ,Nf:W mAIMING ~' 970 , .,\::.... ~ " 09lU': \. E _v_' . ,4iIlt .. \ l" .1 "',".\ '. i '\ ;: 1"'7l\-?"""" ~ ' ~' . '67 ....." ..~. I ~ -!Hl4C! . I .', "'l.I-~, ... .....~, ~ ~ + 164 N JIteiC~..". ".J ~. \ '. ' ,-_..' \ -..." It ~ -e" '. ~ ,.RVIIT \ ,,.,. \ ~T~~C: '. \ ',. ~~'\ I ,;":',tiP.~--'-~-~~---~--:" o:,;;:'l'" .t., ; ,~.-~~~" -f..,,;~.. (f,'. ,~. '(~.'!;"A ).,,~:, t,. \~:t . . .:. r ., \\ acp +_:~.J! ;}~;,~ to h. j >- \;-"---..:..'-. i rlOli' .it,., 'i -:~ tao. : .~t _ ~ "0 ',-- 't te5 " ;/':. ,..... ,."' :~.j7;_;' ,1:' ../// <-. ;. -\ l.\', \",~ .' ? i"F\-TLi . '" ~: So UNf. lOT '5. Wi( HlU. -,' OYINER: C. F. MOORE 6: S. N. PRIDE -'_. .'''61f P.I.D., 25-117-23-4<4-0011 '.'-___.._; ..~. ; : //,..<@' I't..,,,-' ", 9~.' ,.., ~ I . '.. I \ I I - . ,,'t.. . N89"58'25.W \ '-. '...._~:.l .1~ . 913 ~ .."'....., OWER: lHoaIAS E- IE CYNTHIA II. HEINER PJ.D., 25-117-23-44-0017 ..... '" !II . . -.' :,;;.::::. DESIGNED: GLD I HERfJly CERTIFY 1l1AT 1l1IS PLAN WAS PREPAR[!) BY NE OR UNDER IlY DIRECT SUPER\1S1ON ANO 1l1...T I NA A OUl Y RFGlSTDtm PR()F1:'~rw..., n.~ ROGER A. ANDERSON ANO AS5;nrJA n:-c: It.I~ At.AOr.O ^r""'\ A"'...." c( ~ z o .... ~ z z ::: L4.. o >- .... u w Z .CJ 9n.~ '''''1 I r )( ~ ~ ~ -". I r .96iJ_8 I r I Exhibit E PROPOSED GRADING PLAN PLOTT!Il; I I I --'.~-- I i I I 11 , i ~ il I I l I ~II il co r; I: z I: 0 (f) .i1 N () co )> l) fT1 \J I: ~ s;: Z ~ : z I I -- ~ I G _ oED co '"dtrl ~ 02: '"dg 0..... C/)'"!1 trl tJ l' > Z tJ () > '"d trl '"d l' > Z . . r-----,-- ------, I , I , I \, , \ ~ \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ \ I \ I \ ~ \ 1\ \ \ \ I \ \ I \ \ I \ \ I \ \ I \ \ \ \ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , , \ , , \ , '\ I , I , I ~ I I I I I I -\ 1- ',,-- "" ~ ',,- ~"'I " f; "'--, ~~ ""------------ ~ -'-'-------. o --. ... b ------------- ------- ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----- 3." JO '0'" HICiH PlNmHOS ----------- 3'" TO eo" HIGH PlN<TlNGS ---------------------- .--------- JW. CAHOPY r~~i----~='--= --~--l I I I I I I l 2~___ _____ _ ;3!J I I I ~ I~ I I . ~ I I ~I~ I " ;il HlW REf_ W-'U ---.-----....---.------...----:......-- V I H E HIt l R 0 A D - - - - - - -- -....;." -- - - - - - - -.- -- - ~ - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --- -----_._--------_._.._~~-----------,---~--_._-----------.----,~._.-. - - - - - - --- -'------- -- -- --- --- ------ -- --- -- --- ---- --- ;- AM 0 C 0 / Me DON A L 0' S fA M 0 COO I LeO M PAN Y _. ~..T~~Ri~.~~:~~~~.~,._.:T!ON M_N_GfMfNT VINE HILL ROAD 'iOO 1 WFS I 80th <;TRFn _ . . ....' ~. .... / .... .. . Stt~t.'t ' . .... # TREE KEY .... .... .... ~ 10" COTTONWOOD ../......~ .~,~.:.~1* .... & 12" HACKBERRY .. .:' ~/-Br 8-- 1."1lASSVlOOO ". -: -1'4--1< LEGEND @o 1'" BOX ElDER .... .... 0 NANHOLE (3.0 18" OiERRY / / .... .... .... . CATCH BASIN ~ 20" IROHWOClO 1f1~~$"" : ::::~ e.:::: c.: P , (l LIGHT POLE 13- 26" BIRCH .... ....;:7 1:\ POYf:R POLE & 28" OAK G10 30" ASH G9z 32" WI ". . 10" SPRUCE eO 12" PINE .... .... " - -S;.- - - - - /I 121:t --~.. 1 . I . 15. WE: HIlL I I I I I I I I I I i .- 160.00 --..&-----.....-..........-....-..----,.- . o t- rtf.A G fJ fFO /..~ .... -.... " ",' .. ~ct.......~ _______-- Z --- . --55-- . . - . . - . . " z i ill ls 1/ --- it ~ 1 ': 12 .: >'1 . . '..... :/..- -',. :/ Z N 3JO.OO ___________L _.:.:...~~\/.- EAST \ r 14.60~ : \. ") I r----------- "'-~---.' ", 1- '355"'~< L----J I . ~... ~'':>_ - -c;Dli1l\Cl-'" I . 6-E ~!!.-- .. .' I ~78-o'lO _-,.;~-- ,;,. .:,. _--- _'-,.".___.J ---; 6\lIuJ.;'~." _.:.----- e>(lI11'" \~'- - --- -- -- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 "I !: ~I ~~ ~: ::: I: Y~: ... III I ... I I I ICBMi-8 IRIIot 985.5 IINV. 9B2.2 cc 65 LF lB" PE 0 0.6ll: ~ ~ '. , \\ , , / i I r-- I~ -- I SIGH r I 1 I I I I EAST 5 150.00 .....---1-_ ~--.. ' I....\, " ,~-::::~~-..--"("m :':"'\ .~ : \ ~~ : \. Z;; : \; , ""~/\ .: l,. '_~:""IC~ ~. J< ~, --- FVTURt I i CBIotH-3 I R1M 986.5 I . .:.'!~V. 983.31 " ..."'" fI,)' co C1 Cll ~ l .d.:..,.': .J II mE. BOX 1 (.upe-~. i' OF.:Qf' !lI4.JCll . ..,. I oj 1 ~ i .... # ,I +1mJ " " '" CSMi-7 RIIot 986.. INV. IN 983.3 (N), ~',"'" INV. IN 982.7 (E) , INV. OUT 982:~, .;" . i i~ tJ... ,.., Ilg i~i ~Cl. -~-t~~ ~ J F= i~ l:l :;::) It< ~ . ~ f.l 0<: ;,... W I lL!.J :;~ ,-I , i i, ~~" I J ~,."., I ,.,;r,.. I ~,.,.[ "I x ... SIGN I .U;t '--;;'Y . · · · I CSNH-ll " RIIot 986.2 ~*. . 25 LF 18 PE 0 O.lIll: .. ' ::~: ~iB~~:O ..<-" .~. .".7< ---_--------------APjf.=-9--...J ~ ~~ ~c:w~~~~>-.;~(~~~. ,,//" ~:::-~-----------:V~~:~-- Q.'O~' ....~ '....~) ",";;" ~4"i-- N _ C.:i.,;.' Y " // 10 .~.. ~...;.~,,';l"J," ~~/!l ,-; ~ ',-~:;";.. ",,/ "" .' - '0101 ~ <~. ,. /// ///. ".",p ojifD fit ..;~ ~--------------~.'_~.~.~--~.-.~~(--~~t~~------------~~----- . . ,_.:0\ ~;!':' :.~~;~~:~ l ',: ~.... , .....T 1-< ~~lJ.:I .' J ", ..' ti'1" ;~ -~_:i'o; ":l'. .. '>',- e ~ ,-. ; - - - -or - - - - -- - - -- - - -;,- -:~- , q ; Ii i~ u '-"r: : EXCIIIilH-I2~. ."U 1".. .c- : EX RIM 981.7 % ", <..; : EX lNY. 979.3 (N) .ff 1 . . : .-r INV. IN 979.5 (5) " i .. i c /'1/ /"..: : ~,'.' w- i c / r /-p ~ : ,0 ;' ,p ~ ~ ."/ 0 .,. ,..'" /. /.o"P Z ,>"'....... ,_~. _:r '\.~Q ..,' / /~. M / ;;~/;?/ ~ It /0 ~79.56 33Q.00 -B ~ -.::-~ --'l-~4~:'.J' II ,).~. .) ~.l<' ,-;~ .- ~.;),q w ,I " " , ' " : .- I :, ,~ ~'I, ,11fVlCt I : i j..,," I +154 /.-':03e~ t /. . .L ... ,..;~;:.--.-nl-- ",' ./ '-' -----: I ~ I II 1 ~ ". I ~ ~ I b , ~ y,;l(.: -' ': ,.,,~., '~y'~ ::.~~.t'!Jf \.ONE ':~ ......~....:; .,. ....---- EAST \ \ ---\ - , >.", - . . ::1.7.::':: -'-'-~.. - .. '. ~.':r 54'-<f lIUlllING .... ..- smoQ< r--' To ............. ...J.. ..r;".~'.,~-~~ I' I,; ~~ " I _m_...... ':"'.1." ./.~~:.:.,. '-"''1>- c:?:' ..-::.:, .1,...~I..'iL , ~, . I ..~~ .1'-....,.. +.,. +- ~ . ell P ~"."i ..r Jo";!O " ;)t:.~.~ -'- '.' (;":;,1: ;~"iVl'tS"""-"" "'t ~~, ;-....~.~.;.: " -::>>C10:- , .-......75 . ..'::r. ....:t"1 <'t ,I ~t.it: ,. .:.J.-;t~ 'J~j" "';.i'. \..r " .J'l' ',- ;r~{... -./..~i'lYtI; -'-"'''-- ,~ ':~';'I .,-""1.... ~. ':J"l~.; ... .~- I, ~~'_.j. .~~.~\ ;, :tlii~"-, \~i,1. .. '~J,t~ .~ f .80 w . W.;' i ..!;;' " ..."'~ ","1 .v,,(:~~,~. . ~I::' -~ ...../..~, ~: ~e1;~" ~.~:-~'fj ;~ "'?~:':~~ ......:..<-.-. "'1;~i~ \ \ r .....~.~ , ,r S. UN[. LOT 15, WrIt KLl .J' OMolER: C. F. MOORE .. S. N. P11IOE P.I.D., 25-117-23-~0011 F(HI:E 66 '--;1--" I' I I ; ~ ~ i I, '~1 ~11 ~: z 1'" ... ~~ .., o i ..I ! i ~i ~i' [ ! i i i I :. I I ~I ~I I i, I I I I I r I 66 ! i ! i , I ! i f I. i I I .- I 1 ..-/;'" i u-.,:: I SCALE II ruT < :.: Z o ... I.LI Z Z ~ ..... o >- I- u % .... PAVENENT SE'C11ON HOT 10 sc..u; I!!IllIIllll eaBIlItIll lIT. ., _ , '/2" r lIT. 3' eASE r 2" Q.AS5 v 0" ,0- Exhibit G PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN ~'. :;; ~':';'I DESIGNED: I IiElIIIJY CERllFY lHAT 1HIS PLAN wAS PREPARE!) GLD BY %UNOER NY OIRECT SUPER\tSION ANO lHAT ROGER A. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIA lESINC. AMOCO I DRAYlN: I /III Y REGlSlERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER .....i.idR 1HE LA.!" ~ 1HE STATE OF ~TA SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA I PSH~ lC- . Umd OevtJlopment Municipal Railroads UTIL -----..- - -- --- ------- CHECKED BY: -~ 7"S .0\'2ATo 81.\'0., SUTE '07, _AP<llJS. ~To .(6tO) 546-7QJS KK DESIGN - ._-- ......... ...i' o-~ ....'?-O' N89OS8'2S"W OMolER, lot. A. ZGRAGGEN .. NANCY IotARllN P.I.D.' 25-117-23-~0018 ~ i I \ 011INER: THONAS E. .. CYNTHIA N. HEINER P.I.D., 25-117-23-4<4-0017 ITY PLAN lunA_V "~2 () \J1 () '11 I - I ~J () .J \)1 11 r-- C) () /G lJ r )> -""/"" L- SHEEI OF --- - --; , , , , /'"" ct- n -0 ~ (f ..L J I Z <C .....1 ::r::/:l.. .....0=: :.00 :EO ~S L [O..J(' ---) - ..) c L._ III I -==--~ I (J <fi:l/=t:rfJ OOO@ D-- ------_. j( X ;Sf L~ g] , ~ [_ ~. ~.~I~~l > ~-=r~ <x -=~~~=I :!: 1ti " y l I ~ 1I:=212JC BJ ~{Q ] ldJ~; ~ijlO L~ - ( I -r-//, // .... .. ,,/'/):./ /<" - ./ [ 1:// J'" . ) /;; <5)(' /~, ~ o "//>~"~". ~~ / / ,.' -// '..'. '" ~, /~/';// .~, ' ~ /~// ~,~ '-D~/ '~, c::J c) (" >, I C\ ....' B = D ----/ ( 00 00 00 B 00 f'OO B35 00 .- 00]00 B35 00 00 00 B35 () ~ ~ , ~ --, r) I ~:2" L '-~j P~OJ. NO: 9601.-z'5, DESIGNED BY: JPK DRAWN BY : SPl DATE: 4/'1./1 996 AMOCO / McDONALD'S SHDRE DD - MINNESD 1I~-ICC o t: ii ] 01 o B 966l/-"/i? : 31VO ldS : ),,8 NM'v1l0 >ldr :),,8 03Nn1S30 $2.'1096 : ON TO~d V.LDSBNNI'W - ClDDMilt.tDHS S,C'VNOCOW / OODWV z () ......... ~ <( > W ~ W ~ Z () {X: lL II III [] C-- om rr8~-~"-.-=~=~..'-. ~ ,--' Ej-----I- . - o l~-~ t; ~ -.-.--- J 1Mb oR=:l . J . 3. jj /// &t /;:?; '\J1 'II ~ ~~ I ~ I " n U I I TI I I 7 () 1--1 ~ <( > W ~ III \-- I \D A I I.@ /1 '\~: / I ~/ I ~ I ~ n I U I I ~ I ~ UJ t---t ~ II LJ 1 ctt=J -- - [] 1_' IJBl ~--- =e=-- o rI: ~] I ~Jj r- ~-- --.---- ~ OE"il ~ ._=~~ '- .._u_. ___ U ~~~ ~ c.=.-:-:=-=-~ ~ ~ ["- - --:- -- _::: ~ 'c =-c::f.~=_~- \'; :'.; , , I (/) ;;, ~ c: o Q u ~ u ~ <ec: .0 ..... CI)...... Z~ O(\) ~- ~(\) <etl >g ~(\) ~"'Cj ~.E "g '7. .- .......c:;....., ......,.... 0 .- ~ c: :Ed~ >( 0 UHQQ .. '.J . -. I \ i .1 I . ! . ! II \ \ ! I iTii I u_ LII __ I _. MAYOR Robert Bean CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL Kristi Slover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty Doug Malam 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD- SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331.8927 - (612)474.3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission Tun Hurm FROM: Larry Brown . DATE: May 2, 1996 RE: Proposed Amoco Station Approximately 500 feet south of Trunk Highway 7 on VIDe Hill Road Background This 2.52 acres site is located near the southeast quadrant of the VIDe Hill Road interchange and State Trunk Highway 7. Currently the site has three existing single story buildings that are proposed to be removed as part of the construction process. The proposed use of the site is an convienience store coupled with a McDonald's restaurant. Site Plan . The site plan provides for 41 parking stalls and 2 handicapped stalls which is in accordance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). Traffic and Circulation Since the proposed use of the site is anticipated to be very intense, a traffic impact study will be required which uses current traffic count data for both the frontage road west of the site and VIDe Hill Road. Of particular interest is are impacts generated during the early morning operations between the house of7:00 am and 8:30 am. Another area of concern is the potential for cut through traffic from the frontage road to Vine Hill Road. The exit from the car wash is approximately 80 feet from the driveway exit. The applicant needs to address the potential of icing at the driveway from the drippings of freshly washed vehicles. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore ~ - - Amoco Site Review May 2, 1996 Page 2 of3 Sanitary Sewer and Watennain The proposed site accesses sanitary sewer service from an existing service off ofVme Hill Road. The applicant will need to provide a 6 inch diameter sewer service out to the sanitary sewer main. In addition, a waste separator/grease trap will be required for the sewer service prior to discharge in to the sanitary sewer.. Watermain is proposed to be extended from an existing fire hydrant near the southeast comer of the site. tot eh proposed building and carwash. The path of the proposed watermain extends through the fuel dispensing pump/canopy area and the proposed underground fuel storage tanks. This watermain should be relocated around the fueling area, and a minimum of 15 feet away from the underground storage tanks to allow for repairs to the watermain. Grading and Drainage The existing topography for the site varies by approximately 30 feet. A high ridge extends from the northeast corner of the site towards the center of the site. Proposed grading generally involves cutting of 3 to 4 feet for the north and west quadrants of the proposed parking lot with fill areas exceeding 23 feet in the southeast quadrant of the property. The plans propose the construction of a terraced retaining wall of approximately 23 feet over three levels. The low lying area adjacent the retaining walls is suspected to have be a wetland according to the City's wetland delineation map. Therefore a wetland delineation will be required. The site plan will have to be revised to meet the wetland ordinances to avoid . encroachments. Parking lot grades should be revised to insure that most, if not all of the parking lot runoff is treated by the proposed pond versus leaving the site by driveway entrances. The plans also propose a pond on the southeast portion of the site. The applicant's engineer will need to provide storm sewer and ponding calculations to insure that the predeveloped runoff rate has been maintained. In the event that the proposed outlet to the pond fails, there is as much probability that the emergency overflow for the pond will impact the properties located south of the site versus the frontage road to the west. A well defined emergency overflow for the site should be constructed on the north side of the ponding area to avoid potential impacts to homes. In addition, the outlet to the pond must be redesigned to handle petroleum contaminants form the site. It is recommended the structure shown in Exhibit A be used as an outfall structure. This structure provides additional response time for containment of a petroleum spill, while providing a longer retention time for minor amounts of petroleum and oil residues from the site. 'J . . Amoco Site Review May 2, 1996 Page 3 of3 Slopes for all cut slopes must be a maximum of 3: 1 or flatter. Recommendations Staff is recommending that the site plan be tabled until the following items can be addressed: 1. A traffic impact analysis be completed using current traffic counts. . 2. A wetland delineation be performed and documented for the low area at the southeast quadrant of the parcel. .3. Calculations be submitted by a registered professional engineer for the storm sewer calculations and for retaining wall design. 4. The watermain be revised such that encroachment can be avoided to dispensing pumps and underground storage tanks during repairs. 5. The pond outlet shall be revised per Exhibit A 6. Comments should also be received from the Fire Marshall to determine if a second fire hydrant is appropriate on the south side of the building. 7. Parking lot grades need to insure that most if not all the runoff is treated by the proposed pond versus leaving the site by driveway access areas.. .:0 ~: >;;:J ~ , \ . GALVAnIZE!:) STEEL GiUnNG BENTf-x3"ll'4. 'F" s.s.. EXP. ANCHORS @ r.tY' ~J 1- . .0 : _, 0 ~ -,;, lVJl W' lI: ... @ ,. O.c. CONT. BAa "'. lI: ,. @ r O.c. . -~ 6" 2'.0" 3!.O" blOJ:E: 1. GALVJN1ZE AU. MEMBERS .4!"Tn FABRICATiON 2. AU. SIEa. SHALt. BE A36 J. AU. BOLTS.. NtJ'n:. WASHERS SKAU. BE STAILESS SIEU. OR GALVANIZSD ~RATE DETAIL PLAN VIEW 4~O" s" ~ 6" r , . .r OUT1.ET PIPE \.j.1 o OU'T'UrrPIPE 7'-0- --------- FRONT VIEW SECTION VIEW I ~. . 'f I I OI1T1..ET P SOl . , EXHIRIT A TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE CITY OF SHORE WOOD PLANNING COMMISSION I live at 5123 Valley View Rd. Our street is in Minnetonka and at this point it is a quiet peaceful circle. Will all this end if the Vine Hill corner becomes a traffic snarl? How can the Vine Hill corner support the traffic the proposed McDonalds and Amoco would bring in? The hill already is very ice covered in winter and a car wash creates more ice from excess water dripping from cars as they leave the wash. The Williston and 101 car washes both have experienced problems with this. . There are other major concerns I have about this project and please consider them carefully. 1. Your legal notice states that the Sailor Newspaper would publish the notice April 24, 1996. As of 5-1-96 the Sailor tells us they were never notified. 2. McDonalds were told by Mr. Youngstedt that there was no neighborhood opposition. Matt Larson and the John Scully family told Mr. Youngsted's people they were absolutely horrified at the very idea of this project. McDonalds is taking a second look at what is going on here and whether they want to be part of this. 3. We have been tcrld that the local media had done a piece on Mr. Youngstedt's questionable business practices. Do we want this business man in our neighborhood? . Please look at your maps very closely and decide how you are going to deal with the high school traffic. Will Valley View Rd. be the shortcut they will use to get to McDonalds? We cherish our neighborhood the same as each of you do yours. Please think this over very carefully. Thank You ~ 5-2-96 -~-- ------- Attention Shorewood Planning Commission: This neighborhood of Valley View Road has had enough! We have dealt with the Vine Hill Market Game Room which provided a hangout for juveniles and drug abuse. I have been a resident of this neighborhood at this same address for 23 years. I chose to live here for the peace and quiet this residential neighborhood provided. Every year my rights are being violated more and more. . During the time Burger King was in operation the highschool and Stratford Wood kids used our neighborhood and our backyards and driveways for a shortcut to Burger King. They were trespassing, doing damage on the way, and leaving a litter trail on return. I have picked up my share of soft drink containers. Valley View Road is a thru street with access on Vine Hill Rd. and Dalton--(Frontage Road for Hwy 7) not a cul de sac as assumed by the Shorewood Planning Commission. Has the planning commission also assumed there is no opposition to this proposal? Will Vine Hill Road support the additional traffic that the proposed Amoco/McDonald will draw? . Has a traffic study been conducted on a similar gas station/McDonald type facility in a residential area-- this close to a highschool? If not we request one. Even though this parcel is zoned commercial in Shorewood, it is very much so imposing on the residences. Residential homes and trees must be leveled to build this monstrosity. There is a McDonalds 2.5 miles to the east in Mtka and 1.5 miles to the west in Excelsior not to mention the abundance of gas stations--Holiday--Food & Fuel-- and Conoco within 1 mile of this proposed location. Amoco/McDonalds are not welcome in the Valley View--Shady Hills area. S ~nc -~ 'LIJJ ~~~ //(, Tb~M. Douse e 5123 Valley View Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 JOHN R. STRAND 612 474 6727 . Friday, May 3, 1996 To: The Shorewood city council and Planning commission: I am a resident of the Shady Hills subdivision of Shorewood. I have become aware in recent days of a proposed plan to build a combination AmoCO Gas Station/Car WashfMacDonald's facility on the corner of Vine Hill Road and Highway 7. OVer the last couple years we, as residents of this area, have had to endure the construction of a bank, a Holiday gas station, and the reconstruction of the intersection of Highway 7 and vine Hill Road. The last thing that we need in this area is another gas station/fast food restaurant that will increase the traffic and noise levels even more in what used to be a nice, quiet neighborhood. I am also ve~ concerned ~at this MacDonald's will become a hangout for h1gh school kids, especially on weekends, like Burger King used to be. There were numerous times when I had to call the police because of the noise levels late at night being so high at Burger King. The thought of another tlhangoutll like that coming back to the neighborhood alarms me and simplY is intollerable. please have these developers find another site for their project as this would be tl9as station overkill" for this area with the Freedom stat10n at Highways 101 and 7 and the Holiday station at Market Road and Highway 7. Sincerely, c;2d4 ~ John R. Strand 5220 Shady Lane Shorewood, Minnesota 474-6727 55331 - , -::::; ,'- - ---- ~ j'" ; ~. 'i~,::.= ((--: j .~. l! ~ 1 _/ ,--- ',- ~=;j i.= ~r\;, . ,\ ;~" ',.' CJ ~,~~:,~ ,I j , U. ;.:,~, ( - v ;,:;...-C .Ji . ' 3.V P.01 City of Shorewood Council & Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN . J .'." .-.... ~.:~~p-,~ We are writing to express our opposition to the proposed development of the Amoco/McDonalds near the intersection of Vine Hill Road and Highway 7. We live on Lot 3, which is three houses south of the site. We chose this location to purchase our home in 1992 because of the quiet neighborhood atmosphere and high probability of increased residential property values. We have endured a property tax increase of39% (1992 - 1996), while anticipating a corresponding increase in property value. We believe this proposed development will be a blight on our neighborhood and ruin the residential real estate market that currently exists around this site. . While a decrease in the market value of our home is difficult to ascertain without actual evidence, the obvious repercussions such as air & noise pollution, rubbish and increased traffic would undermine the current property values in the neighborhood. In addition, a natural ridge, running east to west currently separates the busy commercial area along Highway 7 and the quiet residential properties along south Vine Hill Road. Allowing this proposed development on the south side of this ridge destroys this natural separation and subsequently eliminates the division. Delete It would increase the already high traffic volume we have experienced. Most mornings and evenings the intersection at Vine Hill Rd. and Delton have a traffic build up, mainly due to the Minnetonka High School traffic, which would undoubtedly increase. Delete When Burger King was in operation we frequently had to remove the paper cup and packaging products tossed onto our lawn. This would not only return but increase dramatically due . to the closer proximity of the proposed site. In conclusion, we strongly believe that it is the responsibility of our elected officials to follow the needs and wishes of the taxpayers who are the majority and vehemently oppose this proposed development. e k that you deny Mr. Youngstedt's petition. ~~d'//~ Michael Nicklaus 5240 Vine Hill Road 470-5341 (H) 449-4425 (W) Thank you. I'i . ~'. 'P~ ~ ~I/~U 1b" //~ 7 j'l !'j t . ~ 1,;<4 ~ ~;I1R ~ 1: ~ ~~~ i;l~*,..~H~~~~~'Y . :;:~~ ~?1b~sd!:e. ~ i.:~ ~~~~r~yt~ :.~~~M,L~~_T. . ~ i~~A::Y'..~~~ ~~./(/J2~ .~~e~~h~:(:~ iih fM~1 /AJL.U ~ ~ ~ ;;,~~~~~. $a<L~~~"~ y?Pp :;t~~ . . ~~~.~ - '. ;:.1.... ~. ~..~~ ~rKo.. r ,. ~ ~, ;I1U; _/~._' . . " . id c_-~=...Jt__" '.. . . . _.::-~-' - i!!~ . .. ..jli ~tA-=~,?_.~ ~ -A.~ ~ 1; i _... ' . ~ r . !i! .; "77i ~. I !; ,. .' .'j . --.--.........-."-',-- ~ ... --- - - -" , , f;" ;J:~; - -~ -:::3~. ~/f~. , ~ ~v H;~- /IU. ~ ~~ .-.,---...---..... .....-..----- i-,... Patrick R. Malmsten 5350 Shady Hills Circle Shorewood, Mn. 55331 Shorewoood City Offices Brad Nielsen; Planning Director Re: Property at 5170 Vine Hill Road Proposed Amoco/McDonald's Facility Dear Mr. Nielsen: We, Pat and Jo Malmsten of Shady Hills, Shorewood, are very much opposed to the proposal to build an Amoco/McDonald facility and car wash in the location on Vine Hill Road. . This is a residential area and not conducive to such a commercial development; particularly a McDonalds restaurant which will be busy with automobile traffic, people and noise in a quiet area of Shorewood. The proposed development will directly face Vine Hill residents on the East and will be adjacent to Shady Hills Residents on the South and West. The buffer area of trees would be lost and the commercia10 area would considerably reduce property values in the adjacent areas. A commercial venture of this magnitude should not be developed in a residential area. We request~ that this plat and conditional use permit requir~d by Mr. ~ungstedt, be denied. . Sincerely; Jo . . FILE COpy April 25, 1996 ,//') . \ ',d, I ~ , A i, '~.' t. i ( . i'-j .,' ~ " Mr. Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 I! II , i " Reference' Proposed Amoco I McDonl',lld's Facility@ 5170 Vine Hill Road Dear Sir: In response to the project named above, my family and I strongly urge the City Planning Commission to reject this proposal. While it appears from the landscaping plans that the facility itself will not be completely visible from my driveway (approx. 400 feet to the east) lam strongly concerned about the increase in traffic that likely will use Valley View Road as access. With the recent improvements to Delton Ave. and future completion of W. 62nd St. to adjoin State Highway 101 to the south, I expect that traffic on Vine Hill Road will increase dramatically in the coming months. Frequently my family and I take walks in both directions from our home to Vine Hill and Delton. It never ceases to amaze me that vehicles on these streets travel at highway speeds. On many occassions, traffic flows on Valley View Road to avoid the stop signs at Delton and Vine Hill. This situation will not improve and I am concerned. We have a young daughter, our neighbors have young children and they frequently use Valley View Road for bicycle I tricycle riding and taking the dog for a stroll. Valley View Road was never designed nor intended to be a traffic bearing street. It is used by us and our neighbors to get to and from our homes. I am also aware that prior to construction of the existing Holiday Convenience Store located at Delton and Old Market, Mr. Jim Pyle, a Shorewood resident, had requested a conditional use permit to add fuel service to his Vine Hill Market and the commission rejected his proposal. I don't believe the Planning Commission could honestly allow the Amoco site with this previous rejection on record. .~ As an alternative, I would suggest that the proposer consider the property on the south-west corner of Highways 7 & 101 in Minnetonka. This is currently vacant and would make an excellent choice for east bound travelers on Highway 7 and south bound travelers on Highway 101. Thank you for considering my views and opinions. Sincerely, ~ James F. G. Smith and Family 5141 Valley View Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) - 470-1013 1fJi~ ~J lJ",q< t;~ ~4 "t! 9- 7J.L~4. .~~ --- tJ~ I ; ..,- , '1 ~;j 1, ! I . ~\I . tJ..L.- ~ e~~ ~ ~ ~ S"/30 /~ ~ Ree' & ~ a.--- t:::1- -I~. . I ~f;"~ - S/doY- S-/.3 a vi ~ Ik - ~ l~q/l.J ~ '>d4 7'/I'f,.L. ~-<~,-q~ J 7 ~ v~ <.~d . . ~" ~ ...o.--~ ~. y ..._/2.~ ~L ~ ..~. .z ~~. ~.~.......< : H Ct' ..L_ ..J. 9 ~ - a...t./l .............- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-rfY<'~~~ . d~. . . .t/ '17~-7~~U e~4... ~ ~L-#~ 7'''- ~""e?'~""'-~ -1 ~ ~.~ ;t't!-...J d.....--o-'-! ~~"'~J- ~~ ~ e{lf~~ S- aI~ - o~.. -~ (". ~ - ~~ ~ t2M--7 . - - ~-'Y-~~.d- .- '1 ~-~, ~~ 7' ~~~ k-, ~~~~~~~,p('~. . ~ L:.~~. o~ ~ &~#_-c ~~..-.. ~ a... -- ~ .AJ,.Jt- ~ L~ ~ ~.. .:c...f... d,p .P ~ 71~~ :: .-0_'-._; . . ~ -'- -- :~ f'67-"i7T61U RU~;"lcj pj- a/If tJfI;CC'5 5 /a/tf~ - ;-.__....-"'~ .::-= -.:" -::: /r- 1!-q/f/~57' )/Jtocc/ #t!1>>/J-9LD f/k,i, ry Car wq~h ... UJ/f)V~/)IEh<:e .::57CJ ~~ 0-7 ~/ 70 Vi fie.. 11/// .bd .. '~9~7(..~ 7tt'v]..-';"Ll .. ~,,~ ~~~ .. ./.u:t~.. 'fhdu..aJ .. . oJ,'v- ~~u:u----- , . /) " ~ . /J ~~ I i4-J 0.u~--' " l' ~c:-- ~~ l ~~"'f'J\..:1- /Jd'h~ a7JJ'/J~ ~~4 .~~~.-~. t. AW-iitC iZ:: /' ~7 /V '/~~~ 4? /z,~~~- .~... ;:::' -z:.~. // . L(. ~&'.; ;I; /Aa/n~z.:0 .../1'0 (/"Y'lA...r[c~ ~~ , .-. of ,_.,/- - /- _.C ~--- '-' :;.c':. -L.--t,,--->-. .A..'----. .<. ./... . \ \ '11Jc! "-.j I . \ . ~'12(' (i '//J\j--O'.~""J ..J t.. '/'(d.-I-f. tJ;..A./J'! Y . ..V /' I ..ClIc~ 4?JG~'""V ~;~C'V-. "'Y!~ ~ ~, . '(.\t{t~... ~/1L''- -. .. /I -IT ( ( ''''. .\,/! ij.z.'. . C,. 'f-. .'~ 4 \1 ~J3- X ~ '::J)iJ~ j'_ ~ D~ !)/~~ -yCu;lol~~u;2d- A'7k,- 5 1,3.3 tL A~' KcI,J; ~db- -r;, r; 5/47 ULU~[;_1-eIA)I!dJ '7ntIev ~i-frz)aJ2f!7 7I~ (Zd ~ 5/'f/ i/~ol~) ;2Q ~ i (:2-t/- I' /L /L---'.. .' 1'-; , i~ /J ,/l-H/,.1.' . L/ rZ {,. .:;./ v. ~~.y ., LL,.,-{, ,t.. t'J\ ~L-\ ~ ti..~...\..v \\~w ~c\ \'L\~O-- S/3S lJetl/0 V'OW ~oa~ S/.:l3 l4UC;'1b<J /(IJ, . ,-~fd3 t/~utLi- !0~J IQJ. 5/19 t~PL~/-Y f/Etu /f[? 5/1'1. ?!tttiy t~~J ~, \Y OU \ +\\\;;} 1_c j /7.- ,. Clc / i/~~~~y_/~1... . j--, . 'O/~, / L<-tLuJ,'fu.w "&.,-~. ~(6 1 v-,;-.ve/l /(I!Cr~_._,,__.~, - ~;)O (j~~~ ffJ.L .~ 5dd::S l~~.. H~.. .~{Z~... S~ YG 1f ~rJ;tf . ~ ;;Z :~D L; i~.--t t 11"1\ {lh'U} , . t.J- a LI 0 \J .~. Vt 1rl ~ \ \ !j ,..L .' , ',. ~v- C:J')-\{O \J ;\i W, \ \-- ~/l ..... I <.. . . ~7s~ v;Uc!ifJ1J. ., {) '" vUa /,; ~_ SI 33 V~ J:J4 ~ " . . =~ ~~ f.i' , /, /CZ:: 7- <:.z,i;?cw. =:Jd ~/ <'-'l.,izoa ~. r 9-"j _ : ::+- ... I 7' 'J /) r. -t.:~) --:-~ l... f- '.' ~ 9. :t.uJ-,u I / '1 ~ ~J /kbL. .}1u.. · H u: 9A~)l(~/9;l:ZI~f~ _ /?' .. :-o/~, . ~~'. 7"~/~1(~ ?~~ .. ., .~~- ~If:::ti~~.. Y;1t! '. :5~/eX/e;4////?..-____5~ 3) . .. . 5;>f/o.T#-#7~A/r=- _ nn _ . "', ~~.. . 5~~~;~-VUt ~r:.s"~f""" .~.'. ._..;...~tJ:- '. m~ ~~.. '. .. a! .?fft_5~;s~ ....~" '"'Vr...... .:;:{. . ~J~I Skc~~.l -.--.-~. :..A.~,;J/~S~0...5h~4/.~~/ __n_.~:::-2r' 1<.t-~h1. 5lc;(P-t4/~~UIfl{t!.)l1!Itl/fh.5~i.</~~v -..- ... "_'c+-~.;z. {~. $O.JJ.2,CJ.0;tJi;.fJ.it.4tAl%fJ. -,/iji.L.}?J.~3.t.~~ ~'-""=~N~\Z~ ~..i5:~~'!~l5~;~::~~~~~~=''': _...~_ 51Lft V~l~ JII~M 553'f5..._ ..un . 2~* 1;1 $3 -J..7J.:/..e-7..-fuJ led . M.t~~. JHIf S . .. ... Jtt. t~ .SI S3 {j{r! kx v Ie ~ RJrr/{~SS3lf5 ::: .~..cJi~~ ~j~ :~::i~e~~'~ _..~/. .:ff- ;l~/ s-/t:'Pr~ tr-~__ ~ ~ ~ 5'rJ?f- .13~ (l<JJ~LtVfl-L. 510g v~ l:1;~A.) Pd?, }~,\r;t1-), ~ 5'SLj 5 ~J D J-l" t ~ [;,$,; " \ i\ 1. 6 \ )<'l>"D 1 (.\ ~ l( \ Q\) t s.,,,,,;,I.\.j 0 0 ..., 5S 1 ~ I ... )~tl~~.~ Jrio~'> :;L~ ILJJl ~ 5~t~~ t<, ... ~~ ae:~~'l7 l~",~ n~ M, f2( .Q...'I.u...,*d, nt, "Pr () 7"--]:> y~L 5ZrefllooltivtYl. ... ')al1e~ 71"$ . 9Js.SJ=I.4'E. !:f:,r~wN/ d(:X't, ~ ~J' M ci!LL..-. 'V-'\ ;J ~5' s h 6..J. (f :fc~ s;~c nL"rn,--c( M Ai 5533 f V'LoJ.-Qt).. ~rr~~ .J ~ b 0 ~od u Lan e \~ 0 rf2,Lv 0 eel f/JN $3~ d' . r ) '. --' ~ ~~.f\-.- s~\ S S 'MaJ, ;1f- ~h-,'("~.~"o<:LI-4l.!.5Sj~ ,." J. . 114,j.;) Sk-L %l.!.a&l Sh~,/ll',jff,' ..> ~jJ.~^, iQ1fZ6.s !\-&!c."{H\ 1(S1\>~5bd r6~~ ... ~/q4M 5114~ ~. (Is k-/.~~iflJD,{553j ,.:............./ ,n.J';t:... .. --u;..7:/'; 1 Cf 4Sz:, bk.cj:' ~:JillSIU.~...~......P:hIJc),...; .~\ ... // . l fie . /) q. ...... ".:'!'._." , '~:~"'''.'. ...... .^-d<./. ,_C:;;--~ qc 31tctc, ry 0'-!-5 ....! .r.......~)A.'1....{j ~r,~y:,....:.~~OC1.,.r....s--S: \ ~ ' ,.) 53])" I ' '" L.-", 0 .. . or .... ~ . " . _ _~ ~..: u....~-!-!-. __ '-Y1";-C'v-J-a <;) J tc" 5 J1. CLc-G '-1 HI (IJ C~/'j. "s 1-t ~~=::.- ..,::.:::-:!:::,::':f .', (V-:;) .... ~ . ~/ , I ( , '("7 ~ -' . __ .. __~.'f{,::LL~r.J-- tWelLA.....). ,53?".s- SA/;c4 .~~~ >/!ji}-/~ (,G!l~J:i:... ..... "1!i/,-'/J ~&~ .13180 Sh~~ ft.!.'f5 f;(. atJZL.CUr7t1Lc'c' ...'. ....._-... ..~.~ .: '. J1a' 1, /ql-{b '5U It!/' RltJ" ~La~.cx~cl'9-' .!. .. ~ I ~,-:sa 1 , 7? I . / .... ..~.47,1. ~'C Q# /7's:ss0.Ji-tfMI! ,~~.. __, __l/~i~.)% ~ 1'l5tt'.CJ'iJ~4A/6 dL._lc.cc~oc~ - ....._~~'W~ (~~/fp?S1d4~/,~~wf2 ,,'. .Yf:It;J~ nt*t0tUJ1, ;?j!2))/44tzjJ#)R!vf!i,' r. U2iJJt!I., '~r \ /. ~-';:' ." ~/ f .,', .. I ." ~ /93g5~~e:-)7f~.~4i.r~ " .~~..r\ .... _,;s,.~1){O ~l.~Vl~(l~ ~<( S~J . / /' J.-op . .? ;I J ,.~~f.,A..!. //.'.. ~L-Iu,- :.?36{! :I~l;lt!t CIA., ~~W<t ' , //J J. /' ~ .. -.' . "'." 7 . 1/' , - ~ __ ... ~V:2"Z~ /l 7/.:....f c/~ .57'&C~/~c.-:;7 ~rZ.c..~e.(',l.,,, S/~(.4'Z-~G CO ~.. , .J '/)z , .', ,. / .' . ....~ -- -~ .... '."-." """. -" .' ~ , ) , . ...... "':/ " .' .. ,:<" ~ ;' /iLi/ }) I ....2,./ /' ,\ j ::> ~,;.. '~Il'"""",.L,.l! y' t:~ ( L _ l ( ... '"-../ r: v{ .. (,4-\ t.. V '-t....- "- \-(. - '/1 ,,'L~ _ f/ ~ .....--.." \.. _,; .l I J ,_, _~ ; " ----- /"). !... ' .;..;- r-" I . '! fd.1 /I: . C ) / LU ) X'I<...D- 1,- >;:, / t. ./i~f~C7 2~t~:.. (.. l' (/ p ,. ~./ . . . n. 7'-' < /) ! r , '1~ ,//1/ 4' r .! ~~,., -? 7 ~ /' / I I \, I / - i c-L /' 1\ I~~z." ;- ~ C;"v :' q ~ l' U '. !, ,:);;> .... (.; '> "1 9 c1;:t r-r. ( .> <..--1 rc.{ e... :::> \ o('~c 4. ,Iv[ J'I.. ~ ')- 3 ). I~;} { <it :xt; '\I(c,,,,,- 5'1 c <;~ 1/ilIs L;.,:<(, ~-w.i Y'1"-,<;<,, ~ ,L~,.Lvt ",,' L. (_/.:rt(CC.AA~S~ !?-//? /,1.1r1e d/ (1')/) /,Nt f~~ 55-Y~-S- () , May 5 9 1 996 City of Shorewood Council & Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota ", ,- ~ '.... 1/"::;; .... , -~ !, ,...[,~, '/;'1/1 ,;1 .""-"" ! .'?II '.' Iv~~,<, ;/ / , ',,", ,/, '(_~" /1,..,..: ~.,~ I~' -.......~:---- '-../. '-'~'~'" I ~..... ''',," -...... ....~..., . ~ . To whom it concerns, . We are writing this letter with regard to the proposed development of the Amoco/McDonalds in our neighboring community. We are concerned about the added activity which this would bring to us, and also the noise of retail outlets doing their business nearby. In the last six years we have had many changes of re-routing traffic on Highway 7 to the frontage road by Vine Hill Road and other intersections involved which have added congestion when we commute to work and back. By adding more commercial retail to our area, this will compound the problem even more. In the evenings and weekend at our home, we have our windows open to enjoy nature sounds and peacefulness at its best. But if we have more business here, we will lose some of that which we now enjoy. The view from our home and landscape to the neighborhood is an important quality that should not be disturbed. . We will be very disappointed if this is put in place, and I can say with certainty that we will not be a customer of these establish- ments, as will a lot of our friends and relatives. How many gas stations, car washes, and fast food restaurants does a community need to have? I think that most communities are building way too many stores, and a lot of times when I go to these places, they are empty. In our situation here, there is a McDonalds to the east of us one mile and one to the west one mile. There is a brand new Holiday gas station one mile to the west of us and a newly remodeled Conoco gas station one mile to the east of us. Have people gotten so lazy that they can't travel one mile to these places and feel that they need ,such places to be one block away? If this is the situation, it is a sad state of affairs. We hope you will consider all of these things and do the right thing. Sincerely, John and Kim Taylor 5153 Valley View Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 May 3, 1996 ~~_._-" -:::--.-....... .. .~.~w~.~._ -'j . "- ""'-' i.:O:::- '_ _._~ 'I ., "'r.M._ i; - b ,~~,s fl II ' C 8v ; .,~- ,I -.._~,.'-::::::.-.. !~ j , City of Shorewood Council & Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Mn 55331 I am writing in protest to the AmocolMcDonalds development. We have been residence of the Shorewood community for twenty-four years, and have seen many changes. The recent change that is being proposed, we feel, will be a great detriment to our neighborhood. Following are some of the reasons: . 2. 3. 4. . 5. 1. There would be an increase in traffic along Vine Hill Road and the surrounding streets, making the travel through this area more difficult (and we also don't know what the extent of the increase in traffic will be when the Hwy. 62/101 intersection is completed). The amount of litter along the streets and in our yards would be a major nuisance. We witnessed first hand the mess that Burger King left our lawns and mail boxes and it has been very clean since they left. The noise and light pollution would be increased. The smell created by the cooking of the food would be very unpleasant. In the winter the car wash would create very icy conditions at an already slippery intersection. There are houses surrounding the proposed location. I have no idea why there would be any positive reason to put a fast food restaurant and car wash in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood. We would like very much if you turned down this proposal. #J7~~Q. ~ Bill and Patty Hoh ~ 5310 Vine Hill Road Shorewoo~ MN 55331 10d LO 0 May 03, 1996 To City of Shorewood Planning Commission, In regard to the proposed AmocolMcDonalds site on Vin.e Hill Road, we feel strongly that this would NOT be a good choice of husiness for this site. We have gone to great lengths to support the local businesses along the frontage road, including moving our banking from Hywy.1 01 to the new Excelsior Bank. We truly enjoy the convenience and the variety of business currently available. However2 in frequenting the new Holiday Station, we have not observed such a brisk business that would warrant duplicating that store with another similar facility t'. of a mile away. We also feel Putting a McDonalds there wouJd be counter produ(.,1ive and the source of both pedestrian and vehicle congestion that the area is very poorly equipped to handle. How much sense does it make to put a second gas station in close proximity to an existing one operating at.far less than capacity? Why should the commission or the residents support a plan to put a McDonald~ ( or any other fast food outlet) in an area already traffic congested when we currently have like restaurants within a mile in. either direction? Let's support the businesses we have without compromising their success while we search out different businesses that would add to variety and compliment those we aJready have. We sincerely believe the planning commission will act in the best interest of the area residents rather than the special interests of sole investors. Thank You for your consideration, 'L ~~rd.d /~ .,/h~ ~ Thomas a;(Dia~e Melcher '360 Shady Hills Circle Shorewood, MN. 55331 en 1 0 5 2.t7 Gv:OG 80-50-9661 .';:~{.~:~ I f. r. l:: t r,: t, I;' f ,', L, ", " .,' . .:_': , . ) " .~.~ .... " " ' -'. . . " ::.~)~: .. . " t, ..... .,.:',. , . ....:.. .. ~ . .: .; .. .' FROM : MTS SYSTEMS TO : 94740128 1996,05-06 10:05RM #458 P.02 City of Shorewood Council & PIaMing Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN. Re: Proposed Amoco/McDonalcl's deVelOpment Dear City Councilpersons, My family fives in the Shady Hils neighborhood at the east end of the city of Shorewood. The quality of fiving in this neighborhood has been continually compromised over tho last several years due to transient traffIo. The unprediotability of this transient traffic has, 5310 Shady Hale CiroIe., Shorewood, MN55S81.9157 May 6, 1990. . . made It unsafe for our children to play near Shady HiHs Road; . generated excessive traffic nolse inconsistent with our othelWlse quiot area: and - left it often unplGasant to walk our streets. Transient traffic has no business being in the neighborhood. It Is simply a mattor of convenience to "cut" through our 81'88 and save seconds of driving time. Major sources include . . a short-cut route bGtween the apartments at the east end of Shady HHls Road (in Minnetonka) and the now convenience storeIgas station at the west end on the Frontage Road: - a short-cut route from Vne HlI Road to westbound routos on Hwy 7 via Market Road, and vice versa; and . . traffic to Minnetonka High School. The later Issue has become so probtomatic (noise and speeding) that Shorewood pollee now thankfuHy monltor our roads at peak periods. ThIs, however, Is only troating the symptom, not the problem, Sporadic 'Neekend "Speeders- stiD cut through our neighborhood, many times In excess of 40-50 mph. ThIs 8ftuation Is becoming intolerable. Tho proposed development of an AmocoIMcDonaId'. by Mr. Youngsted wlH only aggravate this problem. Undeslrablo transient traffic wiH increase. Furthermore, 8UCh devolopments are inconsistent with the surrounding rosidential area. It Is totally Unnece888ry! Thera is already a McDonald's in Excelsior minutes to the west, and another In MInnetonke minutes to the cast. What value does this add to the neighborhood? Nonel ArId we already have a gas station at the west end of our short road. This proposed dovelopment is simply another ca88 of capitalistic exploitation, with NO inherent value to those immediatolyaffected. Our neIahborhood stOlHl not need II nor want Itl I fully expect the city councH to support our community on this matter. Sincerely, ~ I~ rJ. ~-', ~-~ Dougl Elizabelh Mann ji .tvvl~,5;'n'~''---'='iZ~~n .#gY;jk<;&~nf}:i ..... '~-'''/"'i1'~bmnq,m~~,:.,fl'L'[,Jm<1~~~___n_ "v~L?d~__~_,:-?"/ Z~__ld:~-?~:jf'/~~~__.C:~ ~__________._____---- _._~~~-<--~-~~!..L~'-:P"&'L_~~-#~ ~---;---- -i~0Y" ~&?2La'8:&?~~a/ ~?-L~_o...~-"/ ~ "n'._. Wv:l?Yn-r-r/'..-!~~~~~u.c,-,n-~-y_dL-_ _mm ..----'-~"'::~kL4'.LUV4~Z/7/Z~~g~L--- __~n_m____~~ .&-~~~~~.u-.-~ .~ 1 - - ~_a_?__~~~</' -tN'_0:~+/L4~_k/ d"~r-~L_ 20'-- . --.- ---- .---.--P-:--Jd..~.../..L:}~L.L?~Zk:~~~ -p~-..J!{~~-r -~~~ mm... .- mm--1k~~.:Y/.~~b~_k._~~4./~-'-<-~~--m ----.m-,-~_~.d;~~12-~~tY.~~~ .-'- ..-----...~~~~-~~.~~0-([~J/~- . --:;--;-:;_ --.-m.-0"'>~_. .. _m~_Z~M~'t'_~~ ff--~" . __.-m'_~~-~:J~<<L~L~~~~- -.---,-m-j~~~~~~~~~-:z:-. __.~n__ cr--~~L~~~~~~~~~~Jn ---.n_.Z;~~~:~~~~ . -----~-~ -~n-.-.~,.6'~--?f .~ .--.--- /J14-42~_~./4;i~~-=7 ~~&~4t.--~&. ;:p.LZL~ __ - '-&~7,J-:ii:r~~h ~/i~-- ','" ..-.---fi-~...flY ~n7'~/'~A44..~~~_~_~__ . .. ..., .-~4Z.m0lZ~^E?IJJ1.c~~S;/~~Lmm.JvdZ-~...n _n 2t'75-r~~~~'D .an /t'/J ~jv4<'.Jb,q~"Y__ n Y-;~:U.:di/U (M/~Ujr O'~;r' (ly~~ /~/& 7 _. t (j..l ,Ut:" 7~Z U/?Y~ g- (?'-<:'~I"~-4"'-<:" */~~ . r-y~:~~~~pu- '"""\ ! c: (("-:' -~ Ii i , j ~ I To Whom it may concern: ~' i ,:C\\ '": I'j ,,~. . ,;"), ,,-:-_,-....... ',.,' 'u ',',., ,( -" '" ':"l it! I !~li~ : v ."",'~,..." :U i qy r -,.. ----. ~jj , . Weare writing this letter to protest the building of the Amoco/McDonalds complex on Vine Hill Road. Our primary concern is the increase of traffic that this complex would generate. In the past the addition of gas pumps to the convernience store on the corner of Vine Hill and the service road was denied because of traffic concerns, as was the building of a Byerly's at the Old Market Road location. Our road is small, with three severe curves that should slow traffic which would make it safer for the number of small children who 'live here. However, many of the high school students have found they can circumvent the three-~ay stop at Vine Hill and the service road by using our road. We are sure this traffic would qnly increase with the addition of McDonalds just opposite .the outlet of our 'road onto Vine Hill. Another concern is the amount of trash a fast foods' restaurant creates. When Burger King was on the corner of the service road and Hwy. 7 we were constantly finding their trash in our yard. It amazes us that there should be a need for McDonalds here when there is one 2 miles to the west of here and another 2 miles to the east. Looking at the plans for this complex, one wonders why the exit from the car wash comes on a blind curve of the service road. '. \ We have lived'here for 31 years primarily because it is a quiet, secluded neighborhood. We are afraid that would change if this complex is allowed to be built. " Y?urs trulY" ~ '7 d1~rVu.U/ ~~ 'John & Erica Freeman 5119 Valley View Rd. Minnetonka, MN 55345 METROLOGY SYSTEMS, INC. STANDARD OR SPECIAL GAGES 6 May 1996 -j ~ J " - i'-- ---... City of Shorewood Council & Planning Comm. 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Council, We live at 5610 Vine Hill Road, Shorewood, and have learned of the proposed addition of an Amoco/McDonald's development just south of highway 7 on Vine Hill Road. We wish to go on record we are greatly against such development. Our primary reasons are the increased traffic on Vine Hill Road (seems like a race track already) and the amount of trash resulting from another nearby "fast food" restaurant. We are enjoying not having the residue of the last "fast food" place thrown out the car windows on Vine Hill. With the Holiday station/store a few blocks away, we feel another of the same sort so close is unnecessary. Please consider our concern at the next council meeting. Due to business commitments, we can not attend the meeting. Sincerely, :.0~~ Dick Larson P.O. BOX 1408 . MINNEAPOLIS (MTKA), MN 55345 . 470-01{(> ). . . - ---. . ,-~-::-_:---._- ~; '---:, J .: May 7 th 1996 ...'j .\ 'I - , . U i.." L . '~ ..... '"t .., -f"'I To: The City of Shorewood Planning Commission - Public Hearing .~, From: John and Susannah Dodson, 19265 Shady Hills Road, Shorewood, MN Re: DYS request for Preliminary Plat approval and Condition Use Permit at 5170 Vine Hill Road We are strongly AGAINST the DYS proposals for part of lot 15, namely: 1) Amoco I McDonald's facility 2) Car Wash Building 3) Sale of motor fuel 4) Convenience store with food sales for the following reasons: 1) We are opposed to having the above facilities at or near the intersection of Highway 7 and south Vine Hill Road for environment reasons. Fumes, noise, lights and dirty water will affect the nearby Shorewood residential neighborhood and adjacent Minnetonka neighborhoods. Run off and leakage of the holding pond will contaminate the ground water which is only about four feet below ground in this area. This water emerges from existing springs onto Shady Lane and runs into the Shady Hills Pond, whenever it rains. At the least there should be an environment impact study and hydrology report to look at the ground water issue. 2) Expansion of strip development is not consistent with the goals of the neighborhood or community at large. The existing residential property adjacent to the current intersection serves as a gateway to the residential area in this southeast quadrant of Shorewood and should remain so. The proposal offers virtually no buffer zone between the commercial property and the existing residential property. Given the proximity of existing fuel stations and fast food opportunities in Shorewood, Chanhassen and Minnetonka, there are no reasons - economic or convenience - to justify this proposal. The negative impact on property values and negative effects on neighborhood integrity will offset any potential tax gain for the city. 3) There are serious safety issues. The traffic pattern and congestion that will be created by this proposal will worsen an already dangerous situation on Vine Hill Road and the intersection at Delton Road (the frontage road) and at Highway 7. Traffic moving north on Vine Hill from Chanhassen and the new Shorewood developments is currently excessive and moves dangerously fast. The Shady Hills neighborhood, already noticing increased traffic that cuts through to the Old Market Road intersection will be further negatively impacted as Vine Hill Road congestion worsens. We urge the Planning Commission to vote NO to this plat and conditional use permit request. ~ D~,,- / ~tn,~ Patrick and Conine Wilder 5365 Shady Hills Circle Shorewood,Mn 55331 L....... .' c:: /(-=:' r;= i 'I \\~i!- 'I' ~ \:'".1. . ,~. . f j '- 1:'= I \f C i -~ \ t :.:.~' lr-- \v; lL...... ~ . " ~ 11. \'..' ::1 II L:=:: '.~' ~- .,J IlJ'l iJi ~ I".~ iiI :..,i"'u ~,1 r~ '{ - 7 IS~O ~il ',U '\ \ 8'1 .....:--- Fax to: Shorcwood Planning Commission Sborewood City Council RE; Proposal to build McDonald's1Amoco gas station/carwasb/conven.ience store near intersection ofVme Hill and Hiway 7 · To all memhen of SlIorewood PlJUUlina Commission and Slu)rewood City CODDeft: . We wiih to register our concern and objection to the proposal to re-zone existing residential lots and expand the size of commercial areas near the intersection ofVme mIl Road and . Hiway 7. As residents of the area our concerns are many. Please consider the following which we view as highly negative impacts of such a proposal: · The Vm.e HiD IHiway 7 intersection is an extremely busy intersection and the sharp . cut"\Ie oCtile ftolltage road presents a safety concern for increased levels of traffic that this &ciIity will.certainly create. Over the last year, we have witnessed several accidents or near misses at this intersection with the current tra:.ffic levels. Traffio will most certainly back up and the potential for gridlock at peak times is very high. · We understand that several trees will be leveled and the woods that now separate the frontage road :from the Shady Hills neighborhood will be destroyed. Besides providing . natural beauty, a home for birdslwildlife, and a natural watershed area, these trees also . act as a sound banier to the noise of the biway and frontage road. Elimination of these could have a 'negative impact on property values throughout the Shady Hills neighborhood. . . · The growth of commercial areas is abundant in this area and increased .levels are not in the best interests to the residents who value the peace and quite that was present when they purchased their homes. Will tax levels and property levels be adjusted downward to re.ftect the deterioration of residential property this project potentially holds? Please consider these points in the review of this project. Put yourselves in our shoes; dO . we really need another high volume commercia.t site such as McDonald's and another gas station along Hiway 7? Sincere regards, Patrick ~Ot fCorrine WDder~' l00d ll:l.LO.L -'-'. ~ ,-c " 7 r= -I "'""' :-- ,,'-'__., Ii ,\! .11.-., , ...... -=![ :-" "J 't::J"'\I' _; ~~0-,= J u L.::::::: ~'IU Iii .. \ ."'^r" I! , .." 7 .w'..... II ; .;; ~'.' ,-. i' - ;...f.;.:~; Ii ,J U I : 3y . ~~ CommisUon City at Shorewood 5755 Coum:ry Club Road Shorewood MN SS331 LltL\- 0126 YQ~ 10-9.L C i ~J..i "'2" ~L...i 5 f'''~ ~A~-\d: May 6, 1996 DYS Propcrl.iesl Approval for AmocoJMcDonakfslCar Wash Dear CPmmi-.ion eta1: . As a 14+ year resident of the Shady HiDs addition of Shorcwood, we're voicina our strang opposition to .allow DYS to eonstruct and operate any of the three above. The new intcDcction has ereatad much added 1ra:Oic because of the high school and. if a gas station and pal1icuIar1y, a McDonaId's were built at Vmc HiD and "Fromap Rd", the trafliQ would be even worse. Wo can assure you that Mickey D's would be a haugout for the high scboolers, ~ the traffic, homs Jvtn~ etc., and.., briDg in more "straDger" 1raffic o1fofHwy.1. When CODSIlUCIion was going on to fix the ~ our once quiet ncigbborhood was diseovcred as a cut-through to VIDe Hill Road from tho 1i'ontagc roa4. We're certain that some cars race: tbrougb. our ncigIaborhood at speeds 1.WIl in ~ of 3OMPH. We need to install speed. bumps or something to oJ;min.ue1bat isIue. Tbc speeding ~ aloug with the proposed AmocoIMcDoDatcrs will add to the problem. The Holiday station SeJVC8 the area wen cn.ough (although we were not happy about 1hat . issue oidler) and that is enough. We feel our neighborhood has been invaded enough. Because of the zoniDg allowances in effect, a "Camp Coffee" would be a nice "neighborly" addi1ion. but!l2t the francbise giants of AmocoIMd)onald's. Please do not let them in I We feel confidcDt that you, the powcn that be. will use your best judgment and not aD.ow this atrocious boast to dim1Ipt our noigbborilood. MAY 07 '96 11:28 ROMENS INTERIORS 612 933 43713 To: ", . Planning Commission of. the City of Shorewood James" and Pamela Radabaugh 19103 Ashcroft Circle " Minnetonka !@l 55"345 470':9706 From: Subject: Amoco/McDonald's Facility Date: May 7, 1996 . We oppose the approval of the building an.Amoco/McDonald's facil~ty and car wash buildingt sale of motor " fuel, and convenience food sales at 5170 Vine Hill Road. This intersection is congested during rush hours and school hours. In the winter, it is one"of the most dangerous roads in the city due to curves. There is no.n~ed for another auto fuel/convenience store in th,is area.:. The Holiday store 1s less than 1/2 mile away. Building a.McDonald's so close to Minnetonka High School would encourage. students to eat away from the school more so than:they do" now. . P.1/1 .J . . 05-07-1996 10:21 P.01 ~r (',/wi ei, I t!dISi~~~ 7iJd~! May 6, 1996 City of Sborowood Cotmci1 and P111U11n1 CommIuion 5155 Country au ReId Sborewood, MN 55331 Dear city CouaciIIDd PlaImIaa Commiuion Members: I am wrltIDa to reaister my lamOy', ... ....ltlon to the propoud developmlat of I McDoaald'lIAm<<.o &eDity on VIDe RUI Road jUIt lOath of RJabway 1. 1 believe 1I1e rePdoats III our Sborewood -Pbod1ooda .. I .. IDtlIIIap to Ibe Council 2.3 yean ago when we lobbied .... an effort to have I Byler!y", buDt practically in our bactyIrdI. There fa a place tbr ~dal dovelopmeat but it ia dill in our nsiclent1al neiabborboodl. We do not, _ witnessed by the petition, want a McDonald's, I car waab, I" ,tation, or my GIber commercial property developed on 1hat 1ocatiop. A boule cumady occupies that lIte whicb II appropriate tor the area. I am lUte IIIlID)' otbClll have already poiDted tbiI out, but we aIread.y have two local au ItItkms- the now Holiday ItatioD DtIlII' Old Market Road aacl Highway 7 IDd the new Freedom SlatloIla Bf&Iaways 101 and 7: and cbere Ire alI1IIdy two McDorWd's reatauraDtllD our COIIIIIlUIIity. '111.. facilities are CIItaiDly IdoquICl for our &IIIda IIId Ire kM:ated in CODVODI_ and appropriate 1ocationI. We have elected you, our neiPbors, to repteHm us OIl iuu.11JCh II thillDd to preserve our Mmmuaity and eavIroameDt, ad we implore you to tnatntaln the Inte&ritY of our rIIideatial IlIiabborbooda IDd to voce apIDat the Younptedt pmpoaal. SiDcere1y, . . i .. '-. May 5, 1996 ~'----- ~ .~'-''-. To the City of Shorewood & Planning Council This letter is written to state our strong objection to the proposed construction of another gas station by Larry Youngsted within % mile of the newly constructed Holiday station. 1. That specific intersection of Vine Hill and the frontage road is already extremely congested at the hours when the high school starts in the moming and finishes in the aftemoon. The road can be backed up for two or three lights at those peak hours. We really can't see adding to the chaos at that small intersection which acts as one of the main accesses to the high school and also our neighborhoods to the south of that intersection. Has there ever been a traffic flow study done at that intersection and how this gas station would impact that area? 2. We also can not see how you could consider putting another gas station within such close proximity to the new Holiday. People who call the area south of there, their neighborhood, would really like to keep it just that, their neighborhood. Gas stations contribute nothing to a neighborhood, but to the contrary, open it to anyone. Our small area of Shorewood has had enough commercialization on that scale from Holiday. Who in this neighborhood would benefit from another gas station? 3. Holiday even has the advantage of sidewalk access up Old Market. Would their be sidewalks up Vine Hill offering safe access to these new enterprises, and their increased traffic, for the kids in the neighborhood? Have there been safety studies done? 4. We don't see why the south side of Highway 7 must bare the brunt of such heavily commercialized use when just across the highway lies an undeveloped area. Why not spread out the commerce to the north of the highway and let those neighborhoods accept their share of the traffic? (The new intersection at Old Market does not go through on the north side of 7, for instance. Our children who go to Deephaven Elementary, have to funnel over to the Vine Hill exit to get to school instead of going straight up Old Market.) Our small area of Shorewood has experienced enoonous development over the last 5 years that we have been resident of Waterford. We feel that before you settle on the heavy commercial usage of that strip of land between Vine Hill and Old Market, consider that you are radically affecting the character of the area that we as residents have chosen to live in. Access to our homes has been affected by those new intersections. We must already deal with increased traffic from the high school on Vine Hill, and the strip mall on Old Market. People will surely be enticed to cut down Vine Hill with the opening of the new Highway 52. Are you anticipating the needs of those long distance travelers with this new station? Is the safety of all the children in the neighborhoods who will bike or walk to these new conveniences being considered? This has been a wonderful neighborhood who has come together in the past to preserve its integrity as a neighborhood. Why are you opening us up to commercialization on this scale whe we are trying so hard to be a community? S~rely, _ If~ !J~ uvYl1/~ '--(t'VlLfl Amy a~ean-Denis Hi kel Waterford Place Resident s=- ~- c; f; ;-~~.- ":._____ f;;~~~~~.1 . ~J .....~.';' ~ I LJ /tl1J .,~- "-0~~ ~~.~~~-- S/{)?V~~J3R ~~ . ,~ S~7~ ~--u~~() ~ ~w"m~~{J-1J~~ ., ~ .' a-JZ~~~?L ~~v.~~~~~ -b;~~.. ~7~~.;:i~-fLX~~ k ~~a-a~~r~~a-..d. ~~~~~@c~~o/-~ ~cL~~r~'~~ " 10 >// IE. L. a--U- d ~ ~ ./ -J;,,~~~~~~.~-~ t;~?f ~ Aau ~ Sh -//LL r~~' . ~~.~ FROM Kristine Tha~r Design PI-DE NO. 612 474 7088 ~y. 07 1~~:~~ KNlITtNETHAY&It 5345 SHADY HILLS QRCLa SHOREWOOD,MN 55331 1101 [" 1] 4'....'OU p_ [611] ."0..1114 TO SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION 7 May, 1996 To whom it may concern: . I was lust made aware of a proposed plan to put a MacOonaId's/convenience store/gas station/car wash at the comer ofVlne Hill Road and the frontage road (the site of the old S1dpperette,1 think, plus quite a bit more).! am very concerned about this plan because I think it may Impact our neighborhood negatively as ~II as cre- ate some unsafe trafftc situations. . Some concerns I have Include: I} Does the MacDonald's have a drlve-throughlWhat hours is It openl Where is the microphone and drive-through lanelWlU the houses behind the facility h.... the food orders, smell the car fumes. 2) How tall are the I1ghts for this facilityl How bright are theylWhat hours wiN they be onlWIII they shine Into the backyards of the houses behind the scoresl 3} Would ~e facility be adequately vented so that the neighbors would not smell french fries frying all day Iongl 4} When are the gasoline pumps filledl At nightl By semlsl How noisy are those trUcksl 00 they Idle the entire time they are there? How long does it takel Same questi<:,n for the MacDonald's - when are suppnes brought In, how often, by loud trucks, what about the fumes, etc. S} What plans are there for screening between the facility and the backyards of the neighborsl landscaping. fences, sound barTiers. a berml 6) What plans are there for handling traffic when It backs up at the stop sign at Vine HiD and the yield sign at the Intersection - how will people get In and aut of the facility during peak hours. 7) WIth the high school just down the frontage road, Is the planning commission aware that the MacDonald's wUI become a "beehive" at lunch time, just like the Wendy's at 7 and 10 Ills that acceptable? 8) The frontage road seems too sharply curved to accommodate safe entrance and exit to a high traffic convenience storelfast food fadl~ What plans are there to handle trafflc?Espec:iaIIy when the high school lets oud!!!!!!! 9} In the winter, cars leaving the car wash will leave a frozen trail behind them. Having slid through the InterSection ofVine Hill Rd and the frontage road twice myself, I cannot Imagine how snppery that slope will be With an icy, frozen surface! I am unable to attend the meeting this evening. but I would like my questions/concerns to go on the record to be addressed by the developer and the city of Shorewood.As planned, I am very much against this proposal. and will continue to rally our neighborhood to speak against it. Thank you for your attention. May 9, 1996 Ms. Nancy Borkon City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 j -- -.:--- - <:::.""::::::---.. - -.-..,..,.....,.~..~ Reference. Proposed Amoco I McDonald's Facility@ 5170 Vine Hill ROS3d Dear Nancy: I'm writing today to thank you and the planning commission for voting down the referenced project. Not only do I thank you personally but, on behalf of my family and . our neighbors in this little comer of Minnetonka. I also wanted to let you know that I had my 16 year old son with me, and it was nice for both of us to see that the "system" still works. My initial concerns were validated and supported by you and the commission. Thank You. I also wanted to keep fresh in your mind and the minds of the planning commission, that it might now be appropriate to consider the process of pursuing re-zoning of the property in question. Since I am not a Shorewood resident this subject falls outside my area of responsibility, and into the area of others. f would be glad to write a letter to the City . Planners office in Minnetonka if this would help expedite the process. You mentioned during the meeting that perhaps a joint "vision" on the part of Shorewood and Minnetonka would clear this property of current and future questions. I'm curious to know what my neighbors and I can do to participate in this process. I am an "old" personal friend of Christine lizee and hope that familiarity will cause you to treat me the same way. Call me anytime. 9,;i. cerely, me: F. G. Smith and Family 5141 Valley View Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 (612) - 470-1013 FROM PARK NICOLLET MED CTR 85.16.1996 12:19 P. 2 JULII L. SIMONDIT 5390 SHADY HILLS CIRCLE SHOREWOOD,MN. 55331 612-470-0355 FAX 612.993~2810 . TO SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15,1996 TO WHOM I'r NAY CONCBRNr . J: WANt to THAm: YOU FOR UNANIMOUSLY V<<ntHO "NO" ON THE AMOCO/MCDONALDS PROPOSAL. I UNDUSTANt) .THAT YOU WILL 8E V01'XNO AGAIN MAY 28TH WHETHER TO GRANT TNE DlViLOPIRS A .CONQITIOHAL USI" PBIHIT. AS A SHADY HILLS RESIDENT WE ARB CONCDNED ABOUT THI INCRIASB VOLUME OF TRAFFIC mIS WOULD CAUSB THaOUOH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD NOT TO MENTION THI ADDED CONGESTION AT THI ALREADY BUSY FRONTAGB RQ./VINEHILL RD. INTERSBCTION. WE HAVE ALRIADY NOTICED A HUGE INCREASE IN !RAFFIC THROQGH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE NEW INTERSECTION AT VINSHILL OPENED UP. I WOULD LIKE TO SII THI PLANNING COMMISSION MAKE tHIS A PART OF THER! NEXT MEETINGS AGENDA AND HELP US END "CUT THROUGH" TRAFPIC. I WAS THRILLED TO HEAR DEBORAH BORKONS CONCERN ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 1 WOULD LIKE TO SEZ A TRAFFIC STUDY DONE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BEFORE SCHOOL IS OUR" SINCI tHIS IS tHE MAJORITY OF THE CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. I URGI BRAD NIELSON TO MAKE THIS A PRIORIty. SINCE WE ONLY HAVE 18 DAYS OP SCHOOL LIFT. I THANK EACH or YOU FOR YOUR !IME AND CONCERN Foa THE RESIDENTS OJ' SHORENOOD. to * .r <'0. \ \.e d " q \ \'~ +0 d~"1 ~~-eders (~{"eSu.~ClI,~1'i c..h~~i~ ~a~k O~~ be C' a.. \..(.~ o-f SE"V-.e ~ I hi::/\S< k<bu' 'o(3d~) cl~~ S ~d.1 I!t, \ Rei.. ......ENO...... . . ':W........ ~~)' . ':~.~\.~~.t .' ,,'-'1+' ;:(~i;' .... , t', " . , ':a.,.:.: . '., .... '~.~: .. I~'''"'' .. ",-, ,.i.. :: " ~r;\" '~"l :;,{!: . .~ I . . '0. . . FROM PARK HICOLLET MED CTR . to 05.16.1996 12:16 P. 2 -: ,~ .':l..; . ~:p ,__': ;..;>.. .~..( ..;.... .~.}l. ,.ft; .: .~~~:. . .t~~.:. :, -jfj.i. . .rirtr . : ,'.1,.':~' '. ..~~~.: ~. . I I~. 0" 'di. ~ ~r . JULIE L. SIMONDI': 5390 SHADY RILLS CIRCLE SHORIWOoD,MH.55331 612-410-0355 rAX-612-993.Z810 TO DEBORAH BORKON-PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIlPlRSON MAY 15,1996 I JUST WANTED'TO THANK YOU FOR A WONDERFUL: JOB yOU DID ON CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 1~H. I HADN'T ATTBHDID A pOUKeIL MElTING SINCE THE BYERLYS PROPOSAL,' I WAS IMPRBSSED HOW YOU TREATED IACH RESIDENT WITH RESPECT ANDTHANKBD THEM rOR SHARING. I AM THRILLED TO KNOW YOU ARE O~ CHAIR ON THE PLANNING BOAaD. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL ,OLLOW THROUgH WITH YOUR CONCIRNS poa THE SHADY HILLS RESIDENTS AND THE 'INCJBASE "CUT THROUGH" TRAFFIC IN OOR RIIOH80RHOOD. MY COHCIRN ts THAT THB TRAFFIC STUDY WILL BI CONDUCTED AFTER SCHOOL LETS CUT. SINCE MOST or OUR CUT maoUGH TlAFrIC ARE KIDS GOING TO "lal IHIGtt SCHOOL. PLEASE DO WHAT fOUCAlf TO EXPEDITE THIS PROCISS. '. AlE WE ABLE TO CLOSE OF' THE WEST END or SHADY HILLS ROAD? THIS WOU.LD CERTAINLY s~oP ANY CUT THROUGH TRAFFIC. THE SHADY HILLS RESJ;DENTS ARE OPEN TO SUGGSSTIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO HIARING ,aOM YOU IN THE FUTURE ABOUT THIS ISSUB. THANK YOU. SINCIIILY , ~ JULIB SIMONDE! . :i~ ,-~., '~'~<' fj....! .. . 'ill" -:'f" :. . : , . J~r, ~', . 0';: .. , .\.' " , . . .........END....... . . May 22, 1996 I J ;i! j- -,i "' i ! .-.---" To: The City of Shorewood City Council - -. _.... ._c_._____.__ _....__~. From: John and Susannah Dodson, 19265 Shady Hills Road, Shorewood, MN Re: DYS request for Preliminary Plat approval and Condition Use Permit at 5170 Vine Hill Road We are strongly AGAINST the DYS proposals for part of lot 15, namely: 1) Amoco I McDonald's facility 2) Car Wash Building 3) Sale of motor fuel 4) Convenience store with food sales for the following reasons: 1) We are opposed to having the above facitities at or near the intersection of Highway 7 and south Vine Hill Road for environment reasons. Fumes, noise, lights and dirty water will affect the nearby Shorewood residential neighborhood and adjacent Minnetonka neighborhoods. Run off and leakage of the holding pond will contaminate the ground water which is only about four feet below ground in this area. This water emerges from existing springs onto Shady Lane and runs into the Shady Hills Pond, whenever it rains. At the least there should be an environment impact study and hydrology report to look at the ground water issue. 2) Expansion of strip development is not consistent with the goals of the neighborhood or community at large. The existing residential property adjacent to the current intersection serves as a gateway to the residential area in this southeast quadrant of Shorewood and should remain so. The proposal offers virtually no buffer zone between the commercial property and the existing residential property. Given the proximity of existing fuel stations and fast food opportunities in Shorewood, Chanhassen and Minnetonka, there are no reasons - economic or convenience - to justify this proposal. The negative impact on property values and negative effects on neighborhood integrity will offset any potential tax gain for the city. 3) There are serious safety issues. The traffic pattern and congestion that will be created by this proposal will worsen an already dangerous situation on Vine Hill Road and the intersection at Delton Road (the frontage road) and at Highway 7. Traffic moving north on Vine Hill from Chanhassen and the new Shorewood developments is currently excessive and moves dangerously fast. The Shady Hills neighborhood, already noticing increased traffic that cuts through to the Old Market Road intersection4 will be further negatively impacted as Vine Hill Road congestion worsens. We urge the City Council to vote NO to this plat and conditional use permit request. . . May 2, 1996 TO: Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Mn. 55331 FROM: Gerald F. Hanna, Adversely Effected Property Owner 5108 Valley View Road Minnetonka, Mn, 55345 .J~ j i;~ P.I.N. 25-117-23-41-0033 and 0038 RE: Attached is a list of concerns regarding the use of the property at 5170 Vine Hill Road. The facilities listed are certainly NOT an appropriate use of this property which is located adjacent to private residential properties. (A medical clinic, professional offices, or similar low traffic facility would be far more appropriate for this location and would not require the destruction of the environment) . THERE IS NO NEED FOR THESE FACILITIES AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY READILY AVAILABLE WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE OF THE SITE. Please give this matter the same careful consideration that you would consider if it was YOUR HOME DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ROAD FROM THE SIGHT. 1. Was an environmental impact study completed when the property was re-zoned from residential to commercial? Has an environmental impact study been completed now to justify the loss of mature trees, a natural water flow, and the effect on wildlife? Garbage form past "fast food II establishments attracted raccoons and undesirable rodents to the area--This site is even closer to private resident. 2. Has the City of Shorewood agreed to provide adequate police service to the site to assure residents that their past policy of allowing crime to go unchecked will not be tolerated? This includes liquor sales to minors, drug sales, robberies, disturbance of the peace, and .gun shots into the surrounding residential neighborhoods including shooting of pets resting . peacefully in their own yards. 3. Why is it necessary to have an access on the north-south section of Vine Hill Road? Land is available (for sale) to provide the access to the north of the area onto the service road with far better visibility of oncoming traffic and a much safer entrance/exit for a "high volume" commercial business. 4. The City of Shorewood has a responsibility to protect Minnetonka residents from the noise, lighting, car lights into residential homes, and excess traffic on a private residential street that is only 25 feet wide for a major part of the street- --certainly not appropriate for commercial traffic. 5. Neighboring residential homes should not have to sustain a loss in value due to an inappropriate commercial business being . placed in a clearly residential neighborhood- -even if it is zoned for commercial use--when other sites, . designed for commercial establishments are readily available within a short distance west of this site and properly screened from residential areas. F:~m. ..... A. AncHraon Anderson Consullfng Fu: 612-470_ Volee: 612-47009068 To: City ofShorowood CIty Council and P1snn1no Comm. Pso-3of3 ~.M8y01.1996 1:26:53PM May 7,1996 City of Shorewood City Council and Planning Commission Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Conditional Use Permit for Development of AmocolMcDonald's facility, car wash, sale of motor fuel, and convenience store with food sales. Dear City Council and Planning Commission: We are very much opposed to this development for the reasons listed below. . We sincerely believe the traffic flow impact on our neighborhood would be detrimental and unsafe for residents. We already have some difficulties in regard to speed of traffic flowing through our neighborhood since construction of the Holiday/strip malllbank construction. Traffic comes through Shady Hills Road at dangerously unsafe speeds as it is a quicker bypass to Vine Hill than going through the new intersection built last year to get over to Vine Hill. . Also, there is the issue of noise and pollution with a facility of this size and potential numbers of customers who would frequent it on a daily basis. Due to the proximity to all of our homes, car noise and exhaust would most certainly be an issue in a very short time. Based on the "normal" construction methods used recently when constructing the Holiday/strip malllbank retail area further west, most certainly all of the remaining trees would be plowed under and replaced with undesirable "landscaping" with no regard for the closest neighbors to that facility. Also, there is the issue of fast food garbage which would most certainly end up on all of our streets and front yards as a result of the fast food portion of this venture! Another item to consider is that a new Holiday station was just constructed and opened within the past few months just a few hundred yards from the proposed site of construction of the Amoco station. We do not believe we need two gas stations/convenience stores in such close proximity to each other. One should certainly serve the purpose and it already exists! In regard to the food portion of the facility, there are two McDonald's, a Wendy's, and numerous delVconvenience type stores within a very short radius already, less than one or two miles, so it certainly doesn't seem to be an essential addition to this area. We have all survived quite nicely since the Burger King was shut down a couple of years agol F-o",. Mort< A. And...on And...on ConsutItng Fax: 612-470-8066 VoIc.: 612-470-8066 To: City ofShorowood City CouncN ond Planning Comm. PoGo 2 of3 Tuoodav, _01,19911 1:25:31 PM In closing, when we moved into this area four short years ago from Minneapolis, there was an abundance of trees, deer and wildlife making their homes in those trees, not much traffic, a very serene neighborhood, and the ability to view a brilliant night sky. We chose our home and this area because of those very things. As time goes by, we see all of those things slowly being lost due to a perceived "need" . or "progress" toward more retail outlets with little or no concern for the environment around us and certainly no concern for the homeowners and residents of this neighborhood. We are strongly opposed to this proposal and would ask that you strongly consider the input of those of us who are asked to live in close proximity to these developments. Sincerely, . Mark and Eileen Anderson 19285 Shady Hills Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Phone: 470-9066 . Scott WID. Pbllllps 19053 Ashcroft Circle Minnetonka. Minnesota SS34S Phone: (612) 474-9736 Pager: (612) 637-9949 Emai1: phillips@mn.uswest.net May 07, 1996 Planning Commission City of Shorewood Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota . Dear Planning Commission Members, Please accept these concerns as part of your public hearing on the proposed development you are considering for the property at 5170 Vme Hill Road. While not an adjacent property owner, my family and I do live in the immediate area and would be seriously impacted by this proposal. We have several concerns regarding this proposal. The most obviously is that this development is not needed at all! There is all ready a huge. gas station/convenience store located just a few hundred yards west of this location on Highway 7. In addition, there is also a McDonald's just a mile or so east of this location, atso on Highway 7, and a car wash less than half that distance, also to the east. . Substantial commercial development has taken place, and continues to take place in Shorewood, just west of this location on the frontage road, and there is currently a pad space available in that development. Approving this proposal for this location would only serve to spread the commercial development further east and help to destroy the residential community developing along Vme Hill Road. The intersection of Vine Hill and Highway 7 is very different in its design. I believe that if you approve this proposal, local residents will be saddled with the same problem that is evident at the Highway 7 McDonald's currently; that being that since the semi-trailer trucks cannot access the parking lot, they just park on the shoulder of the highway (both east and west-bound) while they go in to eat, creating unsafe conditions. The current level of traffic already makes this a challenging intersection at times, and this proposal with a McDonald's will only make ingress and egress to our homes more challenging. Another concern is traffic increases in this intersection, and adjacent intersections. The traffic in this area is already substantial given the location ofMinnetonka High School, the residential growth, and the commercial development to the west. Placing a facility such as is described would increase traffic even more, overload this unique intersection, and create even more difficulties for those who commute over these roads on a regular basis, either to schooL office or home. At some point, the residential areas must be viewed as important to our community decision makers, and not just the growth in commercial development. All we hear at the legislature is that the business community is too heavily taxed and residential must take on more of the burden. So please do not argue the tax revenue angle for this proposal. In speaking recently with a highway planner for the state of Minnesota Department of Transportation, I was told that Highway 7 is currently one of the most over used highways in the entire metro area, especially based on how it was built, and the traffic it carries in the west metro suburbs. Being already overused, and behind in repairs needed, it would appear to not need additional, duplicative development serving only to increase traffic even more! Given the fact that this proposal will abut the City ofMinnetonka (and being a resident of Minnetonka), I am copying my concerns to them. I am also submitting them to the Metropolitan Council for their consideration for a community impact review Once again, I ask that the Planning Commission of Shorewood deny this proposal for the good of . our community. " cc: City ofMinnetonka, Planning Department cc: Metropolitan Council, Planning Review Department . 19870 Waterford PI Shorewood,~ 55331 "'----- -- -~-~--- May 6, 1996 City of Shorewood Council and Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood,~ 55331 . To The Planning Commission: I am vvriting in opposition to the Larry Y oungstedt's proposed development on Vine Hill Road involving an AmocolMcDonald's business. During the last five years, the Vine Hill, Market Road, and Waterford area has experienced significant grovvth and change. The proposed development ofa multi~business at the comer of Vine Hill and the access road to Minnetonka High School has major concerns: ~ Traffic congestion at the start and end of school is currently a major concern. This concern remains a problem after spending a large sum of money remodeling the Vine Hill exit off ofHwy 7. . - Gas stations bring both increased traffic and environmental risk to the neighborhood. We have a new Holiday station less than tvvo blocks away and the neighborhood is still adjusting to its long hours of operation, bright lights and increased traffic. - People traffic to and from McDonald's. Minnetonka High School (2,000 plus student enrollment) is a short distance from Vine Hill and students vvill be walking and driving to McDonald's. Currently, there are no sidewalks in the area, and I have concern vvith people safety due to the heavy traffic. A large apartment complex nearby vvill also result in people walking the streets to McDonald's. Development of safe walkways is expensive and should be part of Y oungstedt's proposal. - People safety to cross Hwy 7 is a major concern. The only crosswalk across Hwy 7 is at Vine Hill. It is not currently marked and well lighted to assure pedestrian safety. People trying to cross Hwy 7 at a point other than Vince Hill crosswalk is currently a major safety concern, and the development of a McDonaldts will further increase the problem unless additional pedestrian crosswalks are included as part of the proposed development. I would hope the Shorewood Planning Commission review this proposal carefully and not approve this development at the Vine Hill Rd location. Sincerely, ~~' le~eiSing ~ . . MAY 07 '96 10: 12 FR CARG I LL INSURANCE 612 742 7990 TO 94740128 P.01/02 SHARON & GREG DONOVAN. 5371 SHADY HILLS ClR. . SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 FACSIMILE 474-0128 2 Pages May 7, 1996 City of Shorewood Council & Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: Proposed AmocalMcDonald's Facility 5170 Vine Hill Road . Dear Council & Planning Commission: We are deeply concerned that the proposed AmocolMcDonalcfs facility would have a negativ~ impact our neighbomood. Our concerns ere as follows: . Can the Frontage Road and Vme Hill Road support the increased traffic that is anticipated with a McDonald's, a gas station, a convenience store, ami a car wash? . . What type of traffic controls will be utilized during high traffic times such as early morning (work commuters and school bus travel), afternoon high school dismissal, and early evening? · The speed limit on Vine Hill Road is 30 MPH, can we be assured that the speed limit will be adhered to with the increased traffic? There is limited visibility of traffic on Vine Hill from such roads as: Shady Hills, Stratford, and Waterford. SPeeding cars pose a danger as vehicles access Vine Hili from these roads. Vine Hill Road does not have sidewalks or bike paths to buffer pedestrians and bicyclists from heavy traffic. · Residents and neighbors of Shady Hills Road have observed an increase in traffic and drivers exceeding the speed limit, as drivers have found a "short cut" to the Frontage Road (avoiding the Vine HillIFrontage Road intersections). We are deeply concerned for the safety of our children as they wait for the school bus, ride bicycles, walk, and play in the area. It seems apparent that the proposed project would only add more speeding cars through the neighborhood. MAY 07 '96 10: 13 FR CARGILL INSURANCE 612 742 7990 TO 94740128 Page Two - Shorewood Council & Planning Commission · What is being done to provide privacy to the adjoining residential properties? Will the market value of neighboring homes be diminished? · What are the hours of the businesses? Will the neighbors be filtered from the bright lights of tJ1e businesses? Will gasoline and other supplies be hauled in on noisy trucks after hours? · It seems the proposed businesses (particularly McDonald's) may be a magnet, drawing kids to congregate. Will the facilities implement a no-loitering policy? How would such a policy be enforced? P.02/02 . All of our conc:ems impact the two qualities that we value most in our neighborhood as it exists today: safety and the enjoyment of a quiet domain. We strongly feel that if the AmocolMcOonalcl's project proceeds, the safety and quality of our neighborhood will be negatively impacted. We request that you reconsider the following question, "Do we really want heavy traffic, commercial businesses spewing into our residential neighborhoods?" Respectfully, ~~w ~~~4v Sharon & Greg Donovan . ** TOTAL PAGE. 02 ** . . 1[rit Nnrb~~n, iiuilb~r 612-474-8118 5146 Valley View Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 Designer' General Contractor May 6, 1996 '"' -.---- --:--:-::::--- . ~,<... .........-,- Dear City of Shorewood Council and Planning Commission: I am not in favor of an Amoco or a McDonalds being built in this Valley View Road South residential setting. The City of Shorewood, the City of Minnetonka, and especially the families in the surrounding neighborhoods cannot want the noise, the litter, the crime or even the future employees' cars to add to more traffic in our quiet little neighborhood, away from the highway. There already is enough pollution, crime, and unnecessary development. I am a successful commercial and residential builder - in business for 21 years. I really have a hard time understanding why group after group make the same mistakes expanding in the wrong locations with the wrong types of businesses. Many corporations and investors trust this research, promising enough traffic and proposed profits to open yet another gas station, fast-food, or convenience store, only to leave an empty building in a few short months that will become a liability to the City and to the neighborhood. If corporations were required to put the land back the way they found it when their development fails, complete with trees and grass, far less unnecessary development would occur. If this Amoco or McDonalds does happen to make it, this would be just as bad for every resident I have spoken with. Then we would have to look at it. Our properties may not be worth as much as they are now. I looked for three months at 100 houses to find a home away from any commercially developed areas. After searching my memory for a like situation in Shorewood or Minnetonka where a neighborhood was bulldozed for a commercial building that no one seems to want, I came up with nothing. Usually you find that the local stores of the past were needed and wanted by the local residents. With all the land for sale on Highway 7, for example, why is this even being considered in an areas where they are not wanted. If this corporation is trying to ruin a neighborhood just to show a loss on the books, why don't they just write a check to the needy and not ruin a residential setting. Construction Consultant. Remodeling. Additions. New Construction. Painting' Repairs Landscaping. Drafting' Buildable Designs. Commercial. Residential Minnesota License No. 8917 . Bonded & Insured May 6, 1996 Page 2 If this corporation wants to expand here for a profit, their research may be wrong. I have a McDonalds three minutes to the west, a modern touchless car wash two minutes to my east and a self operated car wash seven minutes to my west. As early as age 20, I was hired by one of the largest realty companies in our area in 1977 at $90 an hour as a consultant to develop or remodel properties. Also every single property I have ever purchased has had undisputed potential for a large profit. Usually I am in front of your City Council and Planning to build something viable. Community development may inconvenience a few to benefit the lives of many. This proposed corporate development is clearly a gross inconvenience of many for profit of a very few. Sincerely, 6'~ u.J - ,V,z~ . Eric Nordeen . . . May 6, 1996 ---- -~-- City of Shorewood Shorewood City Council Shorewood, :MN RE: Proposed AmocolMcDonalds project at the comer of Highway 7 and Vine Hill Road Dear Council Members: Although we are not residents of Shorewood, we are close neighbors on the east side of Vine Hill Road. Our street, Valley View Road, is directly perpendicular to the area of the proposed construction. We feel the placement of the proposed AmocolMcDonalds businesses is highly inappropriate for our residential area for the following reasons: . The increased traffic flow on Delton Road and Vme Hill will impede the movement of residents attempting to reach their homes or leaving for other destinations. Due to increased house construction in the area, traffic flow is already at increased levels. . Increased traffic flow will place the lives of children, pedestrians, and bikers at high risk. . Increased traffic flow will intensifY the carbon monoxide levels and the odor of vehicle exhaust in the neighborhood. . Increased traffic flow will intensifY the noise level in the neighborhood. . In the past retail businesses in this area have not thrived. With the exception of Burger King further up on the comer, buildings have ended up abandoned. In the case of Burger King the street and parking lots were allowed to deteriorate to a deplorable condition, which indicates that their business was not profitable enough to merit keeping their property in a safe and presentable condition. . Fast food restaurants, by nature, create hot grease odors and produce multitudes of trash. We suffered through this with Burger King. Suffered is the key word here. No homeowner should expect to have their property become a trash receptacle for a nearby business. . When we began looking for our home, we did not look for property next to a commercial area. This was a personal choice. Consideration of this project is a threat to our choice. We enjoy our environment as it now is. There is no foreseeable enjoyment in having a fast food restaurant and a gas station/car wash in our front yard. . Mixing commercial property with residential property will most certainly reduce the value of the residential property. We doubt that anyone shopping for a home makes a conscientious decision to browse in the area of a McDonalds or an Amoco gas station. More often they are seeking good schools and quiet neighborhoods away from the commercial district. We are an established neighborhood of age diversity. We have young families with small children living next door to older families whose children are grown. By throwing us into a situation where our quality of life is of no consequence, you will be sending a message to the community. Are we really so expendable? Would you want a gas station/car wash and a McDonalds built across the street from your home? Is one person's potential for profit so much more important than protecting neighborhoods nearby from becoming the blight of Shorewood and Minnetonka? Sincerely, ~~~~ Bob and Lauri Kraus 5147 Valley View Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 . . May 6, 1996 City of Shorewood Council & Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55345 . Dear Council Members: We were very dismayed to hear about Mr. Youngstedt's plan to build an Amoco Station and McDonald's along Vine Hill Road. We are adamantly opposed for the following reasons: 1. There are no other major commercial enterprises along Vine Hill, south of Highway 7. People purchased property with this in mind. . 2. The site has a residence on it, and one of historic significance. Therefore, we all believed this to be a residential lot. 3 . We have had a history of problems with kids from the high school racing through our neighborhood. This problem will surely intensify with the draw of a McDonalds on the other side. 4. We are concerned for the safety of small children in our neighborhood. Increased traffic flow will add to these concerns. 5. There have always been problems with cars speeding along Vine Hill, where many residences face the road. This problem will also be intensified. 6. These structures will be an eyesore to the people whose residences face them. The noise levels and odor levels will not be appropriate to the close proximity of residences. We urge you to turn away this ill-conceived development plan. There are much more suitable spots for these two businesses along frontage roads that face the Highway and are reasonably removed from residential areas. . Sincerely, Sand and Tom Abts 5129 Valley View Road Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 . . .\,.... '\ \-. L~ \ c' -,~ ., ' ,,\ '--' C\ (. \ CCl ....: L /-\ ....) 7; ~ ~ "/ ',--c..:- ,"",- 'v', c::::' \ ~ '{'\C.'6U ''... Co C c,. ~ t'\..,,,,,--.... (~ C"l\ C'.~;, '-.' c-..:, \ . 0'.J:"'" ,,<) "- \.. \.\. ~:\ ~\( ~'l"-~! ,<,--:,\ \ .~ . .:::;-. .c: \ ~;::"'- \'\C<\:o: ,~:c C' ,-\ /'~ ,I'. \'_ 2, \:--- v"\ \~_'--\.. "'-. c: t. r"\ '(Y\ ...\ c-: (~ ", ~.. G , '. C'" / \ ,., " '\ '-- ' \ \..\ \,) \:".~ \ '!--.~ \ '-\.....~(._ 4. c ""c\" ( c-...~~~ \ r"""'" '\ (, ....'o....C .. \J ~ ',--- \ C'- ': .:..-'\" '" ,,'s :'f~' ~ /.- " \::.:-:- // .,..-..--~" ~'-. / ~ ' ~ (1?' .'<::::.. c ,-' !""'" ~. (' ~~'* \ \-=~__~. 5'~)( c;::\ r:-,,' -', '."1,,, \ I v." c\ \.....," <:'""' ,....i \ 0'1":::,0 r C" \ \' \r'\ \'-' ~~~ ~C'" ~\o......l..; ~ ('r \ ------"^_\ c~ \ ~~ ~.\ ~~- ,.1...... f~\J f.......... ~'~. . , ~ (~'- -f'l-'C,' C C. ' c:: ,0<,- (. ,~:.... 'I (' C~ (' '~L~U\L"c'. .--' ~, - '- O. \.c c'., ,- , \ \t'. <:.. "7 C....' .--. '\ .:.y i>\..:""~ ...,.. - !\ c- o c;, '_'l.: . ! c... '\. C' \..---- \_ ~ ,~ ''',-C' .":1, .' ~..- 0\. K (' ,,",,- lc 'e" ,. '.( >- -.....-- C~--_\.._~ C:-:..\ J r..:,C"" ~ "'. \.~. -' 'to.--" '\ .,.:...s.., c.' ~~.. J\ C. r_J_ ;-c (') ~ ,..... \"., ~'- ~ "- k C'C r, " '-,-:: \_~""-t__C'.....r:i_\_-,,-_~\. ''-........ c:.~\ \ '.-,' ~~ C ~7; -.'\. ), -"_ ' . c', ",., C....... -::. ",,--- \, if.' ' " ~. ...._-~ ." ,', ----- r ,"> \ ~n- '\j,--' ~ .~ ,-' ,'" i'. ,.. t \. ,__,--- r- ...... - \ \.....C n -,_t"o (~; {".r' -. , ,", J~,'': r-, ~\. """-.~- -\ \~ '" " ",.'~ '" ,- , .. ,/--,......._. '\ /,--..... ,~" ........7-, '.---~~;\"":j~'-/ ~I. \ ---..- r\ .. '-'r,-- 'j2.__~ \...~\.__ r-., ('" \"\~ r' , "'--- ....... ''-''/ , i /- C',('...... u... ~~ r C-r- C.... .\-~- C'\c (. '-, ~ '\ .~ -'~!: ...... ,f'- .~ C' \ \ .,.._) t"'" ." ? C'-)'---C Cl ,.~-. \. \,C /' ~"""__-.:.:::'" ~ '1\ r --... ~,' ;""' r ':: .'.... .....l'~ ~, -- "'-f IY\ 0"''-1 '- . 'f. ? \..c' oj C"'. C'" -' --" (' \ '1'--.\' ~, C~\....C\ \ \ <co, ,("- \..~. (': \~ j(C"~ \ \ ( t \ .l..... , C ,.. C \....L \~. c (' \. \e \-<:"0 r::",") ~. C" -\-z-,,\--:;' : - \-"' -"" ----- :!--. \--~ " ,..1- ,.... c.'\ ;~ i c) C; 1.( V-~'---"-r ~ "C, 1) C 5;'(' <l ~ " \ , c\.C u-E, \ ~ ~t \-' C'~\. \~~ r- , \ '--I ~<.-- .'~ c'\ ~\ , ! ~}C' \ ~ ~_'~ n /")' r.c '":\ \ ..- 1. ro. ....... ./''--. j , '---' /-' r-. .\ " i. l., ,0C" c:: -y- C\- >'"\" \ ('\ J',' -',- <" '1<--> \- r "'" .~)- \t\...r c:\ r-, \ \'- f~'- \', c; ~ C':\. \ ~ ~ f.....' ,~_, ('- \ . '\. c" re, '-' - ....-. ... '- \ ,,,---- ".', \~ '~'z \ \ --\~_... r '-(' '); 1~t,,--.'):- \ \ --t 'f- ,'"', \ :"'- \.":---' '1 r.. I "- G.\ r~, ,......, ,")' r:., J'\ ('~ (' .' ,--, ," ," ,.. \ " _ -'r-- ......c., '-:- r--'''.-\- , , l r--, .. "'1___ ("'< \ \~~.'Wv.-:-... --\ \ ",.c:... r, ^ ----:" - .. ',) -~ .......-..... -' ',,:-- , "-.... /..... C~- c_, c:.:- (' ("" \ "--r '~ ,. ~ '~"'---Q \' C;' ,- ~ C "V'-.- -. " '-. S \ ~~, ~_c c"- c/ ~.~, : \..~~~ C'__. ~- -\." ~ ~ ~'-- ',~ ':' ~ '- 'l'-~\ Z ;--.. \~-:l--' "'-7'\ ':,' " \ 0' ~, '<~\: C; >-- ~ \ ,-.: '"2 C' _'''-.C - l^1 <.. \... ~~ \? ~ ~.C'. I "", " l\.' \ \ . \-' \"-C )~~, '-=-0 :. -.-:J,-~c:, ( "\ '\ -, {', L '; '- \."-~(', oJ... \.......,,\ \ f '\' \ i \~ "-' \-.c ~'C'V, \C c", ~ v\ \-' '(. ~~ \~. __ '\,l j Ii j ~ C\. '-- \.'--'1 -:_~,- -;-.~ <t::-l.~- --- -' ....-. l...-J . . . To the Planning Commission and The City Council Hi, I am Maria Heimer. I live in 5215 Shady Lane, Shorewood, MN., and if you drive by the. new intersection you might be able to see my house. I bet you I can tell you 7 reasons why I don't like this ide.a about having a McDonalds and a gas station and a pond: 1. We have a gas station about a block away. 2. You will be cutting down trees. There are some trees that are beautiful back there. 3. There will be a lot of noises from these buildings. Which will be annoying to us. ~~{ ~ !C'-h1j' 1 Il)f 1? 4. Ok, you built an intersection because you wanted it to be safe. Now what kind of traffic to do thinks going to bring here? 5. There will be a lot of trash flying into our yard. . 6. There will be lots of people coming to and fro who knows what could happen? 7. If this happens, from my back yard I will smell gas, gas fumes, french fries, . honey and hamburgers. I won't be able to smell the pretty flowers and the sweet smell of morning. Slr\ce \E7\,-\ I ~ ~ ~U2h ~ TEL No. May 7,96 17:15 No.Oll P.Ol , Jom. S.l'CA:rz 5401 AsHcROFT ~ MINNBTONKA. MINNBsoTA SS34s-4010 May 7, 1996 City ofShorewood Shorewood City Hall 57SS Country Club Road Shorewood. Mmnesota . Attn..; Planning Commission City Council Re: Proposed. AmocolMcDonaJd's Facility 5170 Vine Hill Road I 140+ c.... rM,\,...., \',,,+ . I ;/ JI I received Mr. Nielsen's notice of tile public hearing on the subject proposal only yesterday (May ~) and 1 am unable to attend. Therefore, I am submitting this letter to voice my concern. I believe that the proposal would be an inappropriate use of the land. Except for the fanner convenience store on the comer of the TH 7 frontage road at the intersection, the entire lenath ot Vme HiD Road to the south is residentiaJ in character. I believe that it should remain that way. The proposal would be a step backwards from the improvement in the general character of the area since the two restaurants and other commercial buildings were removed in the last few years. . It should also be understood that there is little if any real need for the services that are proposed as there is already mare than enough of them available at the TH 7rrH 101 intersection to the east and the recent commercial development a short distance to the west. Furthennore, the immediate residential area adjacent to the proposed development has no buffer area what-so.-ever. While no one h"kes to see commercial property adjacent to their homes, it should be understood that in the case of the aforementioned commercial areas, there is natural (some of it very extensive) and man-made buffers to shield the developments and activity from the residents. I think it is clear that residential property values would be adversely affected along Vine HiD Road. It would also be grossly inappropriate to subject the residents in that area to the activity. noise, garbage. lighting and other generally negative elements that cannot be avoided in such a development. As a resident of the City ofMinnetonka, not far from the proposed development, J strongly urge the Planning Commission to reject the proposal and to take action necessary to assure that a residential zoning is designated for aU of the property fronting Vme Hilt Road. White another designation might TEL No. May 7.96 17:15 No.011 P.02 , CiWofSbomYood May 7. 1996 Page Two be appropriate for the property filcing the frontage road, I believe it is in the interest of all concerned that land use as incompatible as that being proposed be avoided. I would also ask that the City Council be alerted to the potential degradation of the land use in this area. While it is obvious that this is not the heart of the City of Shorewood, I would urge the city to be aware of the concerns of its neighbors. Commercial activities should be limited to those areas where it is dearly appropriate and should not be allowed where it is imposed at the expense of everyone in the immediate area except the owners of the property itself. Sincerely, ~~6 . . _.._--,.",...-_.....,...'.~,-_.........,..- - -.-- James Federline Helen (Feichtinger), Nikki, and Billy Schug 19480 Shady Hills Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 L174-0373 i ,..l !.-- ; TO SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION May 15m, 1996 Dear Council and Commission Members: Helen and I were present at the Planning Commission's public hearing at which the proposed AmocolMcDonald's (Intersection of Vine Hill and Hwy. 7) was discussed, and I also gave public testimony against the concept. I have been a resident of 19480 Shady Hills Rd. since November of 1994, and have also witnessed the re-engineering of the Vine Hill - Hwy. 7 intersection, the construction of town-homes in nearby Waterford, the birth of a strip-mall, the new First State Bank of Excelsior building, along with the removal of the liquor store building and Burger King, and let us not forget the sad departure of the "comer store" (Vine Hill Market). Our property is adjacent to Minnesota Mini-Storage and Rapid Oil Change, so we know first-hand what it is like to have commercial neighbors. I'm sure you are well aware of what has been said already regarding this proposal, so I'd like to give the council something unique and useful: a personal perspective and discussion regarding two distinct issues the city has before it. These issues are, of course, the use of the commercially-zoned property involved here, and the radically changing traffic patterns in the Shady Hills neighborhood. On the commercially-zoned property in question: (1) Having heard voices in support of investigating the possibility and procedures for re- zoning either part or all of this plot, I must say that this would make sense. It would appear that the zoning is indeed outdated ("...at least since 1973..." - Brad Nielsen), and had some slightly unusual thoughts behind the concept in the first place. It is not my worry what those conceptual reasons were then, but how to reconcile the result before us with the current day and age. (2) And I'm not falling into a NIMBY-like syndrome when I speak of this "day and age": I believe the current lifestyle, goals, and heart of the Shady Hills neighborhood is on a completely perpendicular track to that of those with plans for fast-food chains and petroleum giants and jiffy car washes. These are all ventures that cater largely to those with no interest in the immediate surrounding area, those who probably have no interest in even exiting their vehicle. I see almost all residents of Shady Hills walking down the street, frequently with their children, and children riding their bikes on Shady Hills Rd. and Circle (the latter of which has been known for generations now as the "horseshoe"). The proposed coffee shop (replacing the "comer store") is much more in-line with the goals and desires of our neighborhood: a fairly easy-paced place one can walk to leisurely, possibly running into your neighbor and having a lively discussion over a warm cup. This has high promise to build a stronger sense of community! Fast food and petroleum giants have the opposite going for them: they must try their darnedest to pacify residential neighbors, and more often than not, succeed in erecting an almost immovable barrier between themselves and the surrounding community: MOTORIZED TRAFFIC. . (3) This brings me to what I would consider acceptable enterprises for a plot directly adjacent to Shady Hills. Some requirements I keep in mind when deciding whether or not it would fit include: ~ Would nearby residents patronize the enterprise freely? (yes is better) ~ Is it easy for nearby residents to walk to the enterprise? (one made for motorized traffic would certainly pose a hazard to approaching the enterprise in many cases) (yes is better) ~ Is the storefront and/or its access limited to the Hwy. 7 side or does it spill to the Vine Hill side? (former is better) ~ What are the hours associated with this type of business? (no wee-hours-of-the-morning or late nights, and reduced hours on weekends are better) ~ Is the business centered around highly regulated commodities? (petroleum is scary to many due to environmental concerns, i.e. land and water contamination) ~ Will the business negatively impact the wildlife in the area? (with all the building in the area, the animals are running out of places to go, and are encroaching on the human residents) . These should give the general idea. When I apply a set of rules akin to those above, I envision merchants of sporting goods and bikes; florists; apparel; etc. All seem to have a common glue: they have a distinct storefront, their method of customer interaction is not with the customer in their vehicle - it's face-to-face in the store, and it's a business that lends itself readily to a community that values evening quiet, safe streets for children and adults, and minimal distraction from life's home-oriented experiences. On the radically changing traffic patterns in Shady Hills: (1) I was first introduced to the Shady Hills neighborhood by Helen, when her mother (Less Feichtinger) lived in this house. The traffic in Shady Hills Road was virtually limited to the residents of Shady Hills. (2) The completion of the Old Market Road intersection brought a slight increase in cut- though traffic, with the notion probably being more of a novelty than a regular habit. This created a minor nuisance for the Shady Hills area. (3) 'When the Vine Hill - Hwy. 7 intersection was ripped out and traffic diverted through Shady Hills, it was obviously more than anyone was used to. But after the construction was completed, it was easy to notice that the residual speeding cars that persisted on Shady Hills Road were using the neighborhood as a new way to bypass the now more complex Vine Hill - Hwy. 7 intersection. The cut-throughs became an annoyance. . (4) After Holiday was completed, motorists likely originating from Hunter's Ridge Apartments, Stratford Wood, or farther south on Vine Hill Road en route to Holiday, appeared to be using Shady Hills Road as a way to bypass the two stop signs and "strenuous" curves of the route though the new intersection. Now the number of motorists cutting through was growing, and they became an irritation. (5) 'When Minnetonka High School came into session that year, the situation got much worse. The infamous morning and afternoon traffic-jams at Vine Hill- Hwy. 7 came into being, requiring good timing on morning departures to avoid the pandemonium. .More notably, however, is that many student motorists figured out that using Shady Hills got them around their classmates in the traffic-jam. The speed of these motorists is alarming in many cases, with high estimates falling in the 45-50 M.P.H. range on the downhill. This causes problems for residents attempting to back out of driveways, as the traffic is heavy enough to make this difficult, if not downright dangerous. Accompanying this hazard are often blaring-thumping car-stereos, all around the hour of seven-o'clock AM. . This was too much to let pass without inaction. Helen made a visit to the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department to discuss the issue with an officer. Since then, an unmarked squad periodically sits at the bottom of the valley on Shady Hills Road during the "height" of high-school traffic. Just this afternoon, Helen observed two teen motorists literally speed-chasing each other around Shady Hills Circle (the Horseshoe!). This type of behavior is a serious safety hazard to the 25-30 children who live, walk, bike and play in the nei2hborhood! **We need an in-depth traffic study of this once-quaint neighborhood, and then an expedient solution to this safety hazard/noise source the residents of Shady Hills are currently presented with. This problem comes right to our doorstep, into our house, and places restrictions on our children. (6) Do note that any enterprise brought to the property on which the Amoco/ McDonald's was proposed which caters to motorized traffic will exacerbate any existing hazardous traffic patterns in the Shady Hills neighborhood. Therefore, the solution engineered for the existing patterns should have enough forethought to ward off such perturbations, should an enterprise of that type be approved for that property. (!I~ ~. ~ . . , . Date: May 5, 1996 Subject: Concerns - AmocolMcDonald's Facility Proposal To: Deborah Panas-Borkon - Chair, Planning Commission Jim D Pisula Jr. - Vice Chair, Planning Commission Kirk Rosenberger - Planning Commission Jeff Foust - Planning Commission Laura Turgeon - Planning Commission Christine Lizee - Planning Commission Virginia Kolstad - Planning Commission Brad Nielsen - Planning Director From: Martin A Zgraggen & Nancy J Zgraggen 5210 Shady Lane, Shorewood . Regarding the proposed ArnocolMcDonald's facility development, 5170 Vine Hill Road, Shorewood, Minnesota (Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 intersection area), we would like to express our concerns. The following references the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance, section 1201.22, C-3 General Commercial District, subd. 4. Conditional Uses: section a. "All conditional uses, subject to the same conditions, as allowed in the C-l and C-2 Districts. (Ord. 191, 11-24-86)". 1.0 Reference 1201.21 C-2, Auto-Oriented Commercial District:, Subd. 4. Conditional Use:, section a. Drive -in facility or convenience food establishments: . 1.0. 1 Item (1) "The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall (not) be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or area so as to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable distance of the lot." 1.0.1.1 Concern: The plan, in its current form, does not assess property value impairment within a reasonable distance of the lot. It is expected this project will impart a negative impact in property values to the surrounding residential property. This needs assessment/resolution. 1.0.2 Item (4) "Parking areas shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this Ordinance". 1.0.2.1 Concern: The plan, as stated, is inadequate in screening parking areas from view. Tree coverage and fencing, as stated, will not meet this function. Additionally, debris from the drive-in use (bags, hamburger wrappers, etc.) will be blown into the adjacent properties. These needs further assessment/resolution. --- -. -- ~-- -' - ,d 16 r!C *"y, 71cQ" 1 . " 1.0.3 Item (6) "Vehicular access points shall be limited, shall create a minimum of conflict with through traffic movements, shall comply with Section 1201.03, subdivision 5 of this Ordinance and shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer". 1.0.3.1 Concern: The plan, in its current fonn, will create major conflict with through traffic movement, both along the intersection frontage road and on Vine Hill Road. Both are single lane roads, with significant traffic flow during "rush hours". The entrance/exit to the planned development along the intersection frontage road is along a curve, with limited visibility to the east (north). The entrance/exit to the planned development along Vine Hill Road is located just over a small rise, also limiting visibility to the north. Additionally, it expected the through-potential of the property will allow traffic to "short- cut" to avoid current stop sign and traffic. Potential safety concerns are apparent. Traffic impairment is apparent. This needs full assessment. 1.0.4 Item (7) "All lighting shall be hooded and so directed that the light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 2i of this Ordnance". . 1.0.4.1 Concern: There is no lighting plan in the current documentation. Additionally, it is anticipated the lighting will encroach the abutting residence. A lighting plan need development and assessment. 2.0 Reference 1201.21 C-2, Auto-Oriented Commercial District:, Subd. 4. Conditional Use:, section b. Commercial car washes: 2.0.1 Item (1) "The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas to cause impairment in property values or constitute a blighting influence". 2.0.1.1 Concern: The current plan does not show details of the car wash, and is therefore incomplete. It is expected this project will impart a negative impact in property values to the surrounding residential property. This needs assessment. . 2.0.2 Item (2) "Stacking space is constructed to accommodate that the number of vehicles which can be washed during a maximum thirty (30) minutes period and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer". 2.0.2.1 Concern: An assessment to show the plan meets the stacking requirement is required. 2.0.3 Item (5) "Parking or car stacking shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this Ordinance". 2.0.3.1 Concern: It is believed the plan is inadequate in screening from view to abutting residences. An in depth assessment to show compliance is required. 2 . , 2.0.4 Item (8) "All lighting shall be hooded and so directed thatthe light source is not visible from the public right-of-way or from an abutting residence and shall be in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 21 of this Ordinance". 2.0.4.1 Concern: There is no lighting plan in the current documentation. Additionally, it is anticipated the lighting will encroach the abutting residence. A lighting plan need development and assessment. 3.0 Reference 1201.21 C-2, Auto-Oriented Commercial District:, Subd. 4. Conditional Use:, section c. Gas station: 3.0.1 Item (2) "The architectural appearance and functional plan of the building and site shall not be so dissimilar to the existing buildings or areas as to cause impairment in property values of constitute a blighting influence within a reasonable di~tance of the lot". . 3.0.1.1 Concern: The plan, in its current form, does not assess property value impairment within a reasonable distance of the lot. It is expected this project will impart a negative impact in property values to the surrounding residential property. This needs assessment. 3.0.2 Item (4) "A drainage system subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be installed" . . 3.0.2.1 Concern: The drainage plan calls for a "holding pond" located in the south-west comer of the property. If drainage to the intersection holding ponds becomes reducedlblocked, overflow into the residential properties could occur. This has not been addressed. Snow stacking and its melt run-offhas not been addressed in the plan. Additionally, the "holding pond" encroaches within the 50 foot set-back. Significant removal of trees is expected to result from the current plan. A full assessment of the drainage is required. 3.0.3 Item (6) "The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall be in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 2i of this Ordinance". 3.0.3.1 Concern: There is no lighting plan in the current documentation. Additionally, it is anticipated the lighting will encroach the abutting residence. A lighting plan need development and assessment. 3.0.4 Item (9) "Parking or car stacking space shall be screened from view of abutting residential districts in compliance with Section 1201.03, subdivision 2g of this Ordinance". 3.0.4.1 Concern: It is believed the plan is inadequate in screening from view to abutting residences. An in depth assessment to show compliance is required. 3 . - 3.0.5 Item (10) "Vehicular access points shall create a minimum conflict with through traffic movement, shall comply with Section 1201.03, subdivision 5g of this Ordinance and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer" . 3.0.5.1 Concern: The plan, in its current form, will create major conflict with through traffic movement, both along the intersection frontage road and on Vine Hill Road. Both are single lane roads, with significant traffic flow during "rush hours". The entrance/exit to the planned development along the intersection frontage road is along a curve, with limited visibility to the east (north). The entrance/exit to the planned development along Vine Hill Road is located just over a small rise, also limiting visibility to the north. Additionally, it expected the through-potential of the property will allow traffic to "short- cut" to avoid current stop sign and traffic. Potential safety concerns are apparent. Traffic impairment is apparent. This needs full assessment. 3.0.6 Item (12) "Provisions are made to control and reduce noise". . '3.0.6.1 Concern: The proposed development will lead to significant noise encroachment into the adjoining residential neighborhood, both from stationary (permanent) sources and from mobile sources. The plan does not satisfactorily address this issue. Sources include: car wash, McDonald's drive through order taking methodology, drive through traffic, outside loitering of patrons (boom boxes, people), delivery trucks, garbage pick-up. A noise impact study is required, and sound shielding developed. 3.0.7 Item (13) "Any outside storage shall be in compliance with subdivision 4d of this Section. 3.0.7.1 Concern: This has not been addressed. 3.0.8 Item (14) "All conditions pertaining to a specific site are subject to change when the Council, upon investigation in relation to a formal request, finds that the general welfare and public betterment can be served as well or better by modifying the conditions" . . 3.0.8.1 Concern: By way of this letter, we are requesting the council to investigate use of this site for the proposed business( es), and to assess if the site is correctly zoned with respect to its location adjacent to a single family residential neighborhood. We provide the following in support of this: (1) In addition to the above mentioned concerns, this proposal is for multiple-businesses (gas station, car wash, convenience store fast food/drive-in restaurant), to be located on an inappropriate site, and with operation expected to be 24 hours per day- 7 days per week-365 days per year. This is unacceptable within a residential area. Additionally, encroachment of odor emanating from the fast food portion of the business is not desired in the adjacent residential neighborhood. 4- . . .. (2) There is neither a need for or a desire to have the proposed development. There are, within about 2.5 miles of this site, seven (7) gas stations, six (6) convenience stores of the type proposed, three (3) car washes, and two (2) McDonald's. The Highway 7 area from Williston Road to Highway 19 is over congested with this type of development. (3) Zoning of the current property occurred in the early 1970's (or before) and prior to the implementation of the current (approved by Shorewood) residential neighborhood. The commercial development which was at the Vine Hill intersection, was displaced by building of the current intersection in 1993/1994. The Burger King, the Shorewood Liquor and adjacent Store, and the restaurant were all located significantly back from the residential areas to buffer major concerns outlined in this letter. The current C-3 zoning does not fit with the neighborhood and township requirements anymore. We would like the council to consider the following options: (a) Rezone the property to a maximum of C-l. (b) Turn the property into a park. A park on this site would replace the old park at the Market Street intersection which was displaced by the current development at that site. Thank you for this opportunity to express our concerns regarding the proposed Amoco! McDonald's development. 5 ,,~ . . May 4, 1996 City of Shorewood Council & Planning Commission 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 ;.....,... . .-:::---. -~ Dear Council & Commission: We are writing to oppose the Amoco/McDonalds development on the corner of Vine Hill Road and the south frontage road of Highway 7. Our opposition to the proposed development is based on the following: · Increase traffic congestion at the intersection of Vine Hill Road and the Frontage Road. · Additional traffic on neighborhood streets (South Vine Hill Road). · Safety of pedestrians who walk, bike and run on South Vine Hill Road. · Increase traffic congestion at the intersection of Vine Hill Road and Highway 7. Our primary concern is the additional traffic that this proposed development will bring into the neighborhood, specifically on the south frontage road and on South Vine Hill Road. On the attached drawing we have highlighted and number the intersections which have been a continued source of danger to traffic traveling in the area of the proposed development. (NOTE: This drawing does not reflect a number of blind driveways that enter onto this roadway.) These dangerous intersections are primarily due to the large number of blind intersections and excessive traffic speeds. The intersection marked (1) on the drawing is an extremely dangerous intersection in the morning and afternoons due to the large amount of traffic going to and from the high school and the large apartment complex just to the east of this intersection. Also, in the winter, the downhill slope on Vine Hill Road approaching this intersection is occasionally slippery and dangerous even with the attempts to keep it salted. The development as proposed, offers no solution to this already dangerous intersection. Instead it will take an already dangerous intersection and make it worse by adding additional traffic entering and exiting the roadway at the proposed establishment. Another concern with the increase traffic volume from the proposed establishment, is the large number of blind intersections on Vine Hill Road. The intersections marked (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) are all blind intersections with limited visibility when entering onto South Vine Hill Road. These intersections are dangerous as they presently exist and increased traffic volumes on South Vine Hill Road, resulting from the proposed business, is sure to cause an increase in the number of accidents at these intersections. Our third concern is pedestrian safety on South Vine Hill Road. We are concerned about the safety of the children and people who use the bike lanes on South Vine Hill Road to get to the neighborhood parks and trail systems. Developing a high volume business, such as the one proposed, will bring in a significant amount of traffic that will likely increase the average speeds and create dangerous situations for these pedestrians. Our fourth concern is the Vine Hill Road I Highway 7 intersection. While we would like to take this opportunity to commend the city for its efforts to remedy this intersection, we would also like to point out that even after the redesign, this intersection is marginally capable of handling the existing traffic demands a peak times in the morning and afternoon. The proposed establishment would aggravate an already marginal situation especially since traffic would be required to make left turns on the frontage road to feed back through the Highway 7 intersection. ".'" Page 2 Attempts to regulate speeds in this area have been a continual challenge due to the significant number of hills which easily allow cars to exceed the speed limit. While these roads have been patrolled by the Minnetonka & South Lakeshore Police, the attempts to regulate speed on South Vine Hill Road have only been moderately successful. As a result, this road does not presently handle the traffic volumes and certainly is not designed to handle the kind of traffic a McDonalds and Amoco would attract. While we understand the desire and need to draw business into Shorewood, we believe that this location is not suited for a business with the high volume of traffic which the proposed fast food I gas establishment would draw. We believe that the city must first conduct a traffic study and determine how it will effectively control the current traffic on South Vine Hill Road. Obviously a development as proposed would only make this situation worse making pedestrian & children safety further jeopardized. Sincerely, . ~d~~_ Brett & Christine Helgeson 7;:-- 5640 Vine Hill Road Shorewood, MN 55331 ..4? /,/"',??/ fr4"'" ~:.4!:1'~,( /,/~V7( Bruce & Martha Ebner 5670 Vine Hill Road Shorewood, MN 55331 e .... .. HIGH SCHOOL Valley VIeW N Shad, Hils tratford Road 2 . VI aterford Place . ... Kilgs' wood Terrace :...... . ':':'" ":::::.f' KEY HanuI Road . PresentJv Dangerous IntersectD,* Requiring Action with Existing Traffic . PropoIed Development :s .- ~ ~ ~ ~ Covi1gton Court o Covington Road Covington Road 6 r", iI " . . ,-..:...-~-- -- --- 5117 Vine Hill Road Minnetonka, MN 55345 7 May 1996 Mr. Bradley 1. Nielsen Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 RE: AmocolMcDonald's Vine Hill Rd.. - Conditional Use Permit Request by DYS Properties Dear Mr. Nielsen: The purpose of this letter is to express my opposition to the above referenced proposed development. I own and reside at the residence at 5117 Vine Hill Road, Minnetonka. My opposition to the proposed development is described in the following points. · The proposed development is a commercial use adjacent to residential zoning in Minnetonka and residential zoning south in Shorewood. This is a conflict in land use, and if allowed to proceed, would have a permanent negative impact on. all residential land use in the area. · InDecember 1995, I had my property appraised by Valuation Information Technology Inc. for the purpose of refinancing my mortgage. I have contacted the appraiser about the proposed development and I have been informed that the development will reduce the value of my home and property. This is a condition that I can not accept and I will pursue all avenues to prevent a decrease in my property value by DYS Properties. · The issue of traffic on both the frontage road and Vine Hill Road has not been addressed by the applicant. Increased traffic on Vine Hill will cause more congestion, pollution, the ",It ~ Bradley J. Nielsen 7 May 1996 Page 2 probability for more accidents, cause a decrease in safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists, and impede access to nearby driveways. During peak traffic times now, the Vine Hill - frontage road intersection has backups in all directions. This would only increase if the development is allowed to proceed. The potential for higher traffic volumes from the proposed coffee shop to the north only exacerbates the future traffic issues on Vine Hill Road, especially the issue of sight limitation for approaching vehicles from the south. A gas station - fast food outlet will have a major traffic impact that can only be described as negative for residents of the area and the users of Vine Hill Road. . Aesthetic impacts from the development would cause a decrease in residential value and livability in the area by adding a commercial structure and stand alone car wash, increasing light pollution at night even though the applicant claims downward lighting, and an increase in litter along Vme Hill Road, Valley View Road, the frontage road, and probably Shady Hills and Stratford. The increase in people and vehicles will have a negative aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. . · The proposed landscape plan is inadequate for screening the proposed development from residential property along Vme Hill Road. The plan would allow for an open strip along Vine Hill. No site cross section was provided by the applicant to the City. · The applicant has not addressed the issue of icy conditions as a result of the car wash or the grade onto Vine Hill Road. . The proposed development offers to create an attraction for young people to loiter and "hang out" at, bringing the associated problems of littering, noise, trespassing, and behavior not now associated with the neighborhood. . In summary, I wish to reiterate my opposition to the proposed development. I can not envision a site that is less suitable to the type of development that is proposed for this property. Commercial development should be restricted to frontage areas similar to the development west ofVme Hill along Highway 7. Concentrating gas stations and fast food outlets in a planned unit development reduces traffic in other areas, and reduces land use conflicts. The reconstruction of the frontage road and intersections has improved traffic flow and safety. Commercial development should be in concert with the transportation structure, not in conflict as the DYS proposal is. Moreover, since this really affects two municipalities and the residents of both, the development should not be allowed ifit negatively impacts either or both parties. . -"'" ~~. Bradley J. Nielsen 7 May 1996 Page 3 Thank you for providing an opportunity to respond to this proposal. Sincerely, . cc: AI Thomas, City ofMinnetonka Jeff Olson, City ofMinnetonka Lee Gustafson, City ofMinnetonka . ..... .... . . .Jtttn: The P{annine Commission ancC The City Counci{ Dear p{anning Commission ancC City Council; My name is CincCy M. :J{eimer. My hus6ancC anc[ 2 chi{(;{ren Cive at 5215 Shaay Lane, in SliorewoocL We are immeaiate{y south oftlie yroyosea .Jtmoco/McD onafds faciCity with aetachea car wash 6ui{d1nB. The yroyosea y{an wou{(;{ have an enormous environmenta{ imyact on our rot. Wlien we movea here, a{most 9 years ago, our first yriority in 6uyine a house was the rot. My lius6antf, Tom, anal fovea Jvlinneton~a/ Shorewooa 6ecause of a{{ the woodS in the resU;[entia{ areas. We Ci~ea the secfusion. When we 60ught our house the Xea{tor toW us the woodS 6eliina us was a 6uffer zone. There was a fence 6eliina the woodS anc[ 6ehincC that was a yar~ing Cot anc[ tlien a restaurant. Next to the restaurant was a fiquor store anc[ an 'Echo :fieW store. .Jt couy{e years ago a y{an was yassea to ma~e a new safer intersection on 'Vine :J{i{{ ancC :J{wy. 7. 1 wasn't fiayyy that the fence to seyarate the woodS ana the commercia{ area '),vas removecL 1 now cou{(;{ see ancC hear cars from the "vA € Ie, ,4"'}7 7 fY)j 96 t!: -.0" intersection ana gratfua{{y more trees were getting cut aown ana the woodS was getting sma{{er. I acceytea the intersection yCans knowing that safety of the community s/iou{c{ come first. The Matt Shoy, the {iquor store, 'Echo fie{c{ ana 'Burger Xing had" been taken aown to make this safer intersection. This yroyosea yCan is very aifferent. I aon't unaerstanathe neeafor it anc[I see more negative things concerning our communities . environment. Of course I'm aCso concernea about the vaCue of our yroyerty. To begin, we liave a brana new gas station/convenience store (:J{o{taay) one b{ock away with many gas yumys. I see no neea to bring in another gas station into our neigliborhoocf. Mc'Dona{c{s wier generate a Cot of traffic which wier take away the efforts to make this a safe intersection. I aCso foresee Cots of ac{cfitiona{ uttering anc[ we afreac{y liave a . yrobcem with tliis. from :J{wy. 7 ancfYine :J{i{{ 'Roaa to tlie :J{igli Sclioo{ there is a{reac{y a Cot of garbage on the roadS. 'Wlien I arove by :J{wy. 7 this week, I saw bags of garbage tliat was yickea uy just from that area, 4 or 5 huge bags. Can you imagine w/iat it wou{c{ be Cike after a Mc'Dona{c{s wou{c{ be put in that same vicinity? 2\Cso, I aon't tliink this restaentia{ area is a gooa syot for . . EmiCdlnBs tnat wou{(;( serve customers in tne (ate nours. I aCso fiave rear concerns on tne air and noise yo{{ution tnis wier cause in our neifJn6ornootf. I am a conservationist. I ayyreciate our nature and every time someone wants to cut down trees to make room for commercia{ ventures and not for tne Bood of tne community it rea{{y nurts me. I Bet a yain rifJnt in my neart. 'rne yond wou{(;( 6e yut in on{y 6ecause of a requirement for Amoco and MC'Donafc[s. 'rfiat yond wou{(;( mean tne {oss of many 6eautifu{ trees. 'rne fact tfiat a{{ tnis may 6e CeBa{ doesn't make it rifJnt. 'rnis yroyosa{ is in direct contradiction of tne yrevious{y executed y{an to make tne )line J-{i{{'Road!J-{wy. 7 intersection safe. P{ease do not ayyrove this y(an! J4v~e.vu.l?F ' ~~M. ""~, ,,: ''1 MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DAlE: RE: FTI...E NO. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 6 May 1996 Warren, Mark - Building Moving Permit Property - 5260 St. Alban's Bay Road Mark Warren proposes to move an existing 22' x 30' garage from the above-referenced site (see Applicant's request letter, dated 2 April 1996). Chapter 1002 of the City Code requires, among other things, that the Planning Commission make a recommendatio~ and that the City Council approve such moves. Since the building is to be moved out of Shorewood, several of the issues with which the Code concerns itself (e.g. building and zoning regulations of the location to which the building will be moved) are somewhat irrelevant. There are, however, several items which need to be completed prior to approval . of the moving permit. The route (shown on Exhibit B) must be approved by the City Engineer, as well as several other jurisdictions: 1) MNDOT; 2) Hennepin County; 3) Excelsior; and 4) Greenwood. In addition, the utility companies must approve the route so as to avoid disturbance to overhead lines. 1. . Having reviewed the proposed route and examined the building with the City Engineer, the route .does not appear to pose difficulties Both vertical and horizontal clearances appear adequate for the proposed move. The applicant's mover must realize that Manor Road has a year-round five ton load limitation. 2. The time of the move must be approved by the Police Department The Chief has expressed a preference for a late night move in order for a police escort to be provided. This timing must be approved by the jurisdictions referenced in 1. above. 3 . The applicant must provide copies of his mover's state license and bond. cc: Larry Brown Mark Warren A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Ie-, ..' .1'"\ ~ --. ).. i% \!) ~ <it I-.: l') '-- . .' ( L-\(/)\ I , --- , (' ; z w If) Ul <{ I Z <{ I o ""'1-" ""-. "-. " :~ :; jrf ~ ~..::t ~ ~ - ~ J >{.. ~ '-.J j(b ?1J " I ... - -.,.. CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 . (612) 474.3236 MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 2 May 1996 Born, Ron - Setback Variance 405 (96.06) BACKGROUND . Mr. Ron Born proposes to build a detached garage on his property at 4865 Ferncroft Drive (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The proposed garage is 10 feet from an old street right-of-way called Glen Grove Path (see Exhibit B), which is classified as a "fire lane" on the Zoning Map. Since these fire lanes are technically street rights-of-way, a 30 foot setback would ordinarily be required. The property is zoned R-ID/S, Single-Family ResidentiallShoreland and contains 42,885 square feet. The lot is occupied by the applicant's existing home and a small utility shed near the fire lane. Mr. Born proposes to remove the utility shed as part of his proposal. The new 3-car garage measures 26' x 38' and contains 988 square feet of area. Since he is limited to 1000 square feet of accessory space, he proposes to convert his existing tuck-under garage into living space. The applicant's request letter is attached as Exhibit C, and a sketch of the proposed garage is included on Exhibit D. ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION There is significant precedence for granting the applicant's request for a variance. Similar requests have been granted in recent years on Birch Bluff Road and one just a block north of the applicant's property. It is worth noting that, following a lengthy fire lane study, the City decided to retain ownership of fire lanes for lake access, rather than vacate them. In essence the fire lanes are more like park property than street right-of-way. For example, the Eureka Road fire lane is designated as a Class m fire lane which allows pedestrian access to the lake, fishing, and launching canoes and small boats not requiring a trailer. The Glen Grove Path fire lane was maintained primarily for drainage purposes. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore '/D . . Re: Born, Ron Setback Variance 2 May 1996 It should be noted that the proposed garage will be 63 feet from Ferncroft Drive (only 30 feet is required) and 90 feet from Ivy Lane. It is recommended that the applicant's request be granted subject to the following: 1 . The applicant must provide an estimate for removal of the shed and closing up the opening for the tuck-under garage. 2. The applicant must post an escrow based upon 1. above to guarantee completion of the garage conversion and shed removal. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Ron Born 2 :05 \ ,\ ~ ,,=,,' ~ " , '<;., / je : '~' (0 ':"'/':""f7 "'~~/ / 7'~')\~'~\. "'~~~26.:' ~'Y'>~~;~~~>;~;?'~ , '-, ,4,) ,u- "', ',", ''1- _ ' - - - ",~ "-'I'" / "0."\.;" ) I" <l) '"\ .Iv, "6- .~{? f~- ( "7' .;::::.;.~ .". , ......,' . f~ . O~.;. I. ......~ '-., ~"'.. ,', ,I-, / i~ ._ g'7 IS!~ :8 ,;~ ", ,/'..V "?, ~\'" :"1\- (37) .---i- ~........ ~ 9 ~', \...t .;:.:~ -~'''' <I. '. ;;."~ r 28) ~\ . ",\"~i~....../\..9 17 "'-, I) "~' . '<, " );..,..... -.{./1/ /,(:,' ~"'-. ,~,. :~~Ij).J..."""""" \ "'Z:: \ II '. '~~/. \ , ~"".f r \ ,. \cQ ...,\~," "\ i,."".....'/ '''' ..g\ (1:~ \0 /y \ ';.~.. IV , \ _' \ ~ ;0 'c'":o~ \ (29) , /\ '7. \,/" / .... ~:;.\ ,(\'C";:""'- \,...J- \. " . . \ " - ..\~... \. .,'f \/,; ~\ ~ '{.J .\c; ,~ '. ..,.....?'"' [ 1 \ \~ ~___ , '-/ \ r" '7n ' \,' ...- -(" , '. vV) o.L~"\ '" , ~\ \v9.>y~ :.....:.\ :.~ .........:.::.~ \ \:,....-' \ \"; \0 \ ,~/..... ~. ,,,?! \"" \ ~~:~-\ r 12,:ri{ ::::,,L -('".z\ ,t>\ '. 3 1);;>-.. : \<l J \. ".-, ~/\~ ,~.~,,') \ \//o.'O.'J' 1~""'.-:& ~ 13 ~. Ii \'" '.... r,,<?\-' '\ ......A \ .....--.1 0): \ 1 C::1: \i.j\ ~ 1'7 -:-r ,Xt! 99 ( ~ 8) ,,~, 0~ I "0 420. za , EAST , - "'TO?:" 09 - - ;; - - ~of" 67 - ~.-7_,.:\ if IE ~ ~~ ~ ~ @ if l: .:~\ il ~, S!! \ ~/ ~ ."7: ~ V<,'"?)... ;.\ ,--=--.,f; '/J.. ....., 6.\ ~...\... ~ -, -, " -:;7~\ U ft '<~ ,",.\ ., t:::~, 7., {. ':: ......:9' ... ;J'"~ ( 51 ) hn '<"S' , ~ \ It dZ) ''<~:~:''''\ L4.".4 \,,~ \l: A~ 128.82 DR !02; 5::::1t 60 (55) ~i 105.76 cll d6~} \5\ '.1 \ 746. ; ("': , ~ 10 \:t 219 I'T.< P OlA ,'_oJ. oJ (88) I... 216. 09 E.~ST jO ;\ C29} 2 1\... \: 219.49 '" o 222.89 ... . .i.I~,:"": " 31. JI;':; 45~,\ !""')! '. :'t"}; 50 \ \ ~\l 49 , l ~~ 51 .\ 225.29 4 (76) . 229. 5~ ... '\ 2n.09 6 ...., 0, i 42 i (75) "0\RUSTIC WAY ( 233. 22 252.4 (18) ~ ,,;:"',. 272. 3 -;~,'O 2'18. 6 '3 I /\ 265.5 \i \ i Z5\ 3.:;] ..., i o! 18 l \ \ " (IS) I; i~4. 64 5 tr, 7' '-- -? '1A. .... t' (7C; '..;"\\ '" I ': 5.'3. 351 / 8 / ./\~'l /:- !~ -L_~ ....,~I.("'o '....,:~ j:-:--c ..!~ /-;-~ , I , ~J f:;; :: 35 ~1~'-? ~/~ , ~ -\ ,4-")/ Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Born - setback variance 39 ~v;:t~.l,i,~~ f! FOR: MR. RON BORN . \ \ \ \ \ .." \ (T\ \ 7;U z (") \ 7;U 0 ~ ~f \ I. ~:; 0 .0 7;U ~8 < ,- (T\ )- II< I \ Ii \ \ \ \ I \ '1::ItT:l ~:>< 02: "- '1::10" "- tT:l ::;.. ~t7J ~ ><: C/) c ~ ~ ><: 201.96 ; .."r ......... I tt -f- i r .-r r.. .. L" I ,.. Cone. Under POt. i I.-r L .. .... I , r, -j / / I I I 00"" ",- ..........:.------ 6".... - - - qfO"4&\ ~ . 1 62570-001 ------- ~:::~- -- -- A A I I ...... i r 1-j i? I....... I .6_ IVy I A &...I'1Nc 40 0 40 I-- ........ 80 / /1 / I // \ / \ - ---------- -----------. / ( I I l --e-- SCHOELL & MADSON, INt. ENCINEERS . SURVEYORS . PLANNERS SOIL TESTINC . ENVIRONMENTAL SERvICES 10580 WAYZATA 80ULEVARD, SUITE 1 MINNETONKA, MN 55305 (612) 546-7601 FAX:546-9065 ,Shor.'ine 3-21-96 /' /' E1 ~~ c.(f\ ~ '- ----------------------- ,-, -. " 25 / DESCRIPTION: Lots 8, 9, 10. 11 and 12, Block 8, M1NNETONKA MANOR, according to the recorded plot thereof. Ar. Iv / / / ;t ~ ~ GENERAL NOTES: 1. 0 - Denotes iron monument set. 2. . - Denotes iron monument found. 3. - - -931- - - Denotes existing contour. 4. Areos: Lot = 42,885 sq. ft. HO~lse = 1,589 sq. ft. Shed = 198 sq. ft. Cone. = 179 sq. ft. Deck = 82 sq. ft. Grav. Dr. = 2.345 sq.ft. ~ t I hereby certify that this survey was p;epared under my supervision and that I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under t lows of the State of Minnesota. ~J-iL 120 Feel This drawing has been checked and reviewed this "e ~ t-h day of by /Y/7/r~J. .~'li:... , Theodore D. Kemno Dote: Mar. 21, 1996 License No. 1700 .' ~ .; c::::~/~(' ~r-5(tI Vl'wr/~~ 2 1- ~r(P"'\ fryc!,,6K/ 5h ~ Ye v "tI1~,R1~, )r.f~( L(-c:JI-rc . ~. d-~ , ~~ ,: , . RONALD M. BORN 4865 FERNCROFT DRIVE ~ _ -~ )1N 55331 ~rl'r~~It:R. J Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REOUEST LETTER Dated 1 April 1996 ~ ::-- - , ~ ~ .~ .-L. _ 1 :::-- .... ...- .. j I ~ .jr-------- - - - - - f .' tt_ _~-~_.~~._____ r--'- . -. - i7:"1 i ...--. I t _.~\-. --- - ._.' ..;::.:,-':' ..-....--- --..--. ._-~_._- ------------ --- J- -- ---- ----.-......... ~ -- ----_. VI - f-- -- --- d -.: ; -n ---_.-1---- ,...---- ! - ; i - -- ---. ~_ il e <0 Ii... - 11 ':.~ ~---T:' ____ ij = ..., -e. l..g <~ I ~ ~... I "2 .... - ':::., ~ ~ ... ~ : t>.-. .>c. ; , ~ j : , j : : ! ; ._- . -e--.-- L ,- ."," ::' . , ~ ";. 0 . .- --~ ~- " ~ ..;r-,.:z j -7"---------- '-- :-.'"1 : - 1) , ~_______ v .: - -:! I . ~______ ~~~i!. u "'. .",' . -J. ~ C fl. ; ! . ~ ;;...~'" : I -!.--~-- --rt-t -rs..---- c--~-- -=----CO--____ I'~' ..JO_._____f-__ L.: I: 1 ~ ' \,~- ~-~.-..------.---- l;-+-;:---~-----. .J--Q.- ~___.__ h I = \/1... X Ii 1-..1 ~-~-- -4l. ,- '..,} \: fa i~ ~\- _ :""1_. ----1i..-1.- - I: J - ------____-Il. !.-;:, l! !-cr ---- ;, " . I I' L__ . .. ~ x '~ - , ..........,.. . l- e.... - _________C-. I I "7"'" ! c. i' '-J.. . --_._----- .---- . -.- ~ e:O- I~_ ;>. e>- I 0(1 ~- ~ ~ .. ,.... ~~--~ ~ _...",- ---'-- ';:::"""I~ ..- .,.) 0 "-.j" ~~ ',.,S! _ ...:t...-~..~--..;;:::::-rc---- -~~) >-..., :- ~ ~ :. ~ -.---- --~ --::. -- -'-'-'-' ._- rr ~- ---- - g --~---:)~-- + --- ~ ~'-Q =- .~ --~~.~-- '"'6- ----- - _ ._. h_' _.____.__ _._ .. -- .. .... -- ------- -------- . .~ -~- ~~ -~.==~_. -~--=='--' t- --.-. ._.- ----.-f--- ,~ :..\s:., ~._.~-------- ."': -'- -~ ~ - ._ n._ _..~ Exhibit D PROPOSED GARAGE - NORTH ELEV A TrON 'to . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612) 474-3236 MEMORANDUM . TO: FROM: DAlE: RE: FILE NO.: Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 24 May 1996 Watten Ponds P. U.D. 405 (96.02) . At its last meeting the City Council directed staff to prepare a fmdings of fact denying the Watten Ponds rezoning and conditional use pennit. Since then the applicant has reconsidered the Council consensus that a lO-lot plat, processed as a P.U.D. zoning district would be more acceptable. In his letter dated 23 May (see Exlu'bit A, attached), the applicant asks that the matter be referred back. to the Planning Commission. Per staff direction, the letter also asks that the statutory deadline for processing the request be extended. In discussing this matter with the City Attorney, he agrees that a second public hearing must be held by the City Council, after the Planning Commission makes its recommendation, if the project is to be processed as a P. U.D. district. Assuming the applicant can submit revised plans within the next couple of weeks, this item would be scheduled for Planning Commission review on 2 July. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Tuesday night's meeting. cc: Planning Commission Jim Hurm Tim Keane Larry Brown Chuck Dillerud #'7E A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore MAY-22-96 WED 13:23 p, 02 Abingdon Development Corporation Mayor Bean and City Council City of Shorcwood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood. MN 55331 May 22, 1996 Attention: Jim Hurm, City Administrator . Dear Mayor Bean and Councilmembers: On behalf of Dahlstrom Abingdo~ LLP I hereby respect1Wly request the City Council take no action at its May 28, 1996 meeting regarding the rezoning application fOf the Watten Ponds project. We request the Council to refer the zoning matter back to the Planning Commission at the earliest possible date to consider a revision to the project design to bring the project. responsive to PUD zoning, more in keeping with the what we understand to be the sense of the City Council from statements made at the Council's May 13 meeting. . We also hereby acknowledge the terms ofMSA 15.99 regarding the timing of action by the City regarding a zoning application, and we understand that the City may require application processing time in addition to that specified by the Statute and acknowledged by our original application. We trust waiver of statutory time provisions will not preclude expedient City processing of our applications. C es. "erud Director of Land Development 4100 Berkshire Lane - Plymcu.th, MN 55446 (612) 550-7633 FAX (612) 559-6423 --------...- -- -- ---- -- -..- ......-. .....-....-.... ........... .._~_........._... ..._........... ....... .................. 'W ........ Exhibit A MAY-22-9S WED 13:23 P.Ol --". "-,7' - " o ;'.. ... . . EIDEN COM P II>. N V TO: 0+;- U~ REJ()~ '3?u~ DATE; ~ -- ba --9 b FAX NO. 47lf -OJ2r-f:; ~ NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET): FROM:~ . PHO!'l"E NO. lYmSSAGE: ("'\).... (j.... - ('.;-./) t::' - 'L /' -",/ ~ ~~""J d___ u....~ -2 ~~ ~~~~ . ----- 4100 BERKSHIRE LANE. PLYMOUTH. MINNESOTA 55446 .16121559-0251 FAX16121559 AS lp4'~ _....~ t V\J\. \olr _."'~..-......... ~ SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFElY DEPARTMENT 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RiCHARD A. YOUNG Chief of Police (612) 474-3261 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Robert B. Bean Shorewood City Council Members City Administrator James C. Hurm Police Chief Rick You~/ May 3, 1996 oJ 0 From: Date: Subject: Excelsior's Request for Less Patrol ~In response to the attached memorandum, areas of concern were brought to my attention on how Excelsior's proposal to reduce patrol hours might work administratively and what effect this might have on all of the communities in the long haul. I will be attending the meeting of the Shorewood City Council on May 28, 1996 to discuss this and other concerns you may have. However, I have given this some preliminary thought and done some statistical analysis which I provided to you yesterday. Those figures indicated that in 1995 the patrol hours in Excelsior were reduced by 320 hours, leaving another 230 hours to go to reach their goal of a reduction totaling 550 hours. Administratively this would be accomplished by setting a goal for the officers assigned to patrol in the area of Excelsior. It would require constant monitoring on my part to try and make sure that level was being accomplished without too much of a reduction to not provide the level of patrol they are requesting. ~In 1994, the patrol hours were estimated to be 2,296. A 550 hour reduction would mean the goal is 1,746 hours. At the 2,296 hour level, it meant that we were patrolling Excelsior for 6.3 hours per day. We have a schedule that almost always has one day, one mid, one night and one supervisor shift that would include some coverage of Excelsior. We also have one other shift that is used for filling vacations, school and other time off which mayor may not be covering Excelsior if it is being filled. My best guess is this schedule would result in each shift and the supervisor spending about 1 1/2 hours on patrol in Excelsior, with the balance being the fill shift when staffed. To meet the goal of Excelsior, it would be necessary to reduce the daily time in Excelsior to 4.8 hours per day. I would tell the officers to try and reduce, on average, their patrol time in Excelsior to one hour per each ten hour shift. If the fill shift continues to fill .3 hour per day on average, that leaves 1/2 hour per day leeway. My guess is that during the summer months, that 1/2 hour per day will be used due to the special events and just general increase in visiting people in Excelsior. Serving Sowh Lake Minnaonka Comnumilies of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorcwood and Tonlaz Bay tq ~ While I am concerned about this 25% reduction in patrol time, Excelsior has indicated they want to try it and see what effect it will have on their need for police services. I would be more concerned for the department and the other communities if Excelsior used their authority in the Joint Powers Agreement to cut the department budget which would require laying off a police officer. As you requested, from a review of the statistics from 1994 to 1995 and the 320 hour patrol time reduction, some assumptions or guesses could be made. The traffic citations and warnings were lower. This could be due to less patrol time and, therefore, a reduced opportunity to see violations. The response time is up. This could be due to the officers being in Excelsior less and, therefore, having to come from further away when there is a call for service. The time spent on the scene is less. This could be due to many different causes including the delay in responding allowing a perpetrator time to leave the area before a squad arrived, resulting in less time on scene by the responding officer. That could also be why investigative time is up. It would then require more time on the part of the investigator to try and make contact with a perpetrator or even identify one. All of this is very speculative . conjecture on my part as I try and brainstorm reasons for these changes. My main concern is not the actual reduction in patrol time, but rather the public notification of such. I know there is probably nothing that can be done about the news media publishing this. But, the strongest crime deterrent is the thought in a criminals mind that the police may be just around the corner. If they know by reading the newspaper that we are only patrolling Excelsior one hour per shift, they might think their chances of getting caught are so low as to encourage them to commit crimes in Excelsior. Again, just unsupported conjecture on my part, but still worrisome to me. As to how this might affect the other communities, I would mention that criminals do not usually know where city boundary lines are. They may consider the entire South Lake area to be Excelsior. The crimes could spillover to other communities. On the other hand, perhaps our increased presence in the other communities would tend to drive them to . Excelsior to commit crimes. Or maybe there will be absolutely no effect due to this change. While it is extremely hard to try and interpret past statistics, it is virtually impossible to try and predict what will happen in the future. If you have specific questions you would like me to address at the May 28th meeting that would require some prior research, please give them to me or the City Administrator. cc: Mayor John Anderson City Manager Carl Zieman ...t, . To: From: Date: Re: . MAYOR Robert Bean COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty Doug Malam CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612) 474.3236 Rick Young, Police Chief James C. Hurm, City Adininistrator April 23, 1996 Excelsior's Request for Less Patrol * The Shorewood City Council discussed the City of Excelsior's request for less patrol time and offer of more patrol time to the other cities at the April 22 City Council meeting. They have asked me to invite you to the City Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday, May 28, 1996 to discuss the issue with them. Please feel free to talk to Mayor Bob Bean in preparing for the meeting. The Council seemed to be interested in details on how this proposal might work administratively. They are also concerned about a reduction of patrol hours in the commercial area and how that might affect all of the communities in the long haul. Please let me know if you will be able to attend the meeting on May 28. If not, our next Council meeting is Monday, June 10. . A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . ~'" .... .... CITY OF VICTORIA City of .L:ake.1J. and Pa'tfa 7951 cRo1J.e., !Box 36 CUdo'tia, <::A1inne.1J.ota 55386 612/443-2363 'Jax 612/443-2110 -.. -....." ~,_....,. '- '".........,~ -' .-::.:=; ,if ! " ~ If i./, ......... .~ '/ if,:' C/} " ~~/i ".,..,...,...... . .' . . -'-'-'_.~ j May 17, 1996 Mr. Jim Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 RE: Agreement for Water Service Between the City of Victoria and the City of Shorewood. Dear Mr. Hurm: Attached are two executed copies of the Water Service Agreement between the City of Victoria and the City of Shorewood. After the agreement is approval by the Shorewood City Council. please return one fully executed copy for our records. Should have any questions or need a additional information. please feel free to call me at 443-3593. Sincerely, ~{().f+-t Joanne M Kopet City Administrator City of Victoria ~/D CONTRACT FOR WATER SERVICE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA AND THE CITY OF VICTORIA, MINNESOTA TInS CONTRACT made and entered into, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 471.59, this day of , 1996, by and between the City of Shorewood, a municipal corporation located in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and the City of Victoria, a municipal corporation located in Hennepin County, Minnesota. WITNESSETH: That said parties in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, have agreed to and with each other as follows: 1. Term of Contract . The Contract shall be for the Term of seventy five (75) years, or the service life of the Minnewashta Water Tower located in Shorewood, Minnesota, as determined by the City of Shorewood, whichever occurs first from the date of execution of this agreement. a. 2 . Water Service a. The City of Shorewood will act as a wholesale water provider to the City of Victoria, and will deliver quantities of water meeting the Minnesota Department of Health drinking water requirements. b. The City of Shorewood agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Victoria a continuous supply of water for the entire twenty four (24) hours of the day, excepting repairs, maintenance, and unforeseeable emergencies for the system. . c. The City of Shorewood will make available to the City of Victoria the quantities of water shown below: Capacity Available to City of Victoria Volume of Water gallons/minute (~m) Period Interconnect date January 1, 1997 January 1, 1998 January 1, 1999 January 1, 2000 January 1, 2001 January 1,2002 January 1, 2003 January 1,2004 January 1, 2005 through through through through through through through through through through December 31, 1996 December 31, 1997 December 31, 1998 December 31, 1999 December 31, 2000 December 31, 200 1 December 31, 2002 December 31, 2003 December 31, 2004 Remaining Term of the Contract 1000 gpm 1000 gpm 1000 gpm 1000 gpm 900 gpm 900 gpm 800 gpm 650 gpm 500 gpm 350 gpm Water Agreement Page 2 of 6 The "Interconnect Date" is the date at which time watermain has been successfully extended from the Boulder Bridge Water System to the north corporate boundary of the City of Victoria as specified herein, and said watermain has been approved by the Minnesota Department of Health, and the City of Shorewood for hookup. Service is expected to commence in the Fall, 1996 when the watermain is extended to the City of Victoria northerly corporate boundary specified herein. The above delivery rates are with the Boulder Bridge and Badger Field water systems connected, and all of the wells in service. The connection between the Boulder Bridge and Badger Field water systems is expected to be completed in the Fall of 1996. Prior to said connection of the Boulder Bridge and Badger Field water systems, the available quantity of water is 868 gpm during 1996 and 848 gpm during 1997. d. Delivery pressure, measured at the location of the water meter, will average between 70 and 90 psig however, could fall below 70 psig at time of high demand. . "Firm Well Capacity" is defmed as the remaining capacity available once a primary well has been taken out of service. In the event of maintenance or repairs to one of the wells within the City of Shorewood, the City of Shorewood will only provide to the City of Victoria the following capacities during the period of repair or maintenance: e. Excess Firm Well Capacity Available to City of Victoria Volume of Water ~allonslminute (~) Period Interconnect date January 1, 1997 January 1, 1998 January 1, 1999 January 1,2000 January 1,2001 January 1, 2002 January 1, 2003 January 1, 2004 January 1,2005 through through through through through through through through through through December 31, 1996 December 31, 1997 December 31, 1998 December 31, 1999 December 31, 2000 December 31, 200 1 December 31, 2002 December 31, 2003 December 31, 2004 Remaining Term of the Contract 780 gpm 750 gpm 730 gpm 710 gpm 680 gpm 550 gpm 420 gpm 280 gpm 150 gpm 20 gpm . The City of Shorewood will make reasonable effort to bring said well back on line to provide full service to the City of Victoria. 3. Water System Facilities a. The City of Shorewood will construct, operate, and maintain necessary production, storage, transmission within the City of Shorewood, to provide the quantity and quality of water as specified herein to the City of Victoria. . Water Agreement Page 3 of 6 b. The City of Shorewood will deliver said water via transmission facilities to the common corporate boundary of the City of Shorewood and the City of Victoria. at or near the public right of way platted as Smithtown Road as recorded at the County Recorder's Office, Hennepin County. Minnesota. c. The City of Victoria agrees to construct, operate, and maintain transmission, storage, pressure reduction, distribution, metering station, and system control facilities within the City of Victoria. d. The water consumed by the City of Victoria shall be measured by a master meter or meters furnished and maintained by the City of Victoria. Meters shall be of suitable make and setting to allow for measurement of flow in either direction. Said meters shall be calibrated by the City of Shorewood on an annual basis on or before January 31 of each year and shall be subject to testing by either city at any reasonable time. . 4. Supplemental Supply a. The City of Shorewood reserves the right to supplement it's water supply with any supply approved by the Minnesota State Board of Health. b. The City of Victoria retains the right to supplement the water supply provided by the city of Shorewood approved by the Minnesota State Board of Health. 5. Water Service Operations. . The City of Victoria will continue to operate as the lead supplier of water for residents of the City of Victoria. The City of Shorewood will place in service the water tower located on the Minnewashta School property, located in Shorewood, Minnesota. Although the City of Shorewood cannot guarantee a construction completion date for the water tower, it is anticipated that said water tower will be in service on or before November 1, 1996. At such time said water tower has been accepted and put into service by the City of Shorewood, the City of Shorewood will begin to operate as the backup or emergency supplier of water to the City of Victoria. c. If in the event the City of Shorewood system fails, the City of Victoria will supply water to the City of Shorewood until the Shorewood system has been repaired. In addition, the City of Shore wood will institute reasonable measures to promote conservation of water until all systems are repaired. b. a. d. If in the event that the City of Victoria system fails, the City of Victoria will institute reasonable measures to promote water conservation until all systems are repaired. 6 . Rates a. The City of Victoria will pay for water at a wholesale rate provided at the rate of eighty percent (80%) of Shorewood's fIrst tier retail rate. The fIrst tier retail rate is Shorewood's lowest residential retail rate above the minimum quarterly fee. Water Agreement Page 4 of 6 Currently the fIrst tier rate is $1.45 per 1,000 gallons. This currently results in a wholesale rate of $1.16 per 1,000 gallons of water. b. If in the event the City of Shorewood changes the retail rate of water to it's residents, the resultant change to the wholesale rate to the City of Victoria would not take effect for a period of ninety (90) calendar days from the date of written notifIcation to the City of Victoria by the City of Shorewood. c. If in the event of emergency, or failure of the system within the City of Shorewood, and the City of Victoria agrees to furnish water to the City of Shorewood, the City of Shorewood agrees to pay the wholesale rate as charged to the City of Victoria by the City of Shorewood. d. If the City of Victoria exceeds the demand rates specifIed in this Contract on an annual basis, in any two consecutive years, both parties agree to enter into dispute resolution proceedings as outlined further in this agreement. . 7 . Meter Reading and Billing a. Quarterly readings of the master meter or meters at the points of delivery to the City of Victoria shall be made by the City of Shorewood on the last working day of each quarter. Billings by the City of Shorewood shall be mailed to the City of Victoria by the tenth day of the following month and payment on such bills shall be made by the City of Victoria on or before the last day of the month billed. 8. Water Availability Fee In consideration of the initial capital investment in water production, storage, and transmission facilities, the City of Victoria agrees to pay a water availability fee of $232,500 to reserve a volume of water as specifIed herein for the Term of the Contract. b. It is recognized by both parties that the water availability fee is based upon current laws and regulations governing municipal water systems and current estimated replacement costs of the wells, trunk mains, storage facilities and other production facilities owned by the City of Shorewood and utilized in providing water to the City of Victoria The basis on which the water availability fee was calculated is outlined in "Exhibit A" as attached to this agreement. a. . 9 . Financing and Payment a. In consideration of the initial capital investment by the City of Shorewood to reserve capacity within the water system, the City of Victoria agrees to pay to the City of Shorewood the water availability fee of $232,500 being fInanced by the City of Shorewood according to the following: Water Agreement Page 5 of 6 1. The flISt installment of $ 46,500 will be remitted to the City of Shorewood on or before November 1, 1996. The remaining balance will be paid according to the following schedule, with interest accruing on the unpaid balance commencing on November 1, 1996. Payment Date Principle July 1, 1997 July 1, 1998 July 1, 1999 July 1, 2000 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 $ 46,500 2. . Interest shall be calculated at an annual rate of 5.750 percent. The City of Victoria reserves the right to prepay the remaining principle and accrued interest to the date of prepayment without penalties. b. In the event that the Minnewashta Water Tower is taken out of service prior to 50 years from the date of this agreement upon the determination by the City of Shore wood that the water tower's service life has expired, and the City of Shorewood is not able to provide the water capacity specified in this agreement by other means, the City of Shorewood shall refund to the City of Victoria a portion of the water availability fee prorated to the unexpired part of the 50 year service life of the tower. 10. Indemnification . The City of Shorewood shall indemnify, hold harmless the City of Victoria and it's officers, directors, agents, and employees from and against any and all damage or claims for damage asserted by reason of the City of Shorewood's construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of the water system and appurtenances, excepting any loss or damage arising from any negligent act or omission of the City of Victoria, it's agents or employees. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by either party of the limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. b. The City of Victoria shall indemnify, hold harmless the City of Shorewood and it's officers, directors, agents, and employees from and against any and all damage or claims for damage asserted by reason of the City of Victoria's construction, operation, repair, and maintenance of the water system and appurtenances, excepting any loss or damage arising from any negligent act or omission of the City of Shore wood, it's agents or employees. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by either party of the limitations on liability set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466. a. 11. Water Treatment a. In the event that either party requests water treatment beyond Chlorination and Fluoridation, and the City of Shorewood agrees to such water treatment, each party hereby agrees to enter into negotiations at or near the time of the request to determine the appropriate share of capital contribution to be made by the City of Victoria towards the capital investment of water treatment facilities. Water Agreement Page 6 of 6 12. Dispute Resolution Proceedings a. In the event a dispute arises with regard to the Contract, both parties hereby agree to take the following steps to resolve said dispute: An initial meeting shall occur between the City Engineer for each party entering into this agreement. If resolution of the conflict is not reached at this meeting, a subsequent meeting shall occur with the City Administrator and appropriate staff for each municipality. In the event resolution is still not found for said dispute, the City Administrators hereby agree to designate a mutually agreeable mediator, and agree to meet with said mediator to bring resolution to the dispute prior to the initiation of any other civil or administrative proceedings 13. Miscellaneous a. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. . b. This writing represents the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes any and all previous agreements with respect to this subject matter. This agreement may not be altered or amended except by an agreement in writing signed by both parties. c. Neither this agreement nor any rights or obligations here under are transferable or assignable by either party, whether voluntary or by operation of law without prior written consent of the other party. d. If any part of any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the provisions shall be ineffective only to the extent of such invalidity or unenforceably, without in any way affecting the remaining parts of the provisions of this agreement. . e. Both parties hereby acknowledge that they participated equally in the negotiation and drafting of this agreement and that, accordingly, no court construing this agreement shall construe it more stringently against one party than against the other. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. ~ CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: It's Mayor CITY OF VICTORIA BY:tfr7 71k~ It's ayor By:Q11Jl& vn dp.ib It's Ci Administrator By: It's City Administrator ,..... ' --" CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331.8927 · (612) 474.3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Jim Hurm dI~ . FROM: DATE: RE: Larry Brown May 24, 1996 Status of 1996 Projects The following is a brief update and discussion of the projects planned for the 1996 construction season. South Shore Senior Community Center Plans and specifications are in the hands of contractors. A "pre-bid" meeting was conducted on Thursday May 23 to help address question the contractor may have about the construction documents. Attendance was good which hopefully indicates a high interest in the project. Bids will be opened June 6, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. at the City Hall Council Chambers. Minnewashta Water Tower . The bottom concrete slab is in with wooden forms placed for the ring wall of the foundation. At this point, the contractor is on schedule and working diligently to keep this project on schedule. I have checked in with staff from the school and they seem satisfied as to how the operation is proceeding. Smithtown Road (under construction) Cajed Lime to Eureka Road Perkins Construction has completed the mainline watermainconstruction. The installation of services will hopeful be completed by the City Council meeting. Staff has been urging Perkins to begin cleanup as we know everyone is more than anxious to get restoration completed. Perkins has assured staff that cleanup will commence immediately upon completion of installation of the services. Last weeks rains did cause problems with drainage as most of the ditches and culverts have been removed due to the construction. A new storm sewer system has been installed in areas where drainage was a problem last weekend. Shady Island Bridge Replacement The "Shady Island Bridge Advisory Committee" has met on two occasions to discuss the design elements of the bridge. The main issues of discussion center around the profile of the bridge, width of the bridge, and the railings to be utilized. The concept bridge is a concrete bridge with an overall width of 30 feet. This provides for two 11 foot driving lanes, a 2 foot reaction distance from the ., A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore /2 .... 1996 Project Status May 24, 1996 Page 2 of 3 curb (required) and 4 feet total width for the two bridge railings. This is the minimum bridge width allowed by current bridge standards. The proposed bridge is to be constructed in two stages. The first stage will involve removal of a portion of the existing bridge to construct approximately half of the new bridge. During this time, a narrow lane will be left to allow traffic by residents and emergency vehicles during construction. Once half of the proposed bridge is constructed, the remaining portion of the existing bridge may be removed to make way for the new portion of the bridge. Without getting into the design details, this will require that the new bridge is higher by approximately 1 foot. Opinions of the advisory committee were very strong regarding the type of rail to be placed on the . bridge. Several types of railing are under consideration to try to enhance the aesthetics of the bridge. Staff is currently under the impression that the City will pay for the cost of what I'll refer to as a "Garden Variety Bridge." Any amenities over and above the concept bridge would be assessed back to the residents on Shady Island. Various members of the committee have voiced a concern that the City should be picking up costs over and above the concept bridge to help enhance the character of the island. Although these items are not ready for presentation, I would appreciate any feedback the City Council may have regarding funding above and beyond the concept bridge. A feasibility report is expected to be presented to the City Council at the June 10 City Council meeting which will discuss options and associated costs. Smithtown Road Watermain Project between Boulder Bridge Drive to the Victoria Border Eureka Road Watermain Project Strawberry Lane Roadway Reconstruction and Watermain Project . Construction documents are well underway for all of these projects. I'm hoping to present these to the City Council on June 10th for approval of plans and specifications and authorize advertisement for bids. This places a tentative construction start at or near July 15. Smithtown Road between Country Club Road and Eureka Road to the north Again plans and specifications are currently being prepared. On March 11, 1996, the City Council ordered the preparation of plans and specifications for the installation of watermain and the reconstruction of the Smithtown Road between Eureka Road and Country Club Road.. Since that time, there has been much debate from the Smithtown area as to the ability of the City to utilize the entire 66 foot right of way which was turned over to the City form the Minnesota Department of Transportation. As the City Council is aware, most of this has centered around a court case history "Barfnecht vs. Hollywood Township" involving similar issues. . . 1996 Project Status May 24, 1996 Page 3 of3 After considerable deliberation of staff, it is being recommended that the content of the plans and specifications be revised to include the installation of the watermain, and to postpone the reconstruction of the roadway. This will provide staff the time to research each property and determine if additional right of way needs to be acquired for a full reconstruction. Although this is undesirable in our commitment to minimize impacts due to construction projects over the long term, this will provide means to install the critical link of watermain between Badger Field water system and the Boulder Bridge system without being slowed by the right of way issues centered around the roadway reconstruction. ~., .. . CKNO 18461 18462 18463 18464 18465 18466 18467 18468 18469 18470 18471 18472 18473 18474 18475 18476 18477 18478 18479 18480 18481 18482 18483 18484 18485 18486 18487 18488 18489 18490 18491 18492 18493 18494 18495 18496 18497 18498 18499 18500 18501 . CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MAY 28,1996 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE MAY 15,1996 TO WHOM ISSUED PlJRFOSE FIRST STATE BANK FED/FICA TAXES PERA PERl\ ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 457 DEFERREDCOMP CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CHILD SUPPORT -C. DAVIS ANOKA CTY SUPPORT/COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID AFSCME COUNCIL 14 UNION DUES MN DEPT OF REVENUE APRIL SALES TAX MN DEPT OF REVENUE STATE TAX BROWNING FERRIS WASTE REMOVAL KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB JAMES HURM MILEAGEJEXPENSES METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENT APRIL SAC BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB JOSEPH PAZANDAK MILEAGE/FILM DEVELOPMENT PETTY CASH SPRING ClEAN UP CASH CITY OF TONKA BAY % OF 1995 SALES US WEST COMMUNICATIONS BELLBOY CORPORATION uauoR BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY MISe MIDWEST COCA-COLA MISC DAY DISTRIBUTING BEERlMISC EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO BEERlMISC GTE DIRECTORIES ADVERTISING GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY L10UOPJWINE JOHNSON BRCS LIQUOR UOUOPJWINE LAKE REGION VENDING MISC LEHMANN FARMS MISC MARK VII BEERlMISC MARLlNSTRU~NG ~ NORTH STAR ICE MISC PHIWPS WINE & SPIRITS UOUOPJWINE QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS UOUORtWINE THE VICTORIA GAZETTE ADVERTISING VOID AT&T NORTHERN STATES POWER NORTHERN STATES POWER PEPSI COLA COMPANY PETTY CASH BELLBOY CORPORATION AMOUNT $6,927.12 2,190.28 946.30 842.00 98.50 139.44 138.95 10,684.00 1,181.28 33.66 187.50 112.45 891.00 100.00 1 04.04 300.00 794.91 48.93 1,176.25 64.95 750.35 4,997.30 11,681.40 84.10 3,768.50 1,746.99 713.30 82.58 6,965.23 52.00 51.00 2,331.26 253.72 41.25 0.00 5.49 2,299.60 2,124.22 200.08 53.24 2,283.18 LONG DISTANCE STREET LIGHTS UTILITIES RENTIPOP PURCHASElMISC PETTY CASH uauoR Page 1 . . CKNO 18502 18503 18504 18505 18506 18507 18508 18509 18510 18511 CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR MAY 28, 1996 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE MAY 15,1996 TO WHOM ISSUED BELLBOY BAR SUPPLY GRIGGS, COOPER & COMPANY JOHNSON BROS UQUOR CO LAKE REGION VENDING LEHMANN FARMS UNCOLN DISTRIBUTING MARLIN'S TRUCKING PHIWPS WINE & SPIRITS QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS l1-IORPE DISTRIBUTING CO PlJRFOSE MSC L1QUORIWINE UQUORIWINE MSC MISC EEER FR8GIT L1QUORIWINElBEER UQUORIWINElBEER BEERtMISC TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED Page 2 AMOUNT $29.75 7,271.84 4,929.98 523.20 193.10 80.00 152.80 3,247.54 2,531.82 6,041.65 CITY OF SHORE WOOD CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR MAY 28, 1996 COUNCIL MTG CHEC}Ot VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION .------------------------- --.-----.----------------- 18.::'12 ABDO, ABDO, AND tICK 1995 AUDIT SERVICES 1995 AUDIT SERVICES 1995 AUDIT SERVICES 1995 AUDIT SERVICES 1995 AUDIT SERVICES 1995 AUDIT SERVICES FOR ABDO, ABDO, AND EICK :*** TOT(4l 18513 ALL AMERICAN RECREATION CRESCENT BE(4CH 18514 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS. INC. ROCK 18515 BSN SPORTS STEEL DRAG MAT 18516 C.H CARPENTER LUMBER ~517 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC. MAILBOX REP(~IR COFFEE 18518 DRISKILL'S SUPER VALU SNOWMOBILE TASK FORCE 18519 ESI COMMUNICATIONS. INC PHONE REPfUR 18520 ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. ASSESSOR FEE ASSESSOR SUPPLIES *** 10TAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. 18521 GOPHER STATE ONE~CALL, IN ONE CALL SERVICE Or-.lE CALL SERV ICE *** TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CAL 18522 HOPKINS P(~RTS COMPf.~NY SIGNAL FLASHERS CRESCENT BEACH LtFEGUARD PARKS & 527.18 ~523 J & R RADIATOR CORP. 18524 LACAL EQUIPMENT. INC GUTTER BROOMS 18525 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY BELTS/BLADES 18526 MAC WAREHOUSE SYMANTEC ANTIVIRUS 18527 METRO COUNCIL WASTEWATER JUNE TREATMENT 18528 METRO WEST INSPECTION SVC APRIL INSPECTIONS 18529 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 18530 AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES ~UR THiE 18531 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY HAZ CHEMICAL INV FEE 18532 MUNITECH. INC. JUNE MAINTENANCE .]Ut'J.E t-1A I NTENfit..J,CE *** TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC. 18533 NAVARRE TRUE VALUE }<. E 'yO ~~; 'Po:::J,......... ~ DEPT. AMOUNT PROF SER 3,600.00 WATER DE 480.00 SEWER DE 480.00 -------- 480.00 -------- 480.00 -------- 480.00 6,000.00 PARKS & 72.38 STREETS 77.93 PARKS & 107.22 CITY GAR 16.46 MUN SLDG 77.97 -............................-..-...... 29.31 MUN SLDG 206.00 PROF SER 3,669.16 PROF SER 42.33 3,711.49 WATER DE 25.37 SEWER DE 25.38 50.75 PUB WKS 17.98 CITY Gf1R 340.00 CITY GAR 320.35 GEN GOVT 72.95 SEWER DE 40.059.00 PROT INS 60.00 GEN GOVT 213.88 SElMER DE 14.63 Wf:\ TER DE .500.00 W(~)TER DE SEWER DE 3.900.00 2,600.00 I~\ ,~ .5()() .. ()t:) p (;~~ F~ ~<: ~3 I~~ 6.64 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR MAY 28, 1996 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT pI/.j SLOG j'vj{UHT. *** TOTAL FOR NAVARRE TRUE VALUE 18534 POTTS. KENNETH N. CITY GAR 8.26 14.90 FORFEITURE OLDS SILHOUET PROF SER 332.50 18535 SAM'S CLUB BLDG SUPPLIES 18536 SHORE WOOD TREE SERVICE TF~EE REMO\l(;L. 18.537 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP RESERVE BANQUET JUHE CONTI:(I-~CT *** TOTAL FOR SO LK MTKA PUBSAFET 18538 TEMPORARIES-TO-GO TEMPORARY RECEPTIONIST 415539 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEe: MINUTES l1INUTES l1INUTES FOR TH1E S;-;\lER OFF SITE *** TOTAL 18540 TSP/EOS SO SHORE SR C-TR 18541 TWIH CITY WATER CLINIC IrJATER TESTING 18542 WIDMER, IHC. REPAIR CURB STOP 18543 MN SUN PUBLICATIONS LEGAL ADS *** TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL . *** TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST Page 4 MUN 8LDG 109.67 TREE MAl 1,188.28 POLICE P 225.00 POLICE P 36.046.29 36,271.29 GEN GOVT 46.00 PLANNING 237.75 -------- 342.50 GEN GOVT 208.25 788.50 7,911.15 WATER DE 20.00 WATER DE 999.00 129.71 106,786.48 199,234.51 C H .- C K R E G I S T E R ,= CHECK CHECK El1PLOYEE NAME CHECK CHECK TYPE DATE NUMBER NUMBER AMOUNT COM 5 14 96 77 DER(~K R. ANDING 210578 51.26 COM 5 14 96 101 SCOTT M. BARTLETT 210579 150.15 COM 5 14 96 110 CONNIE D. BASTYR 210580 269.67 COM ,- 14 96 115 LAWRENCE A. BROWN 2.1058.1 .1327.86 .:;0 COM 5 14 96 230 CHRISTOPHER M. CAREY .210582 388.16 COM 5 14 9.6 375 JODI A. DALLMAN 210583 68.11 COM 5 14 96 500 CHARLES S. DAVIS 210.584 651.60 COM 5 14 96 775 J(~MES C. EAKINS 2.10585 676.36 COM 5 14 96 870 KELLY P. FLANr~GAN 210586 232.80 COM 5 14 96 1001 JOHN M. FRUTH 210587 59.91 COM .5 14 96 1.105 KERI ANNE GRAF 210588 33.25 COM 5 14 96 1160 STEPHANIE A. HABER 2.10589 103.04 COM 5 14 96 1.190 KATHLEEN A. HEBERT 210590 555.05 COM 5 14 96 1400 PATRICIA R. HELGESEN 210591 570.20 COM 5 14 96 1415 SHAWN D. HEMPEL 210592 113.43 COM 5 .14 96 .1550 JAMES C. HURM 210593 1692.04 . COM 5 14 96 1575 GLENN E. ILLIG 210594 173.73 COM 5 14 96 1601 BRIAN D. JAKEL 210595 95.26 COM 5 14 96 1700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 210596 840.79 COM 5 14 96 1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 210597 798.43 COM 5 14 96 1950 MARTIN L. JONES 2.10598 70.74 MAN 5 14 96 2100 WILL:rI~M F. JOSEPHSON 2.10617 632.56 COM .5 14 96 2500 SUSAN M. LATTERNER 210599 603.93 COM 5 14 96 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWSKI 210600 825.53 COM 5 14 96 2810 KARENA M. LUNDBY 21060.1 113.59 COM 5 14 96 2900 RUSSELL R. MARRON 210602 29.32 COM 5 14 96 3000 THERESA L. NAAB 2.10603 687.96 COM 5 14 96 3100 LAWRENCE A.. NICCUM 2.10604 897.36 COM 5 14 96 3400 BRADLEY J. NIELSEN 210605 848.43 COM 5 14 96 3500 JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 2.10606 1058.54 COM 5 14 96 3534 CHRISTOPHER E. PETERSON 2.10607 33.25 COM 5 14 96 3600 DANIEL J. RANDALL 21.0608 860.89 . COM 5 14 96 370.1 BRIAN M. ROERICK 2.10609 136.69 COM 5 14 96 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 2.10610 1153.26 COM 5 14 96 3900. CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 2.1061.1 417.36 COM 5 14 96 39.10 R CONRAD SCHMID 2.10612 .109.43 COM .5 .14 96 4.190 DANA G. SHAW 2.10613 47..10 COM 5 14 96 4575 REBECCA A. TARVIN 210614 476.12 COM 5 14 96 4600 BEVERLY J. VON FELDT 210615 587.64 COM 5 .14 96 4750 RALPH A. WEHLE 210616 625.94 ****TOTALS**** 19066.74 Page 5 I I I 1\ 1 I' 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I ,I CITY OFSHOREWOOD,MINNESQTA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIALRE~O;RT ,i \'-., _ ,. , " F,ORi THE YEAR ENDED DECEMB\ER 31,1995 ~AMES\~~ HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR //-\ REPORT PREPARED ;BY:DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ALANJ.! R()LEK, ,FINANCE1DIRECTOlUTREASURER ," I ,- , . /- \ , ',', ", i i M~MBE~ OF GO~ER~MENl'\FINA~CEOFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF T",E\UNlTED STATES AND CANADA. .. ! r i / ' \ ", / \ \ /-\ I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 I I. INTRODUCTORY SECTION I Elected and Appointed Officials Organizational Chart Letter of Transmittal Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting I II . FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor's Report I General Purpose Financial Statements I Combined Balance Sheet - All Fund Types and Account Groups Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - All Governmental Fund Types Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual - General Fund Combined Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings - All Proprietary Fund Types Combined Statement of Cash Flows - All Proprietary Fund Types Notes to Financial Statements I I I Combininq and Individua~ fund and Account Group Financial Statements and Schedules General Fund Comparative Balance Sheets Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual I I Debt Service Funds Combining Balance Sheet Combining Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance I Capital projects Funds Combining Balance Sheet Combining Statement of Revenue, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance I I Enterprise Funds Combining Balance Sheet Combining Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Combining Statement of Cash Flows I Water Fund Comparative Balance Sheets Comparative Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Comparative Statements of Cash Flows I I Sewer Fund Comparative Balance Sheets Comparative Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Comparative Statements of Cash Flows I Exhibit Paqe No. I - X 1. 2 - 3 2 4 - 5 3 6 4 7 5 8 9 - 27 A-1. 28 A-2 29 - 32 B-1. 33 - 34 B-2 35 - 36 C-1. 37 - 40 C-2 41 - 44 D-l 45 - 46 D-2 D-3 47 - 48 49 - 50 D-4 51 D-5 D-6 52 53 D-7 54 D-8 D-9 55 56 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA TABLE OF CONTENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Recycling Fund Comparative Balance Sheets Comparative Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Comparative Statements of Cash Flows Stormwater Management Utility Fund Comparative Balance Sheets Comparative Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Comparative Statements of Cash Flows Liquor Fund Comparative Balance Sheets Comparative Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings Comparative Statements of Cash Flows Agency Funds Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities General Fixed Asset Account Group Comparative Schedule of General Fixed Assets - by source Schedule of General Fixed Assets - by function and activity SChedule of Changes in General Fixed Assets - by function General Long-term Debt Account Group Comparative Statement of General Long-term Debt Schedule of Bonds Payable Schedule of Debt Service Requirements III. STATISTICAL SECTION General Fund Expenditures and Other Uses by Function General FUnd Revenue and Other Sources by Source Property Tax Levies and Collections Assessed Valuation, Tax Levies and Mill Rates Property Tax Mill Rates/Tax Capacity Rates - Direct and Overlapping Governments Principal Taxpayers Special Assessment Levies and Collections Computation of Legal Debt Margin Ratio of Net Bonded Debt to Assessed Value and Net Bonded Debt per Capita Ratio of Annual Debt Service Expenditures for General Bonded Debt to Total General Expenditures Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt Revenue Bond Coverage Property Value, Construction and Bank Deposits Miscellaneous Statistics I I Exhibit Paqe No. D-10 57 D-11 58 D-12 59 D-13 60 D-14 61 D-15 62 D-16 63 - 64 D-17 65 - 66 D-1.8 67 - 68 E-1. 69 I I I I I I F-1. 70 F-2 71. F-3 72 G-1. 73 H-1 74 - 75 1-1. 76 - 77 I I I I 1. 2 3 4 78 79 80 81. - 82 I I 5 6 7 8 83 - 84 85 86 87 I 9 88 1.0 1.1. 12 13 1.4 89 90 91. 92 - 93 94 I I I I 'I I I I I ;1. I I I I I I I I. \1 I I " I I I CITYQF SHOREWOon, MINNESQTA;\ , ' '" I ~ ' . \ '\ . \ \ SECTION I ,- I ...' INTRopt1crhiY SECTIO~ t \ \ i / \J I I I I Elected Officials I Robert Bean Bruce Benson Kristi Stover Jennifer McCarty Douglas Melam I I I Appointed Officials I James C. Hurm Alan J. Rolek I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Term Expires Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member 1996 1996 1996 1998 1998 City Administrator Finance Director/Treasurer ------------------- ORGANIZATIONAL CHART - CITY OF SHOREWOOD I VOTERS I I CITY ATIORNEY ~ ~ ".".,. -- CITY COUNCIL BOARDS & COMMISSIONS " - PLANNING COMMISSION CITY ADMINISTRATOR I - PARK COMMISSION I I I I I I I LIQUOR ENGINEERING FINANCE ADMINISTRATION PLANNING PUBLIC PUBLIC SAFETY & ZONING WORKS (CONTRACT) - Off-Sale - Engineering Svcs. - Personnel - General Government - Planning - Building & Grounds - Police - 4-City Joint Retail - Project Mgmt. - Accounting - Licensing - Zoning - Recycling (Contract) Services * - Payroll - Elections Administration - Tree Maintenance - Patrol - Investments - Records - Property - Park Maintenance - Disaster - Utility Billing - Legal Publications Records - Street Mainenance Preparedness - Accts. Payable - Public Information - Inspection - Equipment Maintenance - Investigation - Accts. Recble. - Recreation Programs - Stormwater System - Public Service - Special - Park Planning - Street Lighting - Fire - Excelsior/ Assessments (Contract) - SanitationIWeeds Mound - Budgeting - Assessor (Contract) - Janitor Services - Fire prevention/ -MIS - Cable TV - (Contract) firefighting - Purchasing Franchise - Utility Maintenance - Animal Control- (Contract) Chanhassen * Mayor is City's representative on joint governing board. December, 1995 'I I I I I I I I I I I I / /1 ~I I I .1 I I, '. CITYOE- " SHOREW()().D . / . , . . .... '-,' '\ '.- "'_' . _\'. .. ,:. ,: / i. ' 5755 COUNTRY CLUB.RQAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA55331t8927~, (6f~) 474.~236 Honorable Mayor and Members of the/City Council City of Sho~ewood, Minnesota May 21, 1996 Coun'cJlinembers : The. Comprehensiye,,\ Annl.l:al _ iihaJ1(;:.i.:~l. Repor~ lof, 'the Cft,Y of Shorewo~d, ,Minnesota for 'the . fiscal year ended De<:ember 31,1995, ispereby submitted. Responsibility for both the accuracy of' the data~ and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures , rests '. with the City. To the \best .' of our knowledge-and b~ief~ the ',enclosed data is accurat~.. in ail material resp~qts and is r~porte~ in amanne~, designated . to present fairly' the. financial position '" and resu:Lts of operations 9'f the variousfl,mds and accquntgroups of theq.ity. All discl~ures necessary ;to"19.na.blejthe. reaQerto gain an w;1ders tanding / of the City's financial act::i.vitiespave been included. The .' Comprehensive Annual Financial Report / is p:tesented/ in tllfee-/ sections: Introduqtbry ....F'inancial ,and " $J:atistiqal;.; , _ The Introd.ucto:tY l;?ectipri inclu'des this tran~mi t tal letter ,the City I S organizational chart a.uda list,' of C;ity, officia}s. \ The Financia.l section includes the ge~eral purpose fin'elItcial statements and the. combini~g and. ipd~viduaJ;,' fund and a.ccouryt. __ group fina.nc~ai stat~ments};l.nd schedules, . along with the., auditor'!srepo:tt on the financial statements. The, Statistical section includes ,- selected " -', ':' .. \ ',/ '; ",:, ,-.,'".. . ", -,' -, ,,- .~ financial Cirnd\ demographiq infopnatiqn~ general\lv pr~ent~d '. on a multi:....year basis. - ' . I, t' The-organization, form and 'contents oftbis):;eport we:r::~ P%1epareci in accordaticewith' th~standards p:r::e~c::ril?ed, py theGoyernmenta~ Accounting Standards' Board, the GOVernment Finance' OfficerS Association 9ft-he. United States and Canada,.. .~h\e American Instituteof/Cettific;!d:~b~ic Accow;1tants, and the Minnesota State 'Auditor's Office. ThIs report ,includ~sail..,funds apd account. groups o,f//tlle City. The various, fund t.ypes" included are governmental, proprieta~y and fiduciary. Within the account/groups are g~ner9-l. fixed assets and g~neral long-::term Ciebt~./T~ City p:r;~vides its 'residents and busin~sses ,with ,..\3- ful.lrarig~ of ~nici~al, services Cot;1s!"sting of poJ;ice, fire, public wOJ:'ks, parks and general adIninistrative services . The City alsc) operates five' ent~rprh3es: a water I, "',,' - ' \\, .'" ..,!;: : ',I; A f{esidential Comnjunity on Lake Minnetonka;~ South Shore i utility, sewer\ltili t~, recycl~ng utili1;~~ 'sbori:nW'ater~~nag.ement utility and an off-sale liqU.or\ operation, I consist7.ng (of ;three store si.tes. The criteria used in d~termining the cOlllponenb unit~ .to . be\. . included with the lefty / as part: df' ~ts reporting' eritit!y . i~ consist.ent witpth9~e reqUired by . the Governmental -AcQounting- Standards . Boafd Statement.. Nh. . 14, . "The Finan9.ial Reporting Entity" '.Based on these criteria, . all funds and ac~c>unt groups, of.' the City ar~ included in this repqrt,anp. no)icomponent unit-s,/Cilre' reporteq he+,ei~. ..' ECONOMJ:C CONDJ:'1'J:OR.. Am> O'!t1'LOOI( The City of Shorewood isl a suburb of the City 'of ~i.hneapC?lis.. and is 19cated. 25 miles southwest of. the central business. dist.rict 01). the southern shore of Lake..Minnetonka. TheCitYj is,prepominantly a res~den~ial community~ith'Jimited commerci~l busi~essesand tW? commercial shopping ~1.ls.The Ci~y is 6 sqUa:r::~ mp.es inarE:!c;l.ancl ha.s an estimate4 population of 6,61.4. j Ij .. \\' ',.--./ While i.1;he City has. exPerienced an accelerated j rate of growth .i~ re~idential dElvelopment during . the .1980' s, /., th~growth rate p.as slowed in i the 1990 's,' 'rheC~ty will! continue te;)\ experiencregrqwth in it's residential pa~e in the future, but becau~eofthe limited a.vailabiJ.,ityo;flarge j trac~13 of land, this will come/at a/reduced rate and likely will be smaller developments th~n '. intp.e pa.st:. j JQ.JQR J:NJ:'1'I~'1'J:VJj:S FJ:NANCJ:A:L/ AND MANAG~EN~ ~MPBAS:IS EDlphasis onG.o'Verp.ance 'rhe City. Courlcil in. it~ .1ea~rship role. i~ effectivetY establishing a . focus . for ~ity gov~rmnent in j~Pf>rewood.EaCh Couner!l member has, ..signed "Council COmmitments" which. establishes a framework~rom ",ithin theCi;ty councilwor~s. j Thel~ouncil hal; adepted a strong set /jo~\ v;alues by which d~cision.$ a:te to be made. It . has adopted /a Statement of Purpos.e and .... established over~l~ goals ~d~xpectatidJ;l~for the City. It has i<lentifi49d ..... issues facing th~> >City .and pr;s'oriti?:ed them. so that the/ staff can efficiently and. effectively allocate tim~ and resources. .Em~hasi" dn System J:~provem~nt;s The City Counc.il,has. adoPtea an open government.... policy and.. is implementing it. l:)ytelevisi~g City Cou~cilmee1:ingl? /by improving qUarterly citizen newsletter~ . and bY/directing citystCiff to improve communicatiion to. .those r,esidents aff~cted by. projects and spe(pji(iil-;::t:ssessmen,:;.s. A \'series of neighborhood meetings on,ehe I I I\i I I I I I' I (I I \1 Ir I I I. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I five-year Capital Improvement Program gives citizens an opportunity for one on one discussions with policy makers and for meaningful input on plans for the next five years. The City Council recognizes that its work consists of more than responding to citizen requests and adopting an annual budget. The City Council's calendar consists of three phases. The first phase is Planning, which includes employee and systems evaluations, review of the previous years work plan, review of the City's Comprehensive Plan Executive Summary, review of the statements of Purpose and Values, and identification and prioritization of issues for the next twelve and twenty-four months. The second phase is that of Programming. Capi tal Improvement Program is reviewed priorities established in phase one. Comprehensive Plan are made based upon the Each year the five-year and updated based upon Any changes to the phase one decisions. The third phase is Budgeting. The operating budget is established based on decisions made in the first two phases. A budget format is being utilized which provides information and analytical data to the City Council and other readers. It defines departmental missions and sets objectives for the budget year. In addition, it measures services provided and identifies the net affect each departmental budget has on property taxes. A survey is conducted each year to measure citizen satisfaction with city services with results incorporated in the budget as specific objectives. Emphasis on Public Improvements The City is continuing to plan for and make public improvements in a number of areas. The Comprehensi ve Plan was updated and implementation of items in that plan is beginning. The Stormwater Management Utility is a funding mechanism for small drainage improvement projects and for the City's share of major drainage projects. A number of small projects were undertaken in 1995. The fund had retained earnings of $101,250 at the end of 1995, which is designated for future drainage projects. The City continued it's park and trail improvement program in 1995. The City made improvements to several parks during the year. Playground equipment and a parking lot was installed, and a ballfield relocated in Cathcart Park. A parking lot was built in Manor Park. picnic table pads and a volleyball area was built in Freeman Park. In 1995, the first year of a 20 year water system expansion program was undertaken. Three small watermain installation projects were initiated, and plans for a new water tower on the Minnewashta Elementary School property were solidified. The bids iii The City received a $25,000 grant Innovation and Cooperation towards neighboring cities to build a Senior Hall/Badger Park site. Construction for 1996. from the State Board on continued negotiations with Community Center at the City on the Center is anticipated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I for the tower will be let in Spring, 1996, with construction taking place throughout the summer of 1996. Emphasis on Efficiently, Effectively Meeting Service Needs . As one of fourteen Lake Minnetonka Area municipalities, the City of Shorewood is involved in many contractual arrangements with other jurisdictions and private enterprises, to deliver municipal services to residents of the City. the City of Shorewood is committed to working cooperatively with area governmental jurisdictions to carefully consider optional methods to effectively deliver public services as efficiently as possible. Two examples of efforts in 1995 are continued negotiations with neighboring cities to build a South shore Senior Community Center, and beginning negotiations with the City of Victoria to share one water tower in west Shorewood. In addition, the Shorewood City Administrator continues to serve as Chair of the Steering Committee of the Lake Minnetonka Area Cooperative Cities Group. FINANCIAL INFORMATION INTERNAL CONTROLS Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure in the accounting system designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse and to ensure that fair, reliable and accurate accounting data is compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: 1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits; 2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. As part of the City's annual audit, the internal control system is evaluated to the extent necessary for audit purposes and changes are recommended when needed. BUDGETING CONTROLS The City maintains budgetary controls to ensure compliance with legal prov~s~ons embodied in the annual appropriated budget approved by the City Council. Activities of the general fund are included in the annual appropriated budget. The legal level of iv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I budgetary control is established at the department level, but management control is exercised at the line item level. As demonstrated by the statements and schedules included in the financial section of this report, the City continues to meet its responsibility for sound financial management. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS The following schedule presents a summary of General Fund and Debt Service Fund revenues for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995 and the amount of increases or decreases in relation to the prior year's revenues. REVENUES AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES General Property Taxes Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Fines and Forfeitures Special Assessments Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Operating Transfers In TOTAL AMOUNT $1,520,430 184,857 441,055 20,505 68,765 171,403 147,916 58,053 30,000 $2,642,984 % OF TOTAL INCREASE (DECREASE) FROM 1994 57.53% 6.99% 16.69% 0.77% 2.60% 6.49% 5.60% 2.20% 1.13% $24,519 (71,386) (341) (21,728) (5,233) (77,441) 15,259 (54,353) nO,OOO) ($200,704) 100.00% Overall revenues decreased by $200,704 from 1994 to 1995. The largest change in revenue for 1995 from 1994 was in special assessment revenue. There have been no new special assessments projects in the last several years, thus, the amount of special assessments collected is decreasing each year. In addition, prepaYments of special assessments have fallen off as a result of increasing interest rates. License and permit revenue is down significantly from 1994. This is due in part to the interest rate effect, and to fewer developable parcels within the City. The number of permits issued in 1995 fell by 66 permits, which is a 9.3% reduction from 1994. Zoning application fees and park maintenance fees, which account for the charges for services area, were lower in 1995. Despite the addition of a full-time traffic control officer in 1995, fines and forfeiture revenue fell for the year. The City received a balloon paYment on a contract for deed held by the City in 1994, which inflated the miscellaneous revenue for that year; thus, miscellaneous revenues for 1995 are much lower. However, the 1995 level is consistent when compared with years prior to 1994 -. Operating transfers in are lower in 1995 due to the opening of a third municipal liquor store, which required start-up capital. v AMOUNT % OF TOTAL (DECREASE) FROM 1994 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I General property tax collections increased from 1994 due largely to the increase in tax increments on the Waterford commercial development. The increments will be used to retire the revenue bond debt incurred for improvements within the tax increment district. The general tax levy for 1995 was held at the 1994 level, the third year that the levy was not increased. This, together with the increased tax capacity of property within the City, helped to lower the City's tax rate in 1995. Intergovernmental revenues remained fairly constant from 1994. Together, general property taxes and intergovernmental revenue account for 74.22% of total revenue. Investment income rose in 1995 due to increased interest rates. The following table presents a summary of General Fund and Debt Service Fund expenditures for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1995 and the amount of increases or decreases in relation to the prior year's expenditures. EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES CURRENT: General Government Public Safety Public Works Parks and Recreation Operating Transfers DEBT SERVICE: Principal Interest TOTAL $723,098 27.21% ($31,999) 650,703 24.49% 32,656 432,759 16.29% (940) 115,446 4.35% (13,154) 404,225 15.21% (197,275) 231,000 8.69% (450,OOO) 99,823 3.76% (21,039) $2,657,054 100.00% ($681,751) Overall expenditures were lower in 1995 from 1994. This is primarily due to a decrease in debt service. . The City issued bonds in 1993 to refund the 1984 Improvement (1987 Refunding) Bonds, which were called in February, 1994. This caused a one year increase in debt service expenditures. General government expenditures decreased in 1995 from 1994. Computer purchases in 1994 drove general government expenditures up in that year. No large capital acquisitions were made in this area in 1995. Park and recreation expenditures were also less in 1995, reflecting lower maintenance and park planning costs. Public Works spending decreased slightly from 1994. vi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Public safety expenditures increased due to growth, with Shorewood responsible for a larger portion of police and fire contracts, and the addition of a full-time traffic control officer. A federal grant received by the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department subsidized 75% of the officer's salary in 1995. This percentage will decrease by 25% per year over the next three years. The City Council has continued its plan to accumulate resources for future capital equipment and improvement proj ects . These amounts were transferred to various capital projects funds and will be applied to future equipment acquisitions and capital improvements. Operating transfers out were significantly lower than the previous year. Transfers made in 1994 included amounts for unbudgeted 1994 capital projects, thereby inflating the amount of transfers for the year. Transfers for 1995 were as budgeted for the year. GENERAL FUND BALANCE The fund balance of the General Fund increased by $46,670 in 1995, a difference of 3.12%. The fund balance as of December 31, 1995 is $1,544,348. Economic conditions during the year caused larger than expected revenues, and employee awareness of budgetary constraints resulted in lower expenditures, which brought about an operating surplus. The fund balance is designated for working capital requirements through the first six months of the year. It is important for the City to maintain an adequate fund balance as a reserve to meet expenditures in the General fund until property tax proceeds are received in July. The fund balance now stands at 66.8% of the current year budget. The policy of the City is to maintain a fund balance at 50% of the current budget. As the City Council's intention is to manage the fund balance at this level, a portion of the fund balance has been budgeted in 1996 to lower the property tax levy. This will reduce the fund balance to $1,454,348, or 57.8% of the 1996 budget, which still exceeds acceptable levels. ENTERPRISE OPERATION The City's enterprise fund activities for 1995 are summarized as follows: OPERATING OPERATING OPERATING REVENUES EXPENSES INCOME (LOSS) Water $198 566 $243 586 $(45 020) Sewer 708 573 706 328 2 245 Recycling 46 883 69 734 (22 851) Stormwater 44 336 31 011 13 325 Liquor - Tonka Bay 93 564 90 182 3 382 - Store I 78 946 137 648 (58 702) - Store II 135 872 121 976 13 896 vii viii I I I I I I I Ii I I I I I I I I I I I Generally accepted accounting principles require the depreciation of contributed assets, which results in net losses in some cases. However, past and present City financial practice does not include the recovery of such depreciation in the setting of utility rates, which, in effect, would recover that cost a second time. The City's utility rate setting is done with reference to the working capital of the fund and assumes continued customer contributions through special assessments. DEBT ADMINISTRATION As of December 31, 1995, the City's debt outstanding totaled $4,444,500. Of this total, $1,575,000 were general obligation special assessment bonds issued to finance the construction of sanitary sewer, street, water and storm sewer improvements. The City issued $1,920,000 in general obligation water revenue bonds in 1995 to finance water system extensions and improvements. Total outstanding general obligation water revenue bonds at year end is $1,935,000. The bonds will be repaid from special assessments on affected properties and from Water Fund revenues. A general obligation storm sewer improvement bond issued for storm sewer improvements within a special storm drainage district has $14,500 outstanding at year end. The repaYment of these bonds will be provided through an ad valorem tax levied against properties within the storm drainage district. Tax increment revenue bonds of $920,000 were issued for construction of public improvements in the Waterford commercial development. These bonds were sold directly to the developer. As the developer has direct control over the pace of development, retirement of the debt was to be made on a "pay-as-you-go" basis from tax increments generated by the development. Because these revenue bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the City, in the absence of tax increments from Tax Increment Financing District No.1, the City has no obligation to repay the bonds. The first year tax increments were received was 1994, when $264 in increments was collected. At year end, 1995, $22,210 was available to retire this debt. The District will expire in April, 2000. The City's bond rating as rated by Moody's Investor Service is "A1" on general obligation bond issues. Reasons cited by Moody'S for this rating include the development and implementation of a five-year capital improvement plan, low outstanding debt, sound financial management, and anticipated maintenance of low debt ratios by the City. CASH MANAGEMENT The City of Shorewood subscribes to the "pooled cash" concept of investing which means that all funds with cash balances participate in an investment pool. This permits some funds to be overdrawn and other funds to show positive cash balances, with the City overall maintaining a positive cash balance. This I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I pooled cash concept provides for investing of greater amounts of money at more favorable rates. Interest earnings are then allocated to the participating funds. During 1995, the City of Shorewood earned $309,789 in interest revenue. RISK MANAGEMENT The City of Shorewood's worker's compensation insurance and its general property and liability coverage are provided through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). The LMCIT worker's compensation program is a joint self-insurance plan designed to lower and stabilize cities worker's compensation costs and to assure that cities have a source of coverage available. Each participating city deposits with the LMCIT its worker's compensation deposit premium for the policy year. The deposit premium is calculated using standard manual rates with the applicable volume discounts and experience modification factor. From these deposits, LMCIT purchases reinsurance to protect the program from catastrophic and abnormal paYment claims. The balance of the deposits and reserves are invested, with the earnings accruing to the benefit of all participants. LMCIT' s reserves and rates are reviewed annually by an actuary to help assure that the program remains financially strong. OTHER INFORMATION INDEPENDENT AUDIT Minnesota State Statutes require an annual audit of the City's accounts by the Minnesota State Auditor or by independent certified public accountants. The auditor's report on the general purpose financial statements and schedules is included in the financial section of this report. CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE IN FINANCIAL REPORTING The Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada (GFOA) awarded a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Shorewood for its comprehensive annual financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1994. In order to be awarded the Certificate of Achievement, a governmental unit must pUblish an easily readable and efficiently organized comprehensive annual financial report, whose contents conform to program standards. Such reports must satisfy both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. A Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year only. We believe our current report continues to conform to the ix James C. Hurm City Administrator Alan J. Rolek Finance Director/Treasurer I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Certificate of Achievement program requirements, and we are submitting it to GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to acknowledge the efforts of the city staff, especially the Finance Department staff, and the City's independent auditor, without whose assistance and cooperation the timely preparation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report would not have been possible. Respectfully Submitted, x I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented to City of Shorewood, Minnesota For its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 1994 A Certificate of Achievement for ExceUence in Financial Reporting is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada to government units and public employee retirement systems whose comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) achieve the highest standards in government accounting and financial reporting. -/::-.14 JI ~ President jJfh/~ Executive Director I I~:" ~,:,:<,--,., I 1 I 1 '1>,/ I I I: 1 1 I ,'I i I ,I \1 \ I' \1 \ /-~- ',/, /CITY ()FSH()REWOOD, MINNESOTA ;' \ .', ", ; i SECTION IY .,-" ~/ ,I FINANCIAL SECT10N "~\~-"\ . \, I I AJIX) I I INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT I Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood, Minnesota CERTIAED PuBLIC ACX::OUNTANTS AND (})NSULTANTS I We have audited the accompanying general purpose financial statements of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, as of and for the year ended December 31, 1995 as listed in the table of contents. These general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general purpose financial statements based on our audit. I I We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit inoludes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall general purpose financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. I I I In our opinion, the general purpose finanoial s~atements referred to above present fairly, in all material respeots, the financial position of the City of Shorewood, MinneSota at Deoember 31, 1995 and the results of its operations and cash flows of the Proprietary Fund Type for the year then ended, in oonformity with generally aooepted accounting principles. I I In acoordanoe with Government Auditing Standards we have also issued a report dated March 28, 1996 on our oonsideration of the City's internal oontrol struoture and a report dated Maroh 28, 1996 on its complianoe with laws and regulations. I Our audit was conduoted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose finanoial statements taken as a whole. The combining and individual fund finanoial statements listed in the table of oontents are presented for the purpose of additional analysis and are not a required part of the general purpose finanoial statements of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota. The information has been subjeoted to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respeots in relation to the general purpose finanoial statements taken as a whole. ~' J &, tllh f ~ ABDO, ABDO & EICK Certified Public Accountants March 28, 1996 Minneapolis, Minnesota I I I I Member of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Private Companies Practice Section I 115 EAST HICKORY STREET. SUITE 302 P.O. BOX 3166 MANKAlO. MINNESOTA 56002.3166 (507) 625.2727 FAX (507) 388-9139 204 EAST PEARL STREET P.o. BOX 345 OWAlONNA, MINNESOTA 55060.0345 (507) 451.9136 FAX (507) 451>0794 1060 NOKI'HLAND PLAZA 3800 WEST 80TII STREET MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 55431 (612) 835.9090 FAX (612) 896-3620 I I I I I I I I I I I I \1 I I I I /-' I I" €ITYOF SHOREWOOD, ]\1INNESQ1A ./ .. .. _,./ .. ,i '; GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL STATEl\'IENTS / .',..''' .\\ . i L '" \ The general purpb~e [mancial statementsandl10tes to the [manciaI statetp-~l:lts are intended to provide an overview and broad perspective of theCity'~ fmancial position ai\doperations. . These statemen.ts present a summary set of information needed to control ~d analyze current operations . to deteI'IIiipe compliance withtegal and buq,getary liri:ritations and to assis!in financial planning. .. . . ,; \.! ;' .. < .." \ \. ' i/ i The following gener~ piltpose.fmantial s~~tements are presented: , /.. --- .. . Combined BalanceSpeet :. All Fund Type~aI\d AccoUnt Groups ", \ '" / \Combined Statement of Rev~nue, Exp~l1ditur~s and Changys jn Food Balance -All Governmental fund Types \ , . \, ,\' "!", '. \\ Statement of Revenue, Expen9itures and Ch;mges...in Fund Balance i Budget andActiIal - Geperal Fund . \j \, .. \.' ,\, \. u ". / ,'\ Combined Statement of Revem~e, Expenses and Ghanges in Retained Earnings - Alt'\ Pr9prietary Fun(l Types \ ) /'Combined Statem~nt0f Ca,sh Flows/;. All Proprietary Fund Trp~ \ ., ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TIllS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA COMBINED BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS DECEMBER 31, 1995 ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS Cash and investments Receivables Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Due from other funds Inventories, at cost Prepaid items Property and equipment, net Bond discount, net Investments for deferred compensation Other debits Amounts available for debt retirement Amounts to be provided for debt retirement TOTAL ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS LIABILITIES, EQUITY AND OTHER CREDITS LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable Refundable.deposits payable Deferred revenue Due to other funds Bonds payable Deferred compensation funds held for participants TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND EQUITY Contributed capital Investment in general fixed assets Retained earnings - unreserved Fund balance Reserved Unreserved Designated Undesignated TOTAL EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES, FUND EQUITY See Notes to Financial Statements. Governmental Fund Types Debt General Service $1 576 162 $1 371 241 44 622 2 374 22 221 56 452 42 577 2 883 511 053 I I Capital proiects I $1 392 816 I 5 464 48 882 1 750 85 517 I I I I $1 702 340 $1 927 245 $1 534 429 $ 69 941 $ 550 $ 15 157 43 560 29 334 506 963 157 992 507 513 1 419 732 1 544 348 1 544 348 1 419 732 $1 702 340 $1 927 245 $1 534 429 1 376 837 I -2- I 45 220 25 150 1 705 85 517 I I 157 592 I 1 491 433 (114 596) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit 1 Proprietary Fiduciary Fund Type Fund Type Account Groups General Total General Long-term (Memorandum Only) Enterprise Aqency Fixed Assets Debt 1995 1994 $ 2 881 217 $ $ $ $ 7 221 436 $5 450 774 502 47 498 53 579 234 838 262 523 307 644 55 107 203 018 163 243 796 612 1 312 298 690 525 34 411 119 928 140 259 257 447 257 447 153 415 17 737 17 737 13 434 6 653 460 4 124 018 10 777 478 9 935 467 11 799 11 799 364 187 409 187 409 128 979 1 419 732 1 419 732 1 485 579 1 111 631 1 111 631 1 275 755 $10 943 130 $187 409 $4 124 018 $2 531 363 $22 949 934 $19 799 017 $ 242 842 $ $ $ $ 358 553 $ 177 635 4 092 21 863 41 112 36 363 68 710 24 760 7 593 545 595 690 555 34 411 119 928 140 259 1 935 000 2 509 500 4 444 500 2 770 500 187 409 187 409 128 979 2 223 938 187 409 2 531 363 5 765 807 3 969 051 8 033 534 8 033 534 7 100 609 4 124 018 4 124 018 3 894 635 685 658 685 658 692 370 1 419 732 1 485 579 3 035 781 2 777 396 (114 596) (120 623) 8 719 192 4 124 018 17 184 127 15 829 966 $10 943 130 $187 409 $4 124 018 $2 531 363 $22 949 934 $19 799 017 -3- Capital proiects I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 General REVENUE General property taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Miscellaneous Special assessments Interest on investments Other Debt Service $1 489 822 $ 30 608 $ 184 857 440 720 335 20 505 68 765 671 170 732 84 616 63 301 58 053 TOTAL REVENUE 2 348 009 EXPENDITURES CUrrent General government Public safety Public works Parks and recreation Capital outlay Debt service Principal Interest and service charges 723 098 650 703 432 759 115 446 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 922 006 426 003 EXCESS REVENUE (EXPENDITURES) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers in Operating transfers out 30 000 (404 225) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (374 225) EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES 51 778 FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 1 497 678 FUND EQUITY TRANSFER IN FUND EQUITY TRANSFER OUT (5 108) $1 544 348 $1 419 732 $1 376 837 (1 341) FUND BALANCE, DECEMBER 31 See Notes to Financial Statements. -4- 264 976 231 000 99 .823 330 823 (65 847) 84 413 6 517 77 507 24 506 192 943 374 534 374 534 (181 591) 557 225 (163 000) 394 225 (65 847) 212 634 1 485 579 1 159 095 6 449 I I I I I I Exhibit 2 I Total (Memorandum OnlY) 1995 1994 I $1 520 430 $1 495 911 184 857 256 243 525 468 555 564 20 505 42 233 I 68 765 73 998 177 920 265 439 225 424 197 639 I 82 559 181 028 2 805 928 3 068 055 I 723 098 755 097 650 703 618 047 I 432 759 433 699 115 446 128 600 374 534 616 434 I 231 000 681 000 99 823 120 862 2 627 363 3 353 739 I 178 565 (285 684) I 587 225 994 425 (567 225) (923 825) I 20 000 70 600 I 198 565 (215 084) 4 142 352 4 357 436 I 6 449 531 847 (6 449) (531 847) I $4 340 917 $4 142 352 I I I I -5- Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit 3 STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL GENERAL FUND YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 REVENUE General property taxes Licenses and permits Intergovernmental Charges for services Fines and forfeitures Miscellaneous Special assessment Interest on investments Miscellaneous revenue Budqet $1 491 888 169 900 440 720 32 000 84 000 75 000 17 500 TOTAL REVENUE 2 311 008 EXPENDITURES General government Public safety Public works Parks and recreation 745 562 669 420 445 601 126 177 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 986 760 324 248 EXCESS REVENUE (EXPENDITURES) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers in Operating transfers out 50 000 (404 225) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) (354 225) EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES $ (29 977) FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS OUT FUND EA,LANCE, DECEMBER 31 See Notes to Financial Statements. -6- Actual $1 489 822 184 857 440 720 20 505 68 765 671 84 616 58 053 2 348 009 723 098 650 703 432 759 115 446 1 922 006 426 003 30 000 (404 225) (374 225) 51 778 1 497 678 (5 108) $1 544 348 $ (2 066) 14 957 (11 495) (15 235) 671 9 616 40 553 37 001 22 464 18 717 12 842 10 731 64 754 101 755 (20 000) (20 000) $ 81 755 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibi t 4 COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 OPERATING REVENUE Sales Less cost of sales GROSS PROFIT Charges for services Permits and connection fees GROSS PROFIT AND REVENUE OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services Supplies Repairs and maintenance Depreciation Professional services Contracted services Communication Insurance Water purchases Utilities Metropolitan Waste Control Commission disposal charges Rent Advertising Other TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING LOSS NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) General property taxes Interest on investments Other income Interest expense TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) INCOME BEFORE OPERATING TRANSFERS OPERATING TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS I OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS NET LOSS I RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 I I I I See Notes to Financial Statements. -7- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA COMBINED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ALL PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 Exhibit 5 I CASH FLOWS PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES $ (93 725) 8 143 274 898 62 22 410 (15 502) 2 168 (34 411) (104 032) (4 303) 112 767 1 249 7 593 34 411 211 728 (200 000) 180 000 (20 000) 1 908 250 (15 000) (3 001) (805 536) 17 506 104 662 1 206 881 84 365 1 482 974 1 398 243 $2 881 217 I CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating loss Other income related to operations Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization (Increase) decrease in assets - Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Due for bther funds Inventory Prepaid items Increase (decrease) in liabilities - Accounts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable Deferred revenue Due to other funds I I I I I CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfers to other funds Operating transfers from other funds I CASH FLOWS USED BY NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES I CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Issuance of bonds, net of discount Bond principal paid Interest paid on revenue bonds Acquisition of property and equipment Property taxes levied for debt service Special assessments paid I CASH FLOWS PROVIDED BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES I CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments I INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 I I NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Property and equipment acquired from other funds $ 81 675 I I I See Notes to Financial Statements. -8- I I I Note 1: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The financial statements of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to government units. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) is the accepted standard-setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant of the government's accounting policies are described below. A. Reportinq Entity The City of Sho~ewood is a statutory city operating in accordance with the Plan A form of government. As required by generally accepted accounting principles, the financial statements of the reporting entity include those of the City of Shorewood (the primary government) and its component units. The City of Shorewood does not have any component units requiring either a blended or discrete presentation. B. Fund Accountincr Fund accounting is designed to demonstrate legal compliance and to aid financial management by segregating transactions related to certain government functions or activities. The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds and account groups, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenue, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Government resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purpose for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. The various funds are grouped, in the financial statements in this report, into five generic fund types and three broad fund categories. The broad fund categories are governmental, proprietary and fiduciary. Governmental fund types account for all or nearly all of a government's general activities, proprietary fund types account for enterprise activities, and fiduciary fund types are used to account for assets held on behalf of others. The fund types accounted for within each broad fund category follow: GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPES: General Fund - The General Fund is the general operating fund of the City and accounts for all revenues and expenditures not required to be accounted for in another fund. Debt Service Funds - Debt Service Funds are used to account for the accumulation of resources for, and the payment of general long-term debt principal, interest and related costs. Capital Projects Funds - Capital Projects Funds are used to account for all resources used for the acquisition or construction of major capital facilities. -9- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED PROPRIETARY FUND TYPES: Enterprise Funds - Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations (a) that are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where the intent of the governing body is that the costs (expenses, including depreciation) of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges; or (b) where the revenue earned, expenses incurred, and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management control, accountability, or other purposes. FIDUCIARY FUND TYPES: Agency Funds - Agency Funds are used to account for assets held by the City on behalf of others as their agent. The governmental fund types previously discussed are designed to account for tne financial flow of a particular fund; therefore, they generally include only current assets and current liabilities on their balance sheets. Their reported fund balance is considered a measure of available spendable resources. The City also maintains two account groups for noncurrent assets and liabilities. These account groups are concerned only with the measurement of financial position. They are as follows: General Fixed Assets Account Group - This separate account group contains the fixed assets used in the governmental fund type operations. They are assets of the City as a whole and not of individual funds. Public domain general fixed assets consisting of certain improvements other than buildings, including roads, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems, are not capitalized along with other general fixed assets. The assets are valued at estimated historical cost or appraised value and no depreciation has been provided on them. General Long-term Debt Account Group - This separate account group contains the long-term liabilities of the City expected to be financed from governmental funds. They are liabilities of the City as a whole and not of individual funds. The exception to this rule is for proprietary fund type long-term debt which is accounted for in that fund type. All proprietary fund types are accounted for on a cost of services or capital maintenance measurement focus. Therefore, all assets and liabilities, both current and noncurrent, are included on their balance sheets. All fixed assets are stated at historical or estimated historical cost. C. Basis of Accountinq The accounting and financial reporting treatment applied to a fund is determined by its measurement focus. All governmental fund types are accounted for using a current financial resources measurement focus. With this measurement focus, only current assets and current liabilities generally are included on the balance sheet. Operating statements of these funds present increases (i.e., revenue and other financing sources) and decreases (i.e., expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. -10- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Note 1: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED All proprietary fund types are accounted for on a flow of economic resources measurement focus. With this measurement focus, all assets and all liabilities associated with the operation of these funds are included on the balance sheet. Fund equity (i.e., net t~tal assets) is segregated into contributed capital and retained earnings components. proprietary fund-type operating statements present increases (e.g., revenue) and decreases (e.g., expenses) in net total assets. The modified accrual basis of accounting is used by all governmental fund types and agency funds. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized when susceptible to accrual (i.e., when they become both measurable and available). "Measurable" means collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The government considers property taxes as available if they are collected within 60 days after year end. Special assessments are recognized as revenue as the principal amount is collected. Substantially all other sources of revenue are accrued. Expenditures are generally recorded when the related fund liability is incurred except principal and interest on general long-term debt which are recorded as fund liabilities when due. Proprietary fund types are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting. Their revenue is recognized when it is earned, and their expenses are recognized when they are incurred. Fixed assets are recorded in the proprietary fund types at historical cost. Depreciation is charged as an expense against operations and accumulated depreciation is reported on proprietary fund balance sheets. Depreciation has been provided over the estimated useful lives using the straight-line method. The estimated useful lives are as follows: Furniture and equipment Distribution and collection systems 5 - 10 years 40 years D. Budqets Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. An annual appropriated budget is adopted for the general fund. All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year end. Project-length financial plans are adopted for all capital projects funds. The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the financial statements: 1. Prior to January 1, the budget is adopted by the City Council. 2. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year for the General Fund. Budgetary control is exercised by the Council at the department level but management control is exercised at the line item level. 3. Reported budget amounts are as originally adopted or as amended by Council approved supplemental appropriations and budget transfers. Supplemental budgetary appropriations were not material in 1995 in relation to the original appropriation. -11- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED I E. Cash and Investments I Cash and investments include demand deposits and short-term I investments. The City invests cash balances from all funds, to the extent available, in certificates of deposit and other authorized investments. Investments are carried at cost or amortized cost, except for investments in the deferred compensation agency fund which are I reported at market value. F. Cash and Cash Equivalents For purposes of the statement of cash flows of the Enterprise Funds, all highly liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less when purchased are considered to be cash equivalents. I G. Inventories I Inventories are valued at average cost, which approximates market, using the first-injfirst-out (FIFO) method. I H. Prepaid Items Payments made to vendors for service that will benefit periods beyond December 31, 1995 are recorded as prepaid items. I I. Fixed Assets I General fixed assets are not capitalized in the funds used to acquire or construct them. Instead, capital acquisition and construction are reflected as expenditures in governmental funds, and the related assets are reported in the general fixed assets account group. All purchased fixed assets are valued at cost where historical records are available and at an estimated historical cost where no historical records exist. Donated fixed assets are valued at their estimated fair market value on the date received. I Public d,omain ("infrastructure") general fixed assets consisting of roads,.bridges, curbs and gutters, streets and sidewalks, drainage systems and lighting systems are not capitalized, as these assets are immovable and of value only to the government. I I Assets in the general fixed assets account group are not depreciated. Depreciation of buildings, equipment and vehicles in the proprietary fund types is computed using the straight-line method. I The costs of normal maintenance and repairs in the proprietary fund types that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend asset lives are not capitalized. Improvements are capitalized and depreciated over the remaining useful lives of the related fixed assets. I I I I -12- I I I Note 1: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED J. Compensated Absences Vested accumulated vacation or sick leave that is expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources is reported as an expenditure and a fund liability of the governmental fund that will pay it. Amounts of vested or accumulated vacation leave that are not expected to be liquidated with expendable available financial resources are reported in the general long-te+m debt account group. No expenditure is reported for these amounts. Vested or accumulated vacation leave of proprietary fund types is recorded as an expense and liability of those funds as the benefits accrue to employees. No liability is recorded for nonvesting accumulating rights to receive sick pay benefits. K. LonQ-term Obliqations Long-term debt is recognized as a liability of a governmental fund when due, or when resources have been accumulated in the debt service fund for payment early in the following year. For other long-term obligations, only that portion expected to be financed from expendable available financial resources is reported as a fund liability of a governmental fund. Long-term liabilities expected to be financed from proprietary fund operations are accounted for in those funds. All long-term bonded debt, except the Tax Increment Revenue Bonds, issued by the City is backed by the full faith and credit of the City. The general obligation bonds include special assessment and revenue bonds, which are intended to be repaid from revenue sources other than general property taxes. L. Fund Equity Contributed capital is recorded in proprietary funds that have received capital grants or contributions from developers, customers or other funds. Reserves represent those portions of fund equity not appropriable for expenditure or legally segregated for a specific future use. Designated fund balances represent tentative plans for future use of financial resources. M. Interfund Transactions Quasi-external transactions are accounted for as revenue, expenditures or expenses. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the reimbursing fund and as reductions of expenditures/expenses in the fund that is reimbursed. All other interfund transactions, except quasi-external transactions and reimbursements, are reported as transfers. Nonrecurring or nonroutine permanent transfers of equity are reported as residual equity transfers. All other interfund transfers are reported as operating transfers. -13- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 1: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - CONTINUED N. Memorandum Only - Total Columns I I I Total columns on the general purpose financial statements are captioned I "memorandum only" to indicate that they are presented only to facilitate financial analysis. Data in these columns do not present financial position, results of operations or changes in cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Neither are I such data comparable to a consolidation. Interfund eliminations have not been made in the aggregation of this data. O. Comparative Data Comparative total data for the prior year has been presented in the accompanying financial statements in order to provide an understanding of changes in the government's financial position and operations. However, comparative data have not been presented in all statements because their inclusion would make certain statements unduly complex and difficult to understand. Note :2: LEGAL COMPLIANCE - BUDGETS On or before the last Friday in August of each year, all agencies of the government submit requests for appropriation to the City's administrator so that a budget may be prepared. The annual appropriated General Fund budget is prepared by function and activity, and includes information on the past year, current year estimates and requested appropriations for the next fiscal year. The proposed budget is presented to the government's council for review. The government's council holds public hearings and may add to, subtract from or change appropriations. Any changes in the annual appropriated General Fund budget must be within the revenues and reserves estimated as available or the revenue estimates must be changed by an affirmative vote of a majority of the government's council. Formal budgetary integration is employed as a management control device during the year. Budget revisions between departments are authorized by the City Council in accordance with the City policy at the request of the City Administrator. The legal level of budgetary control is therefore at the department level. During the year, supplementary appropriations were not material. The City Administrator is authorized to approve transfers of appropriations between individual expenditure accounts within a department's budget. However, interdepartmental or interfund transfers of appropriations or increases in appropriations are required to be authorized by the City Council. I I I I I I I I I I Note 3: DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS Cash surpluses are pooled and invested in certificates of deposit and I short-term government securities. Investment earnings are allocated to funds on the basis of average cash balances. Investments are stated at cost, which approximates market value, and are not identified with specific I funds. Deposits In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, the City maintains deposits at those I depository banks authorized by the City Council, all of which are members of the Federal Reserve System. -14 - I I I Note 3: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS - CONTINUED Minnesota Statutes require that all City deposits be protected by insurance, surety bond, or collateral. The market value of collateral pledged must equal 110% of the deposits not covered by insurance or bonds (140% in the case of mortgage notes pledged) . Authorized collateral includes the legal investments described below, as well as certain first mortgage notes, and certain other state Or local government obligations. Minnesota Statutes require that securities pledged as collateral be held in safekeeping by the City treasurer or in a financial institution other than that furnishing the collateral. Balances at December 31, 1995: Bank Balances Carrying Amount Insured or collateralized by securities held by the City or its agent in the City's name $3 185157 $3 124 346 Investments The City also invests idle funds, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, in the following: a. Direct obligations or obligations guaranteed by the United States or its agencies. b. Shares of investment companies registered under the Federal Investment Company Act of 1940 and whose only investments are in securities described in (a) above. c. Bankers acceptances of United States Banks eligible for purchase by the Federal Reserve System. d. Commercial paper issued by United States corporations or their Canadian subsidiaries, of the highest quality, and maturing in 270 days or less. e. Repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements with banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System with capitalization exceeding $10,000,000, a primary reporting dealer in U.S. government securities to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or certain Minnesota securities broker-dealers. -15- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 3: DEPOSITS AND INVESTMENTS - CONTINUED The City's investments are categorized to give an indication of the level of risk assumed at year end. Category 1 includes investments that are insured or registered or for which the securities are held by the City or its agent in the City's name. Category 2 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty's trust department or agent in the City's name. Category 3 includes uninsured and unregistered investments for which the securities are held by the counterparty's trust department or agent but not in the City's name. The following is a summary of the cash and temporary investments reported on the combined balance sheet as of December 31: Deposits Investments Petty cash $3 124 346 4 282 369 2 130 $7 408 845 Total Classified on the combined balance sheet as: Cash and investments Investments for deferred compensation plans, at market $7 221 436 187 409 $7 408 845 Total Note 4: RECEIVABLES A. Property Taxes The City Council annually adopts a tax levy by December 28 and certifies it to the County for collection the following year. The County is responsible for collecting all property taxes for the City. These taxes attach an enforceable lien on January 1 on taxable property and is payable in May and October each year. The taxes are collected by the County Treasurer and tax settlements are made to the City three times each year. Taxes payable on homestead property, as defined by State Statutes, are partially reduced by a homestead and agricultural credit aid. These credits are paid to the City by the State of Minnesota in lieu of taxes levied against homestead property. The State remits this credit in two equal installments in July and December each year. Allowances are provided for the full amount of delinquent taxes except those collected by the County in November and December and remitted to the City within sixty days after year end. The allowance is reported on the balance sheet as deferred revenue. B. Accounts Receivable Accounts receivable include amounts billed for services provided before year end. -16- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 4: RECEIVABLES - CONTINUED I C. Special Assessments Special assessments receivable include the following components: I . Delinquent - includes amounts billed to property owners but not paid. I . Deferred - includes assessment installments which will be billed to property owners in future years. I Special assessments are recognized as a receivable and deferred revenue when the assessments are certified to the County for collection. Special assessments are recognized as revenue when received in cash. I Note 5: FIXED ASSETS The following is a summary of changes in the general fixed assets account group during the year: I Balance Balance January 1, December 31, 1995 Additions Retirements 1995 Land $ 456 826 $ $ $ 456 826 Buildings and structures 1 327 073 5 000 1 322 073 Improvements other than buildings 1 158 271 110 074 1 268 345 Furniture and equipment 952 465 297 520 173 211 1 076 77~ Total general fixed assets $3 894 635 $407 594 $178 211 $4 124 018 I I I I A summary of proprietary fund type property and equipment at December 31, 1995 follows: I Public Utilities Wate~ Sewer Liquor Funds Store I Store II I 3 774 491 7 427 462 Total $ 159 168 11 201 953 11 361 121 (4 707 661) Furniture and equipment Collection and distribution systems $ 24 178 $ 37 827 $ 75 513 $ 21 650 I Total Less accumulated depreciation 3 798 669 7 465 289 75 513 21 650 (754 231) (3 933 596) (7 055) (12 779) Net property, plant and equipment $3 044 438 $3 531 693 $ 68 458 $ 8 871 $ 6 653 460 I Note 6: LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS I Long-term Obligations - Bonds The following is a summary of changes in long-term bonded debt of the City for the year ended December 31, 1995: I I -17- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 6: LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS - CONTINUED General Long-term Debt Account Group Special Tax Increment Assessment Revenue Bond Payable January 1, 1995 $1 820 500 Debt retired 231 000 Debt issued Payable December 31, 1995 $1 589 500 $920 000 $920 000 I I Proprietary Funds Revenue Total $ 30 000 $2 770 500 15 000 246 000 1 920 000 1 920 000 $1 935 000 $4 444 500 I I I The long-term bonded debt obligations outstanding at December 31, 1995 are summarized as follows: I Types of Bonds Maturities General obligation special assessment bonds Tax increment revenue bonds General obligation water revenue bonds 1996 - 2004 1996 - 2000 1996 - 2011 Total Rate Balance December 31, 1994 I 3.50 - 8.00% 9.00 $1 589 500 920 000 1 935 000 $4 444 500 I 3.90 - 8.50 I The annual requirements to amortize all bonded debt outstanding at December 31, 1995, including interest payments totaling $1,824,758 are as follows: I Year Ending December 31. General Long-term Debt Account Group Special Tax Increment Assessment Revenue Bond 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 - 2005 2006 - 2010 2011 $ 310 505 293 955 274 510 262 543 240 650 545 763 $ 716 482 250 240 233 680 217 120 200 560 Total $1 927 926 $1 618 082 Long-term Obligations - Other Proprietary Funds Revenue Total $ 84 255 $1 111 242 213 203 757 398 213 165 721 355 202 971 682 634 202 518 643 728 914 975 1 460 738 763 725 763 725 128 438 128 438 $2 723 250 $6 269 258 I I I I I Changes in long-term obligations other than bonds are summarized as follows: Payable, January 1 Net change in compensated absences Payable, December 31 -18- I Compensated Absences Payable $ 20 834 1 029 I $ 21 863 I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 7: OPERATING LEASES I I The City leases space for both liquor store operations. These leases are considered, for accounting purposes, to be operating leases. Lease expense for the year ended December 31, 1995 amounted to $92,863. Future minimum lease payments for the liquor store #I, #II and Tonka Bay leases are as follows: I Years Ending December 31. Store I Store II Tonka Bav I 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 $ 49 500 49 500 49 500 49 500 49 500 49 500 $ 22 192 $ 12 000 12 000 I Total $297 000 $ 22 192 $ 24 000 I The new lease for the Store I began January 1, J.995 and will run through December 3J., 2001. Note 8: FOND EQUITY I The various components of fund equity are contributed capital, retained earnings, and fund balance. I Contributed Capital - The amount represents the value of assets contributed to the enterprise funds by other City funds. Additions during the year totaled $932,925. I Reserved Fund Balance - This represents the portion of fund balance which cannot be appropriated for future expenditures. The following reservations of fund equity have been made as of December 31, 1995: I Debt Service Funds 1993 Improvement and Refunding Shorewood Oaks Waterford III Tax Increment Shady Hills Storm Sewer Improvement 1991 Improvement and Refunding I Total Reserved Fund Balance $ 144 265 870 973 22 210 5 778 376 506 $1 419 732 I Designated Fund Balance - Designated amounts indicate tentative plans for future uses of financial resources. The following unreserved fund balances have been designated: I General Fund Designated for working capital Capital Projects Funds Designated for capital projects Capital Improvements Park Capital Improvement Equipment Replacement Street Reconstruction MSA Construction Trail Capital Improvement 1995 Freeman Park Improvement Silverwood Park Grading Vine Hill Improvement Cathcart Park Improvements Total Designated Fund Balance $1 544 348 81 240 93 361 130 648 932 068 139 673 68 025 24 039 1 177 954 20 248 $3 035 781 I I I I -19- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 8: FUND EQUITY - CONTINUED Unreserved and undesignated amounts are available to finance current and future years' expenditures. Note 9: COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY Fund Deficits I I I I The following funds have a deficit fund balance or retained earnings as of December 31, 1995: I Capital Projects Funds 1995 Manor Park Improvement Senior Community Center City Hall Parking Lot Season Improvements Old Market Road Trail Enterprise Fund Water Fund $ 5 910 27 101 562 59 205 21 818 The deficits in all funds will be eliminated by future revenues. 145 490 Note 10: SEGMENT INFORMATION - PROPRIETARY FUNDS Water Recvclinq Sewer Sales less cost of sales of $1,165,021 $ $ $ Charges for services 190 100 679 832 46 883 Permits and connection fees 8 466 28 741 Gross profit and revenue Expenses excluding depreciation Income (loss) before depreciation Depreciation Operating income (loss) 198 566 708 573 46 883 163 969 520 927 69 734 34 597 79 617 187 646 185 401 (22 851) (45 020) 2 245 (22 851) Other revenue (expenses) General property' taxes Interest on investments Other income Interest expense 17 506 36 397 8 112 (3 001) 39 006 1 475 Total other revenue Income (loss) before transfers Operating transfers from (to) other funds, net Storm Water Mgmt . Utility Liauor Tonka Bay, Store I and Store II $ $308 382 $ 44 336 44 336 31 011 13 325 13 325 4 647 308 382 340 241 (31 859) 9 565 (41 424) 2 840 31 59 014 39 006 1 475 4 647 2 871 41 251 (21 376) 17 972 (38 553) 13 994 Net income (loss) $ 13 994 $ 10 000 (30 000) 41 251 $(21 3761 $ 27 972 $(68 553) $ -20- I I I I Total I 308 382 I 961 151 37 207 1 306 740 I 1 125882 I 180 858 274 583 (93 725) I 17 506 I 84 365 8 143 I (3 001) 107 013 I 13 288 (20 000) I (6 712) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 10: SEGMENT INFORMATION - PROPRIETARY FUNDS - CONTINUED Liquor Tonka Storm Bay, Water Store I Mgmt. and Water Sewer Recvclinq Utility Store II Total Net working capital $2 434 489 $1 127 827 $ 23 069 $101 250 $287 298 $ 3 973 933 Additions to property and equipment 728 495 82 841 75 875 887 211 Bonds payable from operating revenues 1 935 000 1 935 000 Total assets 5 654 514 4 668 616 23 069 114 920 482 01l. 10 943 130 Total equity 3 570 726 4 659 520 23 069 101 250 364 627 8 719 192 Note l.1: DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN The government offers its employees a deferred compensation plan created in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 457. The plan, available to all employees, permits them to defer a portion of their salary until future years. Participation in the plan is optional. The deferred compensation is not available to employees until termination, retirement, death or unforeseeable emergency. All amounts of compensation deferred under the plan, all property and rights purchased with those amounts, and all income attributable to those amounts, property or rights are (until paid or made available to the employee or other beneficiary) solely the property and rights of the City subject only to the claims of the City'S general creditors. Participants' rights under the plan are equal to those of general creditors of the government in an amount equal to the fair market value of the deferred account for each participant. The City has no liability for losses under the plan but does have the duty of due care that would be required of an ordinary prudent investor. The City believes it is unlikely that it will use the assets to satisfy the claims of general creditors in the future. The plan assets are on deposit with and managed by trustees other than the City. Each employee has a choice of investment options within the plan. Note 12: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE A. Plan Description All full-time and certain part-time employees of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota are covered by defined benefit pension plans administered by the Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota (PERA). PERA administers the Public Employees Retirement Fund (PERF) which is a cost-sharing, multiple-employer retirement plan. This plan is established and administered in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 353 and 356. -21- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 12: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED PERF members belong to either the Coordinated Plan or the Basic Plan. Coordinated Plan members are covered by Social Security and Basic Plan members are not. All new members must participate in the Coordinated Plan. The payroll for employees covered by PERF for the year ended December 31, 1995 was $649,612, the City'S total payroll was $790,162. PERA provides retirement benefits as well as disability benefits to members, and benefits to survivors upon death of eligible members. Benefits are established by State Statute, and vest after three years of credited service. The defined retirement benefits are based on a member's average salary for any five successive years of allowable service, age, and years of credit at termination of service. Two methods are used to compute benefits for Coordinated and Basic Plan members. The retiring member receives the higher of step~rate benefit accrual formula (Method 1) or a level accrual formula (Method 2) . Under Method 1, the annuity accrual rate for a Basic Plan member is 2.0 percent of average salary for each of the first 10 years of service and 2.5 percent for each remaining year. For a Coordinated Plan member, the annuity accrual rate is 1.0 percent of average salary for each of the first 10 years and 1.5 percent for each remaining year. Using Method 2, the annuity accrual rate is 2.5 percent of average salary for Basic Plan members and 1.5 percent for Coordinated Plan memberS. For PERF members whose annuity is calculated using Method 1, a full annuity is available when age plus years of service equal 90. A reduced retirement annuity is also available to eligible members seeking early retirement. There are different types of annuities available to members upon retirement. A normal annuity is a lifetime annuity that ceases upon the death of the retiree. No survivor annuity is payable. There are also various types of joint and survivor annuity options available which will reduce the monthly normal annuity amount, because the annuity is payable over joint lives. Members may also leave their contributions in the fund upon termination of public service, in order to qualify for a deferred annuity at retirement age. Refunds of contributions are available at any time to members who leave public service, but before retirement benefits begin. The benefit provisions stated in the previous paragraphs of this section are current provisions and apply to active plan participants. Vested, terminated employees who are entitled to benefits but are not receiving them yet, are bound by the provisions in effect at the time they last terminated their public service. B. Contributions Reauired and Contributions Made Minnesota Statutes Chapter 353 sets the rates for employer and employee contributions. The City makes annual contributions to the pension plans equal to the amount required by State Statutes. According to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 356.215, Subd. 4(g), the date of full funding required for the PERF is July 1, 2020. As part of the annual actuarial valuation, PERA's actuary determines the sufficiency of the statutory contribution rates towards meeting the required full funding deadline. The actuary compares the actual contribution rate to a "required" contribution rate. The required contribution rate consists of (a) normal costs based on entry age normal cost methods, (b) a supplemental contribution for amortizing any unfunded actuarial accrued liability by the date required for full funding, and (c) an allowance for administrative expenses. Current combined statutory contribution rates and actuarially required contribution rates for the plans are as follows: -22- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 12: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLANS - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED I I PERF (A blended rate for both the Basic and Coordinated Plans) Statutory Rates Emplovees Emplover Required Rates* 4.31% 4.60% 9.76% I * The recommended rates scheduled above represent the required rates for fiscal year 1995 contributions as reported in the July 1, 1994 actuarial valuation reports. I Total contributions made by the City during fiscal year 1995 were: I Amounts Emplovees Emplover Percentage of Covered .pavroll Emplovees Emp+over PERF $ 27 479 $ 29 103 4.23%- 4.48% I The City's contribution for the year ended December 31, 1995 to the PERF represented .024 percent of total contributions required of all participating entities. I C. Fundinq Status and Proqress 1. Pension Benefit Obliqation I I The "pension benefit obligation" is a standardized disclosure measure of the present value of pension benefits, adjusted for the effects of projected salary increases and step-rate benefits, estimated to be payable in the future as a result of employee service to date. The measure is the actuarial present value of credited projected benefits and is intended to help users .assess PERA's funding status on a going-concern basis, assess progress made in accumulating sufficient assets to pay benefits when due, and make comparisons among Public Employees Retirement Systems and participating employers. The measure is independent of the actuarial funding method used to determine required contributions, which is discussed in Note 413. PERA does not make separate measurements of assets and pension benefit obligations for individual participating employers. The pension benefit obligations for the PERF as of June 30, 1995 is shown below: I I I (In thousands) PERF $5 994 492 5 074 357 $ 920 135 $5 266 688 I Total pension benefit obligations Net assets available for benefits, at cost Unfunded (assets in excess of) pension benefit obligations I Net assets available for benefits, at market I I I -23- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 12: DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN - STATEWIDE - CONTINUED The pension benefit obligation was determined as part of an actuarial valuation at July 1, 1995. For the PERF, significant actuarial assumptions used in the calculation of the pension benefit obligation include (a) a rate of return on the investment of present and future assets of 8.5 percent per year, compounded annually, prior to retirement, and 5.0 percent per year, compounded annually, following retirement; (b) projected salary increases taken from an age related table which incorporated a 5.0 percent base inflation assumption; (c) payroll growth at 6.0 percent per year, consisting of 5.0 percent for inflation and 1.0 percent due to growth in group size; (d) post-retirement benefit increases that are accounted for by the 5.0 percent rate of return assumption following retirement; and (e) mortality rates based on the 1983 Group Annuity Mortality Table set forward one year for retired members and set back five years for each active member. 2. Chanqes in Actuarial Assumptions and Methods Since the July 1, 1994 actuarial valuation, there were no changes in actuarial assumptions of the PERF which impacted funding costs. I I I I I I I I 3. Chanqes in Plan provisions The 1995 legislative session did not include any benefit improvements I which would impact funding costs for the PERF. D. Ten-vear Historical Trend Information Ten-year historical trend information is presented in PERA's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 1995. This information is useful in assessing the pension plan'S accumulation of sufficient assets to pay pension benefits as they become due. E. Related Party Investments As of June 30, 1995 and for the fiscal year then ended, PERA held no securities issued by the City or other related parties. Note 13: TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS During 1991, the City issued $920,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds. The proceeds of the issue will be used to pay for public improvements stipulated in the development agreements. The bond proceeds and related improvement costs are reported in the Waterford III Tax Increment Improvement Capital Projects Fund. The bonds were issued at par value not to exceed $920,000. The bonds are not a general obligation of the City and are not backed by the full faith and credit or taxing powers of the City. The bonds are payable solely from the tax increments from the City'S Tax Increment Financing District No.1. In addition, upon completion of the project, all excess bond proceeds will be repaid to the holder of the bonds as principal reduction. Interest at a rate of nine percent will accrue from the date of issuance of the bonds but will not be payable until tax increment is available at which time the increment will first be applied to the accrued interest. -24- I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 13: TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS - CONTINUED I The bonds payable are reported as a liability in the General Long-term Debt Account Group in the financial statements even though: I . The bonds issued are tax increment revenue bonds. . The bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the City. I . The bonds will be repaid only to the extent that tax increments are generated from the Tax Increment Financing District. I Note 14: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT I The City of Shorewood participates in a joint powers agreement with the cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, and Tonka Bay which establishes the South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Department for the purpose of providing police protection within the four communities. The agreement creates a coordinating committee, comprised of the mayors of each participating community, as the governing body, which meets quarterly. Each year the Coordinating committee adopts an operating budget, which is approved by all participating cities. The cost of the budget is divided between the participating cities based upon a five-year average demand for service in each city. The percentage contributed in 1995 by the City of Shorewood is 43.9%. I I I Any budget shortfall is made up first from department reserves, with any excess shortfall assessed to each participating community according to the formula. The current agreement continues through December 31, 1997. The Department has accounts payable, and accrued payroll and compensated absences in the General Fund of $148,808, and deferred compensation benefits payable in the Agency Fund of $160,467 at year end. There is no 'other current or long-term debt outstanding as of December 31, 1995. The following is a summary of the Department's balance sheet as of December 31, 1995 and the statement of revenue, expenditures and changes in fund balance for the General Fund for the year ended December 31, 1995. This information is taken from the financial statements of the Department which may be obtained directly from them. I I I I SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT BALANCE SHEET - ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS DECEMBER 31, 1995 I General Totals General Agency Fixed (Memorandum Onlv) Fund Fund Assets 1995 1994 Total assets $288 875 $160 467 $314 280 $763 622 $673 733 Liabilities $148 808 $160 467 $ $309 275 $263 812 Fund equity 140 067 314 280 454 347 409 921 Total liabilities and fund equity $288 875 $160 467 $314 280 $763 622 $673 733 I I I I -25- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 3~, ~995 Note ~4: JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - CONTINUED SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT SUMMARY STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - GENERAL FUND - BUDGET AND ACTUAL FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 3~, ~995 Total revenue Total expenditures Excess of revenue over (under) expenditures Fund balance, January 1 1995 1994 Variance - Favorable Budqet Actual (Unfavorable) Actual $~ 067 9~8 $~ 149 971 $ 82 053 $~ 088 905 ~ 082 9~8 ~ 119 473 (36 555) 1 073 448 $ (15 000) 30 498 $ 45 498 15 457 ~09 569 94 112 $ 140 067 $ 109 569 Fund balance, December 31 Note ~5: INTERFUND RECEIVABLES AND PAYABLES The following is a summary of interfund receivables and payables at year end: Receivable From Payable To Capital Projects Funds Capital Improvements Park Capital Improvement Street Reconstruction Trail Capital Improvements 1995 Manor Park Improvement Senior Community Center Season Improvements Old Market Road Trail Enterprise Funds Store I Liquor Fund Store II Liquor Fund Total $ $ ~ 95~ 5 9~0 58 732 18 924 5 9~0 1 951 58 732 18 924 34 4~1 34 41~ $119 928 $1~9 928 Note ~6: RELOCATION OF MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORE #1 In January, ~994, the City'S liquor store #1 was closed because of reconstruction of the business intersection where it was located. The City has entered into a lease for a new location for this store, which opened in February, ~995. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Note 17: TONKA BAY LIQUOR OPERATING LEASE In December, 1994, the City of Shorewood entered into an agreement with the I City of Tonka Bay to lease and operate its municipal liquor operations. The lease extends over a period of three years, ending on December 3~, ~997. Under the agreement, a base rent of $1,000 per month, plus a percentage rent of 2% of gross sales in excess of $400,000 per year will be I paid to the City of Tonka Bay. Shorewood leases the building and fixtures and has purchased the merchandise inventory from Tonka Bay. The City of Shorewood will operate the location as part of its current municipal liquor I operation. -26- I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Note 18: OPERATING TRANSFERS I A schedule of transfers follows: I General Fund Capital Projects Funds Capital Improvements Park Capital Improvements Equipment Replacement Street Reconstruction 1995 Manor Park Improvement 1995 Freeman Park Improvements Silverwood Park Grading City Hall Parking Lot Cathcart Park Improvements Enterprise Funds Stormwater Management Utility Liquor Fund Tonka Bay Store I Store II 1 I I' 1 Total 1 I I I I I I I I I I -27- Transfer In $ 30 000 5 000 40 000 99 225 250 000 25 200 33 000 20 000 20 000 64 800 10 000 170 000 $767 225 Transfer out $404 225 20 000 143 000 150 000 50 000 $767 225 TInS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 CITY QF SHQREWq<lO, MDl~SO"'A tHE GENERAL FUND , " '\" ',,' ,', 'h. /~,:-- The General Fundis.uSed to aCcount fot rewurc~s traditionally assodiated with govertunent wJ;rich are notrequjre<iJegallyor by' soti~d\'fm:ancialmana,gemyI}t to be accounted for in otper funds. It notimallyr~ceiM~s a great~rvariety and J1~beroftaxes ,and other ~eneral . revenues than anypther ~und.! ) The majo\ity of the currentday-to~day <>peratiQn~ will be financed from this fund. . . . I }/j. . " /i / I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 I ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred I I I TOTAL ASSETS I LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Salaries payable Refundable deposits payable Deferred revenue' I TOTAL LIABILITIES I FUND BALANCE Unreserved Designated for working capital I TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE I I I I I I I I I -28- Exhibit A-1 1995 1994 $1 576 162 $1 503 390 44 622 52 16~ 22 221 23 779 56 452 49 187 2 148 1 742 735 188 $1 702 340 $~ 630 447 $ 69 941 $ 37 901 15 157 12 686 43 560 24 760 29 334 57 422 157 992 132 769 1 544 348 $1 702 340 1 497 678 $1 630 447 I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit A-2 GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative amounts for the year ended December 31, 1994) 1995 1994 Variance - Favorable Budqet Actual (Unfavorable ) Actual $1 491 888 $1 429 491 $ (62 397) $1 410 613 60 331 60 331 76 785 1 491 888 1 489 822 (2 066) 1 487 398 10 200 9 250 (950) 10 175 159 700 175 607 15 907 246 068 169 900 184 857 14 957 256 243 REVENUE General property taxes General property taxes Fiscal disparities Total Licenses and permits Business Nonbusiness Total Intergovernmental - State Community development block grant Property tax credits Other 426 970 426 970 13 750 13 750 440 720 440 720 6 500 13 156 6 656 25 500 7 349 (18 151) 32 000 20 505 (11 495) 84 000 68 765 (15 235) 671 671 75 000 84 616 9 616 17 500 58 053 40 553 92 500 143 340 50 840 2 311 008 2 348 009 37 001 Total Charges for services General government Parks and recreation Total Fines and forfeitures Miscellaneous revenue Special assessments Interest on investments Other Total TOTAL REVENUE -29- I I I I I I I 2 025 425 265 13 750 441 040 33 447 8 786 42 233 73 998 I I I I 78 021 112 406 190 427 2 491 339 I I I I I I Continued I I CITY OF SHORE WOOD , MINNESOTA Exhibit A-2 GENERAL FUND Continued STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative amounts for the year ended December 31, 1994) I I I Budqet I EXPENDITURES General government Mayor and Council Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Contingency 13 714 500 38 665 31 271 $ I Total 84 150 I Administrative Personal services Supplies Other services and charges 89 029 800 8 900 I Total 98 729 I Finance Personal services Supplies Other services and charges 82 383 3 450 8 150 I Total 93 983 I Professional services Personal services Supplies Other services and charges Capital outlay 33 937 800 150 700 5 000 I Total 190 437 I Planning and zoning Personal services Supplies Other services and charges 87 032 1 600 7 750 I Total 96 382 I Municipal building Supplies Other services and charges Capital outlay 10 350 80 650 I Total 91 000 I I I -30- 1995 Actual $ 13 564 830 36 856 51 250 95 053 363 7 007 10.2 423 80 642 3 381 5 197 89 220 4 290 1 257 197 337 4 006 206 890 88 156 436 7 303 95 895 12 309 80 217 92 526 Variance - Favorable (Unfavorable ) $ 150 (330) 1 809 31 271 32 ~OO (6 024) 437 1 893 ( 3 694) 1 741 69 2 953 4 763 29 647 (457) (46 637) 994 (16 453) (1 124) 1 164 447 487 (1 959) 433 (1 526) 1994 Actual $ 13 528 1 636 26 343 41 507 87 804 550 6 708 95 062 77 651 2 796 5 O~)l 85 448 1 004 197 185 198 189 87 396 813 4 516 92 725 5 346 79 388 75 179 159 913 Continued I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit A-2 GENERAL FUND Continued I STATEMENT OF REVENUE , EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (with comparative amounts for the year ended December 31, 1994) I 1995 1994 Variance - I Favorable Budqet Actual (Unfavorable) Actual EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED General government I Other general government services Personal services $ 62 256 $ 60 275 $ 1 981 $ 62 453 Supplies 13 750 14 636 (886) 10 822 I Other services and charges 14 875 9 983 4 892 8 978 Total 90 881 84 894 5 987 82 253 Total general government 745 562 723 098 22 464 755 097 I PUblic safety I Police protection Supplies 500 339 161 74 Other services and charges 448 389 442 176 6 213 423 873 Total 448 889 442 515 6 374 423 947 I Fire protection Other services and charges 123 513 123 513 109 747 I Protective inspection Personal services 67 068 58 459 8 609 56 761 Supplies 775 404 371 388 I Other services and charges 26 175 22 742 3 433 26 767 Capital outlay 3 000 3 070 (70) 437 Total 97 018 84 675 12 343 84 353 I Total public safety 669 420 650 703 18 717 618 047 Public works I General maintenance Personal services 130 110 164 346 (34 236) 138 849 Supplies 35 000 33 158 1 842 33 960 Other services and charges 19 050 15 144 3 906 15 764 I Capital outlay 5 976 Total 184 160 212 648 (28 488) 194 549 Streets and roadways I Personal services 94 743 71 137 23 606 80 561 Supplies 30 000 26 309 3 691 30 663 Other services and charges 38 100 30 975 7 125 41 277 I Total 162 843 128 421 34 422 152 501 Snow and ice removal I Personal services 25 004 20 663 4 341 19 658 Supplies 14 000 16 995 (2 995) 13 551 Total 39 004 37 658 1 346 33 209 I -31- Continued I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit A-2 I GENERAL FUND Continued STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE BUDGET AND ACTUAL - CONTINUED YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 I (Wi th comparative amOunts for the year ended December 31, 1994) 1995 1994 I Variance - Favorable Budqet Actual (Unfavorable) Actual EXPENDITURES - CONTINUED I Public works Traffic control Supplies $ 4 000 $ 2 071 $ 1 929 $ 2 469 I Other services and charges 31 200 33 405 (2 205) 31 992 Total 35 200 35 476 (276) 34 461 I Sanitation and waste removal Personal services 614 621 (7) 579 Other services and charges 4 000 3 731 269 2 450 I Total 4 614 4 352 262 3 029 Tree maintenance Personal services 7 530 887 6 643 3 004 I Supplies 12 250 13 317 (1 067) 12 946 Total 19 780 14 204 5 576 15 950 I Total public works 445 601 432 759 12 842 433 699 Parks and recreation personal services 82 477 73 595 8 882 82 837 I Supplies 19 150 19 709 (559) 19 006 Other services and charges 23 300 20 982 2 318 25 783 Capital outlay 1 250 1 160 90 974 I Total parks and recreation 126 177 115 446 10 731 128 600 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 986 760 1 922 006 64 754 1 935 443 I EXCESS REVENUE (EXPENDITURES) 324 248 426 003 101 755 555 896 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) I Operating transfers in 50 000 30 000 (20 000) 40 000 Operating transfers out (404 225) (404 225) (601 500) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING I SOURCES (USES) (354 225) (374 225) (20 000) (561 500) EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER I FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES $ (29 977) 51 778 $ 81 755 (5 604) FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 1 497 678 1 503 282 I FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS OUT (5 108) FUND BALANCE, DECEMBER 31 $1 544 348 $1 497 678 I I -32- TillS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I \ \ I II I I 1/ /1 I ~---- II I /1 I I I I ( CITiyOF SlIoREwboD MINN~SOTA " . i.' D.EBT SERVICE FUNDS " '. ',,' ,", / '. . " ,',. . ii, . :....... ",ii"..."." . _, ::// /! Debt service funds are used to ..afcount for the payment of interest land princip~ on long- term general obliga~on debtotl\rrthan dept issued, for and serv,iceg primarily by ~nterprise funds. \,/[ <\ .' ) j- ( 1- I _.~ - - - - ,~- \ __. _ 0_ -...- / \ ,. - .... . . - 1."- \ \ -~. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFt BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals as of December 31, 1994) ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Taxes Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred 1993 Improvement and Refundinq Shorewood Oaks $138 210 $843 180 2 998 28 343 3 755 153 794 8 955 $298 757 $880 478 TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Deferred revenue $ 550 8 955 9 505 TOTAL LIABILITIES 154 492 FUND BALANCE Reserved for debt service 870 973 144 265 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $ 298 757 $ 880 478 -33- I I Waterford III Tax Increment I I $ 19 872 2 162 176 I I $ 22 210 I $ I 22 210 I $ 22 210 I I I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit B-1 I 1991 Shady Hills Improvement Storm Sewer and Total I Improvement Refundinq 1995 1994 $ 5 681 $364 298 $1 371 241 $1 445 419 I 212 2 374 854 24 11 036 42 577 37 806 8 427 12 182 12 134 I 336 122 498 871 615 823 $ 5 917 $719 883 $1 927 245 $2 112 036 I $ $ $ 550 $ I 139 ,343 377 506 963 626 457 139 343 377 507 513 626 457 I 5 778 376 506 1 419 732 1 485 579 I $ 5 917 $719 883 $1 927 245 $2 U2 036 I I I I I I I I I -34- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA DEBT SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1994) 1993 Improvement and Refundinq Shorewood Oaks Waterford III Tax Increment REVENUE General property taxes Property tax credits Special assessments Interest on investments $ $ $ 22 548 13 319 40 4 n 80 997 6277 293 TOTAL REVENUE 53 790 22 841 87 274 EXPENDITURES Debt Service Principal Interest and service charges FUND BALANCE, JANUARY 1 40 000 80 000 13 080 44 394 898 53 080 124 394 898 34 194 (70 604) 21 943 110 on 941 577 267 TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS REVENUE (EXPENDITURES) FUND EQUITY TRANSFER IN FUND EQUITY TRANSFER OUT FUND BALANCE, DECEMBER 31 $ 870 973 $ 22 210 $144 265 -35- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TIllS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I , \ \.." ) 1'".\ I I I I I I I I I I 'I'.,.' CITY OF!SHOREWQOD, MINNES01:J\. ;',' '\ " " . CAj!IT4t\PROJECTS FUNI)S . )' Capital projects funds are.. used' to~~ount for tlte. ,\cquisition and co~struction Of~j~'capita1 / f~ilities other thaI\ thos~ /finap.ced by enterprise funds. .. , ! Ca,pital Improvem~nt~Fund"/Thisc fudd was established to.. account for v~ious capital improvementproj~cts!which may be/finap.ced witho~Jhe need to issue bonds. , .i,(' 'I t/' ',:.." i . 'I ,Park Capital. Improvelrl~nt lftl'nd. - This fun?~ccounts.for park land acquisition and 'Ioth~r capital improvementsjn the City parks. '. ' Equipment Re~l~cement Fund - This fund was established for the purpose of funding .the replaceme~t,ofcapitill equipment. . . / ' .! " '\ j ....... ", , . ,....\: ! Street Reconstruction Fund - This! fund was ,estab]jshed . for the purpose or ~nding the periodic reconstruction ,of Ci~y streets and roadway~., !. .,!' .( \ .,', .... .' I ". '. / . . '. .' MSA Con~truction Fund - This fund waS\cstablished to\a~count for" the '~wnulalion ,,of Municipal State Aid (MSA) to fund the periodic teconstruction of MSA d~ignated roads. , '-', '--- .. " :,' .. --,-" "...., , " . ,,_/ \\.' .. """', '\;,-, :';',\, / "j Trail Capital Impro~ent, Fl1nd - 1(1;1is (fund was establish'oo t~ account for trail ~tensions and htiprovem~nts. ., . I ! I , ." . '\, " - \..,'/../',; \"'. " ;.. ':'" ;',: .. .. ". .. .. \ 1995 Manor .Park"Improvement Fund -This fund ,was established to accqunt fOt- the construction;of improvements in/Manor PaiR. ' , / ,I ' 1995 Freeman Park Ifu~rovement ,Fund-'/Thisfund was establis4~<lt9caccQunt !for the · construction of improvements in FteemanPark.' I. '.j. \ . . I. /) .' . " .' ." " ' Senior Community \ Center Fund - This fund was established to account for the construction of a Senior Community Center. 'i ..~. ~'" ' ,-' " ' \ ,,:', ' , i: <';: ' : i", ,;- Silverwood Park. Improvelllent 'Fund - This fund was establislled t9'/acco~\ for th~ construction of imp(Ove~ents iIySi~verwoQd Park. ; ! \. ,', \, ". . \, ' , ,';, ,', :."\ , ./ Citr Hall Parkin&: Lot Fund .7This fund was',establish~dto account for .the reconstruction of {heCityHall~gLo~. .'. " / '. ...' /' . '" , . \ ,I '. /. /'_.__ .; .." ,,':.....:\ ...., :' '.," " ',., ..'.... Seasons Improvem~nts. Fund - This fund was established to account for the construction of street and utility improyements for the Seasons El<ierly Hovsing Project. ".Manor~ark Warrri.in&:':\!Hou~e Fund - This fund was establishrd,) to.acSbunt".for Ithe construction of a warmIn$' house In Manpt Park. The fulld was closed by an: eqUIty transf% ,to the Park Capital Improvement Fund in 1995.. .,' '.. . . ". \ '. , " I \ '.' .... Island. Dry Hydrant Improvep1,~nt Fund - This" fuJ;1d was eStablished)o account for . the construction ,of dry fIre hydran~s qn iEnchanted and Shady Islands: An equity transfer fr6m the (}eneral Fund to cover a deficit effectively closefHhis fun~ in '1995. . ". .' '. . ..,. I ; .', ( 'Vine q:m Improvem~nt Fund I - This fund was estab)ished to accouJ;1t, for tbe City's. costs associated with ~e .Minn~sota Department of Transportation's improvement'of the/intersection\ at Yinr Hill Road and Highwar 7;. . . , /,. """', -",',' / ,'/<- "', Ol~\ Mark~t Road Trail Fu~4.,. This! fund was creat~d to account for the construction of. a trail ~ong Old Market Ro~d! .' . ...., I CatbcartPark Improvements Fund- This; )fund was established to account for construction of improvements in Cathcart Park. I, I \ i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals as of December 31, 1994) ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred Due from other funds TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Refundable deposits payable Deferred revenue Due to other funds TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT) Jnreserved Designated Undesignated TOTAL FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT) TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE Capital Improvements $ 76 252 2 992 684 1 066 1 951 $ 82 945 $ ]. 705 1 705 81 240 81 240 $ 82 945 -37- Park Capital Improvement $ 81 369 6 082 5 910 $ 93 361 $ 93 361 93 361 $ 93 361 Equipment Reolacement $132 348 6 199 $138 547 $ 7 899 7 899 130 648 130 648 $138 547 I I I Street Reconstruction I $ 864 894 27 455 I 58 732 $ 951 081 I I $ 19 013 I I 19 013 932 068 I 932 068 I $ 951 081 I I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit C-1 Continued I I MSA Construction Trail Capital Improvements 1995 Manor Park Improvement 1995 Freeman Park Improvement Senior Community Center Silverwood Park Gradinq $131 319 $ 46 927 $ $ 23 995 $ $ 1 177 5 464 3 936 2 174 44 I I I I 18 924 $140 719 $ 68 025 $ $ 24 039 $ ~ 1 177 $ 1 046 $ $ $ $ $ 25 150 5 910 1 951 5 910 27 101 1 046 I I 139 673 68 025 24 039 1 177 (5 910) (27 101) 139 673 68 025 (5 910) 24 039 (27 101) 1 177 $140 719 $ 68 025 $ $ 24 039 $ $ 1 177 I I I I I I I I -38- Continued CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET - CONTINUED DECEMBER 31, 1995 comparative totals as of December 31, 1994) (With City Hall Parking Lot ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred Due from other funds $ 13 120 TOTAL ASSETS $ 13 120 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Refundable deposits payable Deferred revenue Due to other funds $ 13 682 TOTAL LIABILITIES 13 682 FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT) Unreserved Designated Undesignated (562) TOTAL FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT) (562 ) TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE $ 13 120 -39- Season Improvements $ $ $ 473 58 732 59 205 (59 205) (59 205) $ Manor Park Warming House $ $ $ $ I I I Island Dry Hydrant Pro;ect I $ I I $ I $ I I I I $ I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit C-l Continued I Old Cathcart Vine Hill Market Road Park Total I Improvement Trail Improvements 1995 1994 $ 1 017 $ $ 20 398 $1 392 816 $1 103 722 I 5 464 28 100 48 882 35 162 684 5 779 I 1 066 2 667 85 517 140 259 $ 1 017 $ $ 20 398 $1 534 429 $1 315 689 I I $ 63 $ 2 894 $ 150 $ 45 220 $ 9 659 25 150 1 705 6 676 I 18 924 85 517 140 259 63 21 818 150 157 592 156 594 I 954 20 248 1 491 433 1 279 718 (21 818) (114 596) (120 623) I 954 (21 818) 20 248 1 376 837 1 159 095 I $ 1 017 $ $ 20 398 $1 534 429 $1 315 689 I I I I I I I -40- 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1994) REVENUE Intergovernmental Special assessments Interest on investments Other Park dedication fees Donations Other Capital Improvements Park Capital Improvement $ $ 16 000 6 517 3 108 10 344 20 250 528 TOTAL REVENUE 9 625 47 122 EXPENDITURES Capital outlay Personal services Other services and charges Professional services Construction costs Capital outlay TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS REVENUE (EXPENDITURES) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers in Operating transfers out 9 625 47 122 5 000 40 000 (20 000) (143 000) (15 000) (103 000) TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER (USES) (5 375) (55 878) FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT), JANUARY 1 86 615 147 898 FUND EQUITY TRANSFER IN 1 341 FUND EQUITY TRANSFER OUT FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT), DECEMBER 31 $ 81 240 $ 93 361 -41- 1 .1 Equipment Replacement Street Reconstruction 1 $ $ 9 943 1 1 1 1 44 141 3 728 13 671 44 141 19 013 196 592 15 141 196 !;j92 34 154 (182 921) 9 987 99 225 250 000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 99 225 250 000 (83 696) 259 987 214 344 672 081 $130 648 $ 932 068 1 1 1 I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE - CONTINUED YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1994) I Season Improvements Manor Park Warming House I City Hall Parking Lot Island Dry Hydrant Pro;ect I REVENUE Intergovernmental Special assessments Interest on investments Other Park dedication fees Donations Other $ 50 $ $ $ (436) I I TOTAL REVENUE (386) EXPENDITURES Capital outlay Personal services Other services and charges Professional services Construction costs Capital outlay I 1 023 11 830 473 I TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12 853 473 I EXCESS REVENUE (EXPENDITURES) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) Operating transfers in Operating transfers out (13 239) (473) 20 000 I TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) 20 000 I EXCESS REVENUE AND OTHER FINANCING SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER (USES) FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT), JANUARY 1 6 761 (473) (58 732) I FUND EQUITY TRANSFER IN 5 108 I I (7 323) 1 341 (5 108) FUND EQUITY TRANSFER OUT (1 341) FUND BALANCE (DEFICIT), DECEMBER 31 $ (562) $ (59 205) $ $ I I I I -43- Continued I THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I I I .- 'I I I )1 I I I , I I I " //"""'- .. .', .. I ',: / "\ , CITY OF SHOREWqOD, MlNNESOTA 1/ , I I ENTERPRI~E FUNDS En~rprise funds arel"used to, ~ccount for operations that are finance~an(l()perated in a manner similc:gtopriVate business, }Vhere the costs of providing servl~esto the g~nera1 public are firianced primarily througltuser charges. / " ",'.. .. Wa,ter Fund - this fundis use~to acc~unt forJ~eactiviti~ of the City water syst~m. , , '. Se~er Fund - Thi~ fupd ~s used to adcountfortheactivitiesof the City sanitary \~Wer -sy~teq1. " \1/" I, ( ',,, / \j/ "'> ',,' '\ ' \ /( I ( / , i.. / ',i .' :'" ,:/" i _', " ~ecyclin~ Fu~d - This fund is use~ to account for tpe activities of the c~tyi rec~c1~g program. ! i I, \! ' \1 \, - ,. , ~tormwater Maf1'il~ement' Utility' Fund - This fund is used to account for" the 4ctivities of the City ,Stormwater Management ~ysteIU; --,' " ',....', , ,. ., - :,-- LiquorFuhd/-Thi~,fund1,is used to acc6unt"fortpeactivities of the ,City's &I-sale liquof oper~tion. Tile operation \consisted of three o:ff-~aJ.e liquor store sites/in 1995. kstpre whi<;h was c1osedtemporarily in January, 1,994 ,due )to a state/highway project was ~e, oP,en,'e,' d in; a dif,fe" ~~"Ilt loca, tion"",in',F, ~bruary", ,", L,995. .In add, i,tion", a store loca, tiO, n was ~dded" m December, 1994; when the,City.asstUll;ed the management of the ToIlka Bay Ltq}lor Store. / A portion' of the Ilet incolUe~enerated by the operation is usedto ,fun9. / gene~ fund activities. ' '\ ' I / \. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 3 774 3 128 2 598 277 1 136 923 3 798 669 7 465 289 (754 231) (3 933 596) 3 044 438 3 531 693 11 799 $5 654 514 $4 668 616 3 716 216 4 317 318 (145 490) 342 202 3 570 726 4 659 520 $5 654 514 $4 668 616 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMBINING BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals as of December 31, 1994) Water ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred Due from other funds Inventories, at cost prepaid items $1 789 611 $ 502 37 996 19 806 746 588 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER ASSETS Bond discount, net of amortization TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable Deferred revenue Due to other funds CUrrent portion of long-term debt $ 148 624 $ 164 15 000 163 788 1 920 000 2 083 788 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Bonds payable less current portion above TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND EQUITY Contributed capital Retained earnings (deficit) - unreserved TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY -45- Sewer 878 824 181 414 26 164 13 051 34 342 1 444 59 7 593 9 096 9 096 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sewer I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1994) Water OPERATING REVENUE Sales Less cost of sales $ GROSS PROFIT Charges for services Permits and connection fees 190 100 8 466 198 566 5 823 4 180 7 906 79 617 32 048 43 550 1 058 3 918 12 073 38 271 GROSS PROFIT AND REVENUE OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services Supplies Repairs and maintenance Depreciation Professional services Contracted services Communication Insurance Water purchases Utilities Metropolitan Waste Control Commission disposal charges Rent Advertising Other INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE TRANSFERS 15 142 243 586 (45 020) 17 506 36 397 8 112 (3 001) 59 014 13 994 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) General property taxes Interest on investments Other income ( expense) Interest expense TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) OPERATING TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS NET INCOME (LOSS) 13 994 RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT), JANUARY 1 RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFER IN (159 484) RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFER OUT $ (145 490) $ 342 202 RETAINED EARNINGS (DEFICIT), DECEMBER 31 -47- $ 679 832 28 741 708 573 6 088 1 563 7 855 185 401 8 482 39 840 261 5 018 4 252 446 113 1 455 706 328 2 245 39 006 39 006 41 251 41 251 300 951 I I Exhibit D-2 I Stormwater Management Liauor Fund Total Recyclinq Utility Tanka Bay Store I Store II 1995 1994 I $ $ $439 104 $373 862 $660 437 $1 473 403 $ 773 132 (345 540) (294 916) (524 565) (1 165 021) (615 640) 93 564 78 946 135 872 308 382 157 492 I 46 883 44 336 961 151 964 404 37 207 154 512 I 46 883 44 336 93 564 78 946 135 872 1 306 740 1 276 408 924 10 548 57 128 59 233 59 742 199 486 121 858 I 6 109 1 050 2 828 5 743 21 473 10 009 729 16 490 19 974 7 055 2 510 274 583 261 896 1 011 40 1 011 42 592 38 784 I 68 810 13 625 1 440 583 780 168 628 194 710 1 319 1 301 3 676 3 185 6 367 22 164 16 276 12 073 16 913 I 7 592 8 973 8 704 67 792 50 922 446 113 730 268 I 13 258 48 821 30 784 92 863 30 557 2 606 3 396 3 592 9 594 6 594 2 42~ 3 534 2 743 25 295 40 666 I 69 734 31 011 90 182 137 648 121 976 1 400 465 1 540 728 (22 851) 13 325 3 382 (58 702) 13 896 (93 725) (264 320) I 17 506 18 689 1 475 4 647 509 14 2 317 84 365 64 551 2 29 8 143 78 391 I (3 001) (4 035) 1 475 4 647 511 14 2 346 107 013 157 596 I (21 376) 17 972 3 893 (58 688) 16 242 13 288 (106 724) 10 000 170 000 180 000 10 000 I (150 000) (50 000) (200 000) (80 600) (21 376) 27 972 (146 107) 111 312 (33 758) (6 712 ) (177 324) I 44 445 73 278 234 403 198 777 692 370 869 694 232 604 I (232 604) $ 23 069 $101 250 $ 88 296 $111 312 $165 019 $ 685 658 - $ 692 370 I I -48- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ENTERPRISE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 (With comparative totals for the year ended December 31, 1994) Water CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income (loss) Other income related to operations Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization (Increase) decrease in assets - Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Due from other funds Inventory Prepaid items Increase (decrease) in liabilities - Accounts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable Deferred revenue Due to other funds $ Sewer (45 020) $ 2 245 8 112 79 932 62 1 063 (12 224) 8 067 (611) 142 907 154 CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 182 442 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfers to other funds Operating transfers from other funds CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Issuance of bonds, net of discount Bond principal paid Interest paid on revenue bonds Acquisition of property and equipment Property taxes levied for debt service Special assessments paid Fund equity transfer in Fund equity transfer out 185 401 5 628 (5 657) (5 178) 1 265 (38 661) 49 7 593 152 685 1 908 250 (15 000) (3 001) (728 495) (1 1.66) 1.7 506 1.04 662 CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES 1 283 922 (1 166) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments 36 397 39 006 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 1 502 761 190 525 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 286 850 688 299 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 $1 789 611 $878 824 NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Property and equipment acquired from other funds Disposal of property and equipment $ TOTAL NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES $ -49- $ 81 675 $ 81 675 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit 0-3 I Stormwater Management Liauor Fund Total Recyclinq Utility Tonka Bay Store I Store II 1995 1994 ,I $ (22 851) $ 13 325 $ 3 382 $(58 702) $ 13 896 $ (93 725) $ (264 320) 2 29 8 143 78 391 I 7 055 2 510 274 898 261 896 62 (110) 14 367 1 352 22 410 (38 277) I (61) (1 208) 3 958 (1 483) 1 173 (15 502) (14 819) 10 (731) 2 168 (266) (34 411) (34 411) 4 712 (98 981) (9 763) (104 032) (4 519) I (2 594) (3 667) 1 304 (4 303) 3 787 (4 370) 13 625 (28 366) 25 428 2 204 112 767 7 491 45 2 1 438 (439) 1 249 (182) I 7 593 34 411 34 411 (12 905) 26 408 (18 904) (94 501) (23 497) 211 728 29 072 I (150 000) (50 000) (200 000) (80 600) I 10 000 170 000 180 000 10 000 10 000 (150 000) 170 000 (50 000) (20 000) (70 600) I 1 908 250 I (15 000) (15 000) (3 001) (4 035) (75 513) (362 ) (805 536) (23 984) 17 506 18 689 I 104 662 232 604 (232 604) I (75 513) (362) 1 206 881 (24 330) I 1 475 4 647 509 14 2 317 84 365 64 551 (11 430) 41 055 (168 395) (71 542) 1 482 974 (1 307) I 30 813 57 194 229 885 105 202 1 398 243 1 399 550 $ 19 383 $ 98 249 $ 61 490 $ $ 33 660 $2 881 217 $1 398 243 I $ $ $ $ $ $ 81 675 $ 206 464 (24 917) I $ $ $ $ $ $ 81 675 $ 181 547 I -50- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA WATER FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Deferred Prepaid items TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT OTHER ASSETS Bond discount, net of amortization TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable CUrrent portion of long-term debt TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES LONG-TERM LIABILITIES Bonds payable less current portion above TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND EQUITY Contributed capital Retained deficit TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY -51- Exhibit D-4 I I I 1995 1994 $1 789 611 $ 286 850 502 564 37 996 39 059 19 806 7 582 746 588 8 067 3 774 3 163 2 598 277 345 285 3 798 669 3 070 174 (754 231) (674 614) 3 044 438 2 395 560 11 799 364 $5 654 514 $2 741 209 I I I I I I $ 148 624 $ 5 717 164 10 15 000 15 000 163 788 20 727 1 920 000 15 000 2 083 788 35 727 3 716 216 2 864 966 (145 490) (159 484) 3 570 726 2 705 482 $5 654 514 $2 741 209 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit D-5 WATER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED DEFICIT YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 1995 1994 OPERATING REVENUE Charges for services $ 190 100 $ 184 204 Permits and connection fees 8 466 78 688 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 198 566 262 892 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services 5 823 7 989 Supplies 4 180 5 027 Repairs and maintenance 7 906 10 379 Depreciation 79 617 77 040 Professional services 32 048 5 661 Contracted services 43 550 52 726 Communication 1 058 1 099 Insurance 3 918 4 269 Water purchases 12 073 16 913 Utilities 38 271 36 967 Other 15 142 18 149 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 243 586 236 219 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) (45 020) 26 673 OTHER REVENUE (EXPENSES) General property taxes 17 506 18 689 Interest on investments 36 397 12 535 Other income 8 112 7 200 Interest expense (3 001) (4 035) TOTAL OTHER REVENUE (EXPENSES) 59 014 34 389 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE TRANSFERS 13 994 61 062 OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS (34 600) NET INCOME (LOSS) 13 994 26 462 RETAINED DEFICIT, JANUARY 1 <159 484) (185 946) RETAINED DEFICIT, DECEMBER 31 $(145 490) $(159 484) -52- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA WATER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 Exhibit D-6 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income (loss) Other income related to operations Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation and amortization (Increase) decrease in assets - Taxes Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Prepaid items Increase (d~crease) in liabilities - Accounts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable 1995 1994 $ (45 020) $ 26 673 8 112 7 200 79 932 77 040 62 (110) 1 063 (4 492) (12 224) (3 457) 8 067 1 933 (611) 124 142 907 (1 066) 1~4 (115) 182 442 103 730 (34 600) CASH FLOWS PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfers to other funds CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Issuance of bonds, net of discount Bond principal paid Interest paid on revenue bonds Acquisition of property and equipment Property taxes levied for debt service Special assessments paid 1 908 250 (15 000) (3 001) (728 495) 17 506 104 662 (15 000) (4 035) (11 857) 18 689 CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES 1 283 922 (12 203) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments 36 397 12 535 INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 1 502 761 69 462 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 286 850 217 388 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 $1 789 611 $286 850 NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Property and equipment acquired from other funds $ $108 356 -53- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA SEWER FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 I I I I I I ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred Prepaid items TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT I AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL ASSETS I I LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable Deferred revenue TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES I FUND EQUITY Contributed capital Retained earnings - unreserved I I I I TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY I I I I -54- Exhibit D-7 1995 1994 $ 878 824 $ 688 299 181 414 187 042 26 164 20 507 13 051 12 081 34 342 30 134 3 128 4 393 1 136 923 942 456 7 465 289 7 382 448 (3 933 596) (3 748 195) 3 531 693 3 634 253 $4 668 616 $4 576 709 $ 1 444 $ 40 105 59 10 7 593 9 096 40 115 4 317 318 4 235 643 342 202 300 951 4 659 520 4 536 594 $4 668 616 $4 576 709 I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit D-8 I SEWER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 OPERATING REVENUE Charges for services Permits and connection fees 1995 $ 679 832 28 741 TOTAL OPERATING REVENUE 708 573 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services Supplies Repairs and maintenance Depreciation Professional services Contracted services Conununication Insurance Utilities MWCC charges Other 6 088 1 563 7 855 185 401 8 482 39 840 261 5 018 4 252 446 113 1 455 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 706 328 2 245 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) Interest on investments Other income 39 006 TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) INCOME (LOSS.) BEFORE OPERATING TRANSFERS 39 006 41 251 OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS NET INCOME (LOSS) 41 251 RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 300 951 $ 342 202 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 -55- 1994 $ 668 530 75 824 744 354 10 413 1 234 9 595 183 500 23 709 56 220 202 4 899 4 152 730 268 17 304 1 041 496 (297.142) 30 425 30 351 60 776 (236 366.) (6 000.) (242 366.) 543 317 $ 300 951 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA SEWER FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 I I CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income (loss) Other income related to operations Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation (Increase) decrease in assets - Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Prepaid items Increase (decrease) in liabilities - Accounts payable Salaries and compensated absences payable Deferred revenue I I I I CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES I CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfer to other funds CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Acquisition of property and equipment I CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments I INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS I CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS I JANUARY 1 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 I NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Property and equipment acquired from other funds I I I I I I -56- 1995 $ 2 245 185 401 5 628 (5 657) (5 178) 1 265 (38 661) 49 7 593 152 685 Exhibit D-9 1994 $ (297 142) 30 351 183 500 (32 424) (5 606) (1 546) (373) 5 648 (152) (n7 744) (6 000) (1 166) 39 006 30 425 190 525 (93 319) 688 299 781 618 $ 878 824 $ 688 299 $ 81 675 $ 98 108 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RECYCLING FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable FUND EQUITY Retained earn~ngs - unreserved TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY -57- I Exhibit D-10 I 1995 1994 $ 19 383 $ 30 813 1 971 16 338 1 006 945 247 201 462 518 $ 23 069 $ 48 815 I I I I $ $ 4 370 23 069 44 445 $ 23 069 $ 48 815 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit D-ll RECYCLING FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 1995 1994 OPERATING REVENUE Charges for services $ 46 883 $ 67 605 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services 924 673 Supplies 369 Contracted services 68 810 68 002 Other 1 160 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 69 734 70 204 OPERATING LOSS (22 851) (2 599) NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) Interest on investments 1 475 1 767 NET LOSS (21 376) (832) RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 44 445 45 277 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 $ 23 069 $ 44 445 -58- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RECYCLING FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating loss Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to net cash used by operating activities: (Increase) decrease in assets - Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Increase (decrease) in liabilities - Accounts payable CASH FLOWS USED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments DECREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 -59- Exhibit 0-12 I I I I I I I I I I I 1995 1994 $ (22 851) $ (2 599) 14 367 (238 ) (61) (602) 10 (71) (4 370) 402 (12 905) (3 108) 1 475 1 767 (11 430) (1 341) 30 813 32 154 $ 19 383 $ 30 813 I I I I I I I I I I I ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and investments Receivables Accounts Accrued interest Special assessments Delinquent Deferred I I I TOTAL ASSETS CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 I LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable Salaries payable I TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES I FUND EQUITY Retained earnings TOTAL LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS I I I I I I I I I I -60- Exhibit D-13 1995 1994 $ 98 249 $ 57 194 11 974 13 326 2 775 1 567 403 122 1 519 1 069 $114 920 $ 73 278 $ 13 625 45 13 670 101 250 $114 920 $ 73 278 $ 73 278 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit D-14 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31,1995 AND 1994 1995 1994 OPERATING REVENUE Charges for services $ 44 336 $ 44 065 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services 10 548 1 622 Supplies 6 109 Repair and maintenance 729 Professional services 2 819 Contracted services 13 625 17 347 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 31 011 21 788 OPERATING INCOME 13 325 22 277 NONOPERATING REVENUE Interest on investments 4 647 3 112 INCOME BEFORE OPERATING TRANSFERS 17 972 25 389 OPERATING TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 10 000 10 000 NET INCOME 27 972 35 389 RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 73 278 37 889 RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 $101 250 $ 73 278 -61- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 Exhibit D-15 1995 1994 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income $ 13 325 $ 22 277 Adjustments to reconcile operating income to net cash provided by operating activities: (Increase) decrease in assets - Accounts 1 352 (1 123) Accrued interest (1 208) (1 338) Special assessments (731) (582) Increase (decrease) in liabilities - Accounts payable 13 625 Salaries payable 45 (63) CASH FLOWS PROVIDED BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES 26 408 19 171 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfers from other funds 10 000 10 000 CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments 4 647 3 112 INCREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS 41 055 32 283 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 57 194 24 911 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS I DECEMBER 31 $ 98 249 $ 57 194 -62- Store I 1995 1994 $ $ 1 483 98 981 3 667 104 131 75 513 (7 055) 68 458 $172 589 $ CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FlJ'ND COMPARATIVE BALANCE SHEETS DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash and investments Accrued interest receivable Due from other funds Inventories, at cost Prepaid items Tonka Bay 1995 1994 $ 61 490 $229 885 2 867 6 825 42 351 47 063 2 594 109 302 283 773 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, AT COST LESS ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION TOTAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT TOTAL ASSETS $109 302 $283 773 LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts and contracts payable $ 19 980 $ 48 346 $ 25 428 $ Salaries and compensated absences payable 1 026 1 024 1 438 Due to other funds 34 411 TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 21 006 49 370 61 277 RETAINED EARNINGS Unreserved 88 296 234 403 111 312 TOTAL LIABILITIES AND RETAINED EARNINGS $109 302 $283 773 $172 589 $ -63- Exhibit D-16 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit D-17 LIQUOR FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF REVENUE, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN RETAINED EARNINGS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 Tonka Bay Store I 1995 1994 1995 1994 OPERATING REVENUE Sales $439 104 $ 25 073 $373 862 $ 23 945 Less cost of sales (345 540) (19 187) (294 916) (21 901) GROSS PROFIT 93 564 5 886 78 946 2 044 OPERATING EXPENSES Personal services 57 128 2 865 59 233 3 342 Supplies 1 050 2 828 10 Depreciation 7 055 Professional services 1 011 40 4 810 Contracted services 1 440 583 Insurance 3 676 3 185 1 148 Utilities 7 592 8 973 931 Rent 13 258 655 48 821 273 Advertising 2 606 3 396 263 Other 2 421 567 3 534 250 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 90 182 4 087 137 648 11 027 OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 3 382 1 799 (58 702) (8 983) NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) Interest on investments 509 14 11 330 Other income (expense) 2 40 420 TOTAL NONOPERATING REVENUE (EXPENSES) 511 14 51 750 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE TRANSFERS 3 893 1 799 (58 688) 42 767 OPERATING TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS 170 000 OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS (150 000) (16 000) NET INCOME (LOSS) (146 107) 1 799 111 312 26 767 RETAINED EARNINGS, JANUARY 1 234 403 205 837 FUND EQUITY TRANSFER IN 232 604 FUND EQUITY TRANSFER OUT (232 604) RETAINED EARNINGS, DECEMBER 31 $ 88 296 $234 403 $111 312 $ -65- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA LIQUOR FUND COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 Exhibit D-18 Tonka Bay Store I 1995 1994 1995 1994 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Operating income (loss) $ 3 382 $ 1 799 $(58 702) $ (8 983) Other income (expense) related to operations 2 40 420 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation 7 055 (Increase) decrease in assets - Accrued interest 3 958 (6 825) (1 483) 3 756 Due from other funds Inventory 4 712 (47 063) (98 981) 35 780 Prepaid items (2 594) (3 667) 2 612 Increase (decrease) in liabilities - Accounts payable (28 366) 48 346 25 428 (35 145) Salaries and compensated absences payable 2 1 024 1 438 (954) Due to other funds 34 411 CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY OPERATING ACTIVITIES (18 904) (2 719) (94 501) 37 486 CASH FLOWS FROM NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES Operating transfers from other funds 170 000 Operating transfers to other funds (150 000) (16 000) CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY NONCAPITAL FINANCING ACTIVITIES (150 000) 170 000 (16 000) CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Fund equity transfer in 232 604 Fund equity transfer out (232 604) Acquisition of property and equipment (75 513) CASH FLOWS PROVIDED (USED) BY CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES 232 604 (75 513) (232 604) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest on investments 509 14 11 330 INCREASE (DECREASE) IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (168 395) 229 885 (199 788) CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, JANUARY 1 229 885 199 788 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS, DECEMBER 31 $ 61 490 $229 885 $ $ NONCASH CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Disposal of property and equipment $ $ $ $(24 917) -67- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ct~pF.sBQRE"'OOP,MINNE~OTA AGENCY FUNDS, .. ... .. \.. .... ..\ Agency funds are established to account for assets heJd by theuCity as an.agent for o~rs. .., Deferred ComRensation Fund - This fund it use4 !o account for employee: payroll\ ~fermen,ts andU1eTela~ed liability, that~edeposited without!Jiide companies in accordance with the provisions of Iptemal R~venue Code Section 457. . \ ! II 1\ I ( -, I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA DEFERRED COMPENSATION AGENCY FUND STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 I I ASSETS Investments for deferred compensation plan, at market I LIABILITIES Deferred compensation funds held for participants I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Balance January 1 $128 979 $128 979 -69- Additions $ 58 430 $ 58 430 Deductions $ $ Exhibit E-1 Balance December 31 $187 409 $187 409 THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I /1 'I II ,I 1\ I I I I I I I I I I I " ' : I " CITY Of SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA i' .', il i' I \ '. ,'......', '/".:' .....;' ,>' "" GENERAL FI~En ASSETS ACCOUNT/GROUP I .. i ( \ General fixed assets are those f1xed~ssets of a governmental jurisdiction. which are not ~ccounted ~or in. an. enterprise :fund. To-be c1~sifie9 as a fixed/asset in this category, a specific piece of property must 'meet three ~ttributes: 1 Tangible nantre 2. A life 10liger thJll1the current fiscal year 3 . A sigrIificant val~ " , ('" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit F-l GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNT GROUP COMPARATIVE SCHEDULES OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS - BY SOURCE DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS Land Buildings and structures Improvements other than buildings Furniture and equipment 1995 1994 $ 456 826 $ 456 826 1 322 073 1 327 073 1 268 345 1 158 271 1 076 774 952 465 $4 124 018 $3 894 635 TOTAL GENERAL FIXED ASSETS INVESTMENT IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS General fund Capital projects funds $1 076 774 $ 952 465 3 047 244 2 942 170 $4 124 018 $3 894 635 TOTAL INVESTMENT IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS -70- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit F-2 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNT GROUP SCHEDULE OF GENERAL FIXED ASSETS - BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY DECEMBER 31, 1995 I Land Buildings and Structures Improvements Other Than Buildinqs Furniture and Equipment I Total I FUNCTION General government $ 664 938 $ $ 305 372 $ 160 086 $ 199 480 Public works 2 135 077 153 500 919 581 184 702 877 294 Parks 1 324 003 303 326 97 120 923 557 TOTAL GENERAL FIXED ASSETS $4 124 018 $456 826 $1 322 073 $1 268 345 $1 076 774 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -71- I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Exhibit F-3 GENERAL FIXED ASSETS ACCOUNT GROUP SCHEDULE OF CHANGES IN GENERAL FIXED ASSETS - BY FUNCTION YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1995 I General Fixed Assets January 1 Additions Deductions General Fixed Assets December 31 I I General government $ 662 200 $ 20 850 $ 18 112 $ 664 938 Public works 2 000 653 289 523 155 099 2 135 077 Parks 1 231 782 97 221 5 000 1 324 003 TOTAL GENERAL FIXED ASSETS $3 894 635 $407 594 $178 211 $4 124 018 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -72- THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I ,I I I I I I I;" I I \ I ~ II I GhY OFSHOImWhQD, ~SO'l'A " \ GENERAt LONG-tE~M!DEBT ACCOUNT (jROUP , \ " ' General :pbligation(b'ond~'aJq other fo~s 9f l~ng-terml\Qebt supported by ge~al reve~ues are ob~igations of a governmental unit a~ a wh0le and not it~ individual const1tuent funds; The arnollnt of !unm~turep long::term i~d~btedness which isfuckediby the full faith and credWofth~ gov~rnmertt'( excluding enterprise fund d~bt) i~ recorded an,d ~c;counted for in a separatesel{-J~alancing accoupt group titled the "Gene~ Long-T~ DebfA-cCQUfltGroup.': / AIso;\ this<debt, group includes certain ~abilities not 'expected; to be liquidated with expen~able availabl~ rmancfal resources. ' \ / ! I, " t I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT ACCOUNT GROUP COMPARATIVE STATEMENTS OF GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT DECEMBER 31, 1995 AND 1994 Exhibit G-1 I 1995 1994 I AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR DEBT SERVICE Debt service funds $1 419 732 $1 485 579 I AMOUNTS TO BE PROVIDED Future tax levies, assessments and tax increments 1 111 631 1 275 755 TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE AND TO BE PROVIDED $2 531 363 $2 761 334 I I GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT PAYABLE Compensated absences payable $ 21 863 $ 20 834 General obligation special assessment bonds 1 589 500 1 820 500 Tax increment revenue bonds 920 000 920 000 TOTAL GENERAL LONG-TERM DEBT PAYABLE $2 531 363 $2 761 334 I I I I I I I I I I I I -73- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF BONDS PAYABLE DECEMBER 31, 1995 Interest Rates SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS G.O. Improvement bonds of 1989 G.O. Improvement bonds of 1991 G.O. Improvement bonds of 1991 G.O. Improvement bonds of 1993 6.25-6.50 5.10-5.85 8.00 3.50-4.45 TOTAL TAX INCREMENT REVENUE BONDS Tax increment revenue bonds of 1991 9.00 REVENUE BONDS G.O. Water Revenue bonds G.O. Water Revenue bonds 8.50 3.90-5.50 TOTAL TOTAL -74- Issue Date 10/1/89 11/1/91 9/1/91 12/1/93 5/1/91 9/1/80 11/1/95 Final Maturity Date I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2/1/03 2/1/02 2/1/97 2/1/04 2/1/00 9/1/96 2/1/11 I I Exhibit H-l Bonds Authorized 12/31/95 and Issued Redeemed Outstandinq $1 095 000 $ 80 000 $ 620 000 960 000 105 000 670 000 31 000 6 000 14 500 325 000 40 000 285 000 2 411 000 231 000 1 589 500 I I I I I I I 920 000 920 000 140 000 15 000 15 000 1 920 000 1 920 000 2 060 000 15 000 1 935 000 $5 391 000 $ 246 000 $4 444 500 I I I I I I I I I I -75- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA SCHEDULE OF DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Total G.O. Bonds Year Principal Interest 1996 $ 426 000 $ 685 242 1997 531 500 225 898 J.998 529 000 J.92 355 1999 524 000 158 634 2000 519 000 124 728 2001 330 000 90 729 2002 315 000 73 480 2003 225 000 59 031 2004 150 000 49 533 2005 125 000 42 965 2006 130 000 36 780 2007 130 000 30 345 2008 125 000 23 907 2009 130 000 J.7 308 2010 130 000 10 385 2011 125 000 3 438 Total $4 444 500 $1 824 758 * Tax increment collections will be remitted to the bond holders and payments will be applied first to accrued interest. -76- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Exhibit I-1 G.O. Special Assessment Tax Increment G.O. Water Bonds Revenue Bonds * Revenue Bonds Principal Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest $ 227 000 $ 83 505 $ 184 000 $532 482 $ 15 000 $ 69 255 222 500 71 455 184 000 66 240 125 000 88 203 215 000 59 510 184 000 49 680 130 000 83 165 215 000 47 543 184 000 33 120 125 000 77 971 205 000 35 650 184 000 16 560 130 000 72 518 200 000 23 964 130 000 66 765 190 000 12 451 125 000 61 029 95 000 3 868 130 000 55 163 20 000 480 130 000 49 053 125 000 42 965 130 000 36 780 130 000 30 345 125 000 23 907 130 000 17 308 130 000 10 385 125 000 3 438 $1 589 500 $338 426 $920 000 $698 082 $1 935 000 $788 250 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -77- THIS PAGE HAS BEEN I I I I I I I I . I I I I I I I I I I I LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I I- I I I I .1 i '\ I,. I I I I I I I I I I " .. : . CITY\OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESO.TA ,: ',' .'; I, .. .. SECTION III STATISTICAL SEGTJ9N ,. \ ... .. .' / .. <y~ I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES BY FUNCTION LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Table 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Fiscal Total General Public Public parks and Mise! Year ExPenditures Governm~nt Safety works Recreation Transfers 1986 $1 400 755 $419 658 $410 016 $522 066 $ 49 015 $ 1987 1 651 927 569 098 481 603 532 902 68 324 1988 1 898 594 646 923 523 717 669 990 57 964 1989 1 794 684 610 659 503 542 570 981 83 502 26 000 1990 2 065 011 616 929 532 658 799 543 115 881 1991 2 241 78~ 665 152 548 343 375 406 142 168 510 712 1992 2 301 950 654 085 571 077 434 015 116 173 526 600 1993 2 184 260 668 410 580 153 436 224 119 473 380 000 1994 2 536 943 755 097 618 047 433 699 128 600 601 500 1995 2 326 231 723 098 650 703 432 759 115 446 404 225 I I I I -78- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND OTHER SOURCES BY SOURCE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Table 2 Total General Licenses Fiscal General Fund Property and Inter- Year Revenues Taxes Permits Governmental Fines Miscellaneous 1986 $1 652 307 $1 040 984 $117 050 $356 308 $ 70 678 $ 67 287 1987 1 837 056 993 086 282 100 364 022 103 785 94 063 1988 1 984 148 1 087 099 330 408 368 288 91 385 106 968 1989 1 976 961 1 118 886 207 129 405 022 105 244 140 680 1990 2 367 995 1 437 140 203 828 273 780 124 234 329 013 1991 2 237 115 1 627 874 168 560 153 681 101 200 185 800 1992 2 307 389 1 576 158 175 123 283 689 89 960 182 459 1993 2 429 910 1 515 633 247 557 426 102 70 1.35 1.70 483 1994 2 531 339 1 487 398 256 243 441 040 73 998 272 660 1995 2 378 009 1 489 822 184 857 440 720 68 765 193 845 -79- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Table 3 PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS (1) Collection Collection Percentage of Current Percentage of Prior of Total Fiscal Total Year's of Levy Year's Total Collections Year Levy LeVY Collected LeVY Collections to LeVY 1986 $1 209 261 $1 168 941 96.67% $42 690 $1 211 631 100.20% 1987 1 254 420 1 211 819 96.60 32 265 1 244 084 99.18 1988 1 293 689 1 236 536 95.58 27 898 1 264 434 97.74 1989 1 300 881 1 249 332 96.04 46 405 1 295 737 99.61 1990 1 684 576 1 602 385 95.12 48 448 1 650 833 98.00 1991 1 856 988 *1 793 402 96.58 41 801 1 835 203 98.83 1992 1 864 577 1 819 238 97.57 55 917 1 875 155 100.57 1993 1 932 454 1 908 428 98.76 51 464 1 959 892 101.42 1994 1 518 735 1 505 212 99.11 13 886 1 519 098 100.02 1995 1 518 108 1 501 389 98.90 13 999 1 515 388 99.82 (1) Includes state paid property tax credits Includes $66,971 state aid reduction from the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid. * Prior to 1994, tax levies included the amount of Homestead and Agriculture Credit Aid (HACA) to be received from the State. Legislation passed in 1993 required that, beginning with taxes levied for collection in 1994, tax levies shall be reported net of the HACA received from the state. As a result, the taxes levied more accurately reflect the amount of taxation by the local government. -80- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA ASSESSED VALUATION, TAX LEVIES AND MILL RATES (shown by year of tax collectibility) I I Taxable valuation/ Total tax capacity 1995 1994 1993 1992 (1) & (2) (1) & (2) (1) & (2) (1) & (2) $8 045 468 $7 396 104 $7 092 917 $7 681 118 (185 232) (205 973) (227 686) (21.2 697) 310 337 375 309 396 081. 390 694 (22 195) (31 7) $8 148 378 $7 565 123 $7 261. 31.2 $7 859 J.1.5 I Assessed valuation/ Tax capacity Contribution to fiscal disparities pool Receivable from fiscal disparities pool Tax increment I I I Total (3) $1 4n 990 $1. 491 888 $1 909 253 $1. 840 663 26 118 26 847 23 201. 23 91.4 $1. 518 108 $1. 518 735 $1 932 454 $1. 864 577 I Tax levies General Debt service I Mill rates/Tax Capacity Rate General Debt service Total 18.256 Rate 1.9.655 Rate 20.638 Rate 19.995 Rate .215 .249 .159 .169 18.471 Rate 19.904 Rate 20.797 Rate 20.164 Rate I I I (1) As a result of 1988 legislation assessed valuation has been replaced by tax capacity valuations. It is calculated based upon a state mandated computation from the estimated market value. The term, mill rate, has been replaced with the term, tax capacity rate, as a result of the 1988 legislation. 1986-1988 information is stated in terms of assessed valuation and mill rates. 1.989-1995 information is stated in terms of tax capacity and tax capacity rates. I (2) The debt service levy includes $8,568 for 1995, $8,022 for 1.994, $8,526 for 1993 and $8,414 for 1992, levied for the retirement of Storm Sewer District No. 2 improvement bonds. Storm Sewer District No. 2 was established by the City of Shorewood in 1991. This portion of the debt service tax levy is only levied within Storm Sewer District No.2 to retire the $31,000 bond issue used to finance the improvements within the District and is not reflected in the tax rates above. Table 5 reports the tax rate of this District separately. I I I (3) Prior to 1994, tax levies included the amount of Homestead and Agriculture Credit Aid (HACA) to be received from the State. Legislation passed in 1993 required that, beginning with taxes levied for collection in 1994, tax levies shall be reported net of the HACA received from the state. As a result, the taxes levied more accurately reflect the amount of taxation by the local government. I I -81- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 4 J.99J. 1990 J.989 1988 J.987 J.986 (J.) $7 909 OOJ. $7 033 863 $7 705 3J.4 $55 69J. 698 $52 274 820 $50 700 422 (227 257) (209 J.64) (2 J.8 604) (J. 699 452) (J. 457 783) (J. 420 050) 388 595 372 707 347 288 2 597 6J.J. 2 242 637 J. 934 25J. $8 070 339 $7 197 406 $7 833 998 $56 589 857 $53 059 674 $5J. 214 623 $J. 840 663 $J. 667 45J. $J. 282 956 $ J. 274 J.89 $ J. J.72 220 $ 1 126 436 J.6 325 J.7 J.25 J.7 925 J.9 500 82 200 82 825 $J. 856 988 $J. 684 576 $J. 300 881 $ 1 293 689 $ J. 254 420 $ 1 209 26J. 20.274 Rate 20.093 Rate J.6.282 Rate 22.48J. Mills 22.093 Mills 22.020 Mills .J.80 .206 .227 .344 J..550 1. 620 20.454 Rate 20.299 Rate 16.509 Rate 22.825 Mills 23.643 Mills 23.640 Mills -82- CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA PROPERTY TAX MILL RATES/TAX CAPACITY RATES - DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS (PER $1000 OF ASSESSED VALUE FOR YEARS 1986-1988 AND TAX CAPACITY IN 1989 - 1995) (1) (1) Year School School Watershed Watershed Taxes District District District District Payable City County No. 276 No. 277 No. 3 No. 4 Misc. 1986 23.640 29.688 60.209 59.058 .089 .198 5.378 1987 23.643 29.356 62.968 54.982 .133 .474 5.459 1988 22.825 31. 667 65.440 58.550 .092 .570 5.988 1989 16.509 (2 ) 27.101 59.285 49.139 .075 .445 5.387 1990 20.299 (2) 27.916 53.658 43.434 .120 .436 5.121 1991 20.454 (2) 30.114 56.401 46.828 .131 .449 6.855 1992 20.164 (2 ) 34.327 64.530 56.643 .142 .490 5.481 1993 20.797 (2) 35.839 75.275 60.069 .668 .781 5.532 1994 19.904 (2) 37.441 77.323 67.785 .334 .707 5.724 1995 18.471 (2) 37.454 76.139 66.441 2.332 .762 5.847 (1) Includes vocational school (2) Information for 1989-1995 is stated in terms of tax capacity rates due to 1988 legislative changes as explained in Table 4. -83- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Storm Sewer District No. 2 I I I I I 17.792 13.437 15.495 15.353 I I I I I I I I I I I School District No. 276, Watershed District No. 3 119.004 121. 559 126.012 108.357 107.114 113.955 124.649 138.111 140.726 140.243 School District No. 276, Watershed District No. 4 119.113 121. 900 126.490 108.727 107.430 114.273 124.997 138.224 141.099 138.673 Totals School District No. 276, Watershed District No.4, Storm Sewer District No. 2 119.113 121.900 126.490 108.727 107.430 114.273 142.789 151.661 156.594 154.026 -84- Table 5 School District No. 277, Watershed District No. 3 11.7.853 113.573 119.1.22 98.211 96.890 104.382 11.6.762 122.905 131.188 130.545 Taxpayer CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA PRINCIPAL TAXPAYERS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Type of Business Northern States Power Company Ryan Construction Company Minnetonka Country Club Minnegasco Two S properties Shorewood Yacht Club Individual Individual Fina Serve, Inc. Individual Total Utility Shopping Center Country Club Utility Commercial Yacht Club Residential Residential Commercial Residential -85- 1995 Tax Capacity $119 011 75 118 65 689 61 778 41 663 29 413 27 366 22 764 22 380 22 336 $487 518 I Table 6 I Percentage of Total Tax capacity I 1. 46% .92 .81 .76 .51 .36 ..34 .28 .27 ~ ~% I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Table 7 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Collection of Collection Percentage CUrrent Percentage of Prior of Total Total Year's of Levy Year's Total Collections Year Levy LeVY Collected Levy Collections To LeVY 1.986 $678 91.9 $563 1.50 82.95% $21.6 1.31. $779 281. 1.1.4.78% 1.987 551. 886 539 633 97.78 32 1.22 571. 755 1.03.60 1.988 644 367 637 874 98.99 33 724 671. 598 1.04.23 1.989 500 1.1.6 497 733 99.52 66 91.6 564 649 1.1.2.90 1.990 457 384 444 080 97.09 53 452 497 532 1.08.78 1.991. 365 577 345 886 94.61. 28 677 374 563 1.02.46 1.992 362 352 31.7 1.03 87.51. 1.9 461. 336 564 92.B8 1.993 231. BOO 222 B42 96.1.4 47 372 270 214 1.16.57 1994 19B 729 1.85 061. 93.1.2 6 025 1.91 OB6 96.1.5 1.995 1.70 1.57 1.59 01.8 93.45 1.2 896 171. 91.4 1.01..03 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I. 1 1 1 1 -86- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA COMPUTATION OF LEGAL DEBT MARGIN DECEMBER 31, 1995 Table 8 I Market Value $460 242 800 $ 9 204 856 I Debt Limit: 2.0% of market value (Note A) Amount of Debt Applicable to Debt Limit: Total Bonded Debt Less: (Note B) Special Assessment Bonds General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds General Obligation Storm Sewer Bonds Tax Increment Revenue Bonds $ 4 444 500 (1 575 000) (1 935 000) (14 500) (920 000) I I Total Debt Applicable to Debt Limit I Legal Debt Margin $ 9 204 856 I Note (A): M.S.A. Section 475.53 (Limit on Net Debt) "Subdivision 1. Generally. Except as otherwise provided in sections 475.51 to 475.75, no municipality, except a school district or a city of the first class, shall incur Or be subject to a net debt in excess of 2.0 percent of the market value of taxable property in the municipality." I Note (B): M.S.A. Section 162.18 (Bond; Municipal State Aid) I "Subdivision 2. Not included in net debt of municipality for purpose of any statutory or charter limitation. Obligations issued here under may be authorized by resolution of the governing body without authorization by the electors, and shall not be included in the net debt of the municipality for the purpose of any statutory or charter limitation on indebtedness." I M.S.A. Section 475.51 (Definitions:) I "Subdivision 4. 'Net Debt' means the amount remaining after deducting from its gross debt the aggregate of the principal of the following: (1) Obligations issued for improvements which are payable wholly or partly from the I proceeds of special assessments levied upon property specially benefited thereby, including those which are general obligations of the municipality issuing them, if the municipality is entitled to reimbursement in whole or in I part from the proceeds of the special assessments. (2) Warrants or orders having no definite or fixed maturity. Obligations payable wholly from the income from revenue-producing conveniences. I (3) (4) (5) Obligations issued to create or maintain a permanent improvement revolving fund. I Obligations issued for the acquisition and betterment of public water works systems, and public lighting, heating or power systems and of any combination thereof, or for any other public convenience from which a revenue is or may be derived. I (6) Amount of all money and the face value of all securities held as a sinking fund for the extinguishment of obligations other than those deductible under this subdivision. I (7) All other obligations, which under the provisions of the -law authorizing their issuance, are not to be included in computing the net debt of the municipality." I * After contribution and distribution from "fiscal disparity" legislation; Minnesota laws 1971, Extra Session, Chapter 24. -87- I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA RATIO OF NET BONDED DEBT TO ASSESSED VALUE AND NET BONDED DEBT PER CAPITA Table 9 I Ratio of Net Net (1) Bonded Debt Bonded Assessed (2) Less Amount to Assessed Debt Fiscal Estimated Value/Tax Gross Reserved for Net Values/' per Year Population Capacity Bonded Debt Debt Service Bonded Debt Tax Capacity Capita 1986 4788 $51 214 623 $4 500 000 $3 054 867 $1 445 133 .0282:1 301.82 1987 4921 53 059 674 4 975 000 2 044 326 2 930 674 .0552:1 595.54 1988 5094 56 589 857 4 530 000 2 688 009 1 841 991 .0325:1 361.60 I I I 1989 5815 7 833 998 2 990 000 1 510 303 1 479 697 .1889:1 254.46 1990 5917 7 197 406 2 720 000 1 902 837 817 163 .1135:1 138.10 1991 6000 8 070 339 3 411 000 2 311 859 1 099 141 .1:362:1 183.19 1992 6135 7 859 115 2 496 000 1 742 742 753 258 .0958:1 122.78 1993 6322 7 261 312 2 546 500 1 999 197 547 303 .0754:1 86.57 1994 6430 7 565 123 1 850 500 1 485 579 364 921 .0482:1 56.75 1995 6614 8 148 378 3 524 500 1 419 732 2 104 768 .2583:1 318.17 I I I (1) As a result of 1988 legislation, assessed valuation has been replaced by tax capacity valuations. It is calculated based upon a state mandated computation from the estimated market value. The term, mill rate, has been replaced with the term, tax capacity rate, as a result of the 1988 legislation. 1986-1988 information is stated in terms of assessed valuation and mill rates. 1989-1995 information is stated in terms of tax capacity and tax capacity rates. I I (2) Gross bonded debt amounts in this Table are general obligation special assessment bonds and revenue bonds whose principal source of funding will be sources other than general property taxes. The $920,000 Tax Increment Revenue Bonds are not included in the gross bonded debt as they are not backed by the full faith and credit of the City. I I I I I I I I -88- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Table 10 RATIO OF ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL BONDED DEBT (1) TO TOTAL GENERAL EXPENDITURES* I Percent of Debt Service Fiscal Total Total General to General Year Principal Interest Debt Service Expenditures * Expenditures 1986 $ 590 000 $268 077 $ 858 077 $1 400 755 61.26% 1987 (2) 1 840 000 273 709 2 113 709 1 651 927 127.95 1988 435 000 274 636 709 636 1 898 594 37.38 1989 (3) 2 625 000 253 115 2 878 115 1 794 684 160.37 1990 260 000 175 098 435 098 2 065 011 21.07 1991 290 000 173 495 463 495 2 241 781 20.68 1992 905 000 167 163 1 072 163 2 301 950 46.58 1993 264 500 141 889 406 389 2 184 260 18.61 1994 (4) 681 000 120 862 801 862 2 536 943 31.61 1995 231 000 99 823 330 823 2 326 231 14.22 I I I I I (1) Excludes G.O. Bonds reported in Enterprise Funds (2) (3 ) (4) Principal includes bonds refunded in 1987 Principal included bonds defeased in 1989 Principal includes bonds called in 1994 Includes General Fund only I I * I I I I I I I I I -89- I I I I I Direct Debt* City of Shorewood I Overlapping Debt Hennepin County Hennepin Suburban Park District School District #276 School District #277 Vo-Tech District #287 Metropolitan Council Metropolitan Transit Commission I I Total Over- lapping Debt I Total Direct and OVerlapping Debt I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA COMPUTATION OF DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING DEBT DECEMBER 31, 1995 Table 11 City of Percent of Shorewood Net Debt Debt Applicable Share Total Debt Outstandinq to City of Debt $ 3 524 500 $ 2 104 768 100.00% $2 104 768 196 825 000 62 214 511 .90 559 931 19 1.30 000 1.5 41.5 684 1.. 25 192 696 19 755 000 19 153 298 1.8.95 3 629 550 14 700 000 13 946 122 2.00 278 922 1.. 20 379 505 000 46 221 284 .43 198 752 1 400 000 807 000 .47 3 793 631 315 000 157 757 899 3.08 4 863 644 $633 165 500 $159 862 667 3.31.% $6 968 412 I Direct debt includes all debt backed by the full faith and credit of the City even though it will be financed in part by special assessments or enterprise fund revenues. Tax increment revenue bonds supported only by the tax increments generated within the TIF District are excluded from this computation consistent with Table 9. * I I I I I I I I I -90- TIDS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK. INTENTIONALLY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Table 12 REVENUE BOND COVERAGE LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS Net Ratio of Net Fiscal Gross (1) Revenue Debt Service Revenue to Year Revenue Expenses Available Principal Interest Total Debt Service 1986 $ 58 430 $ 59 095 $ (665) $ 10 000 $ 10 524 $ 20 524 (.032) to 1 1987 108 043 81 642 26 401 10 000 9 578 19 578 1.349 to 1 1988 158 474 135 897 22 577 10 000 8 834 18 834 1.199 to 1 1989 176 719 110 987 65 732 10 000 8 125 18 125 3.627 to 1 1990 192 682 116 289 76 393 10 000 7 293 17 293 4.418 to 1 1991 172 569 126 614 45 955 10 000 6 493 16 493 2.786 to 1 1992 199 891 125 714 74 177 10 000 5 823 15 823 4.688 to 1 1993 172 624 139 490 33 134 10 000 4 860 14 860 2.230 to 1 1994 262 892 159 179 103 713 15 000 4 035 19 035 5.449 to 1 1995 198 566 166 970 31 596 15 000 3 486 18 486 1.710 to 1 (1) Excluding depreciation and interest on bonds -91- I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA PROPERTY VALUE, CONSTRUCTION AND BANK DEPOSITS LAST TEN FISCAL YEARS I 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 (1) (1) Commercial Residential Construction Construction Number of Value Units Value $ 85 686 80 $15 779 286 163 23 397 136 401 004 157 29 040 667 89 16 949 136 20 000 82 16 252 990 69 14 044 120 55 10 899 687 102 17 941 776 960 000 86 16 530 925 2 030 000 40 10 167 210 I' Fiscal Year I I I I Sources (1) City Planning and Inspection Department (2) County Assessor's Office I Bank deposits are not shown as no banks are located within the City limits. I I I I I I I I I I -92- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table 13 (2) Property Value Commercial Residential Total $ 9 171 300 $190 679 600 $199 850 900 10 317 900 197 382 800 207 700 700 11 167 900 217 337 000 228 504 900 11 351 300 253 363 500 264 714 800 11 820 800 299 565 500 311 386 300 11 997 100 341 843 200 353 840 300 12 081 200 370 575 700 382 656 900 11 307 900 391 057 000 402 364 900 11 338 700 413 780 300 425 119 000 9 793 000 453 616 100 463 409 100 -93- THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I I CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA MISCELLANEOUS STATISTICS DECEMBER 31, 1995 Year of incorporation I Form of government I Fiscal year begins Area of city I Population 1995 Estimated 1990 Census 1980 Census 1970 Census I Miles of streets and alleys City streets Municipal state aid streets County roads State highway I I Sewer Lift stations Sewer rates - residential Miles of sewer lines I Number of street lights I Building permits issued in 1995 Number of permits Value I Fire protection Contracted services with Mound and Excelsior I Police protection Contracted services with South Lake Minnetonka Police Department I Parks Number Acres I Water Number of connections Average daily consumption Miles of watermain Daily capacity Number of fire hydrants Water rate per thousand gallons I I Employees Regular Part-time/seasonal Total I Elections Registered voters last election Number of votes cast last election Percentage of registered voters voting I I -94- Table 14 1956 council-Administrator Adopted May 14, 1956 January 1 6.0 Square Miles 6,614 5,917 4,646 4,223 38.1 9.3 1.7 2.7 19 $65.00/quarter 55.7 174 643 $16,991,398 5 95.8 940 267,800 gallons 14.7 4,680,000 gallons 165 $1.45/1000 gallons 20 20 40 4,942 3,260 66.0%