Loading...
092595 CC Reg AgPCITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING CITY OF SHOREWOOD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. The City Council will adjourn to a Work Session format immediately following the regular portion of the meeting. No action will be taken at this time. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Malam McCarty Mayor Bean Stover Benson City Council Regular and Work Session Meeting Minutes September 11, 1995 (Att. - #2 Minutes) 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: A. A Motion to Extend the Deadline for Landscaping Conditional Use Permit Approval (Att. - #3A Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Roxanne Martin Location: 5750 Christmas Lake Road B. A Motion to Set Council Meeting Dates for November and December 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (Presentations are limited to 3 minutes. No Council action will be taken.) 5. PLANNING - Report by Representative A. Reconsideration of a Dock Issue Associated with Notice to Remove (Att. - #5A Planner's Memorandum) Appellant: Dave Rice (a.k.a. Michelle Richter) Location: 22740 Murray Street CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 PAGE 3 OF 3 B. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings Fact Regarding a Setback Variance /Variance to Structurally Alter a Nonconforming Structure #5B Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: John Hunner Location: 20625 Radisson Road of (Att.- C. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a Conditional Use Permit for Accessory Space in Excess of 1,200 s.f. (Att. - #5C Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Jim and Julie Simondet Location: 5390 Shady Hills Road D. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare Findings of Fact Regarding a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Allow Accessory Space in Excess of 1,200 s.f. /Variance to Temporarily Allow Two Single - family Dwellings on One Lot (Att. - #5D Planner's Memorandum) Applicant: Gerald Grewe Location: 4550/4560 Enchanted Point Resolution) Applicant: Alan Krutsch Location: 25725 Smithtown Road F. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Findings of Fact Regarding a Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance (Att. - #5F1 Planner's Memorandum, dated 12 July 95, Att. - #5F2 Planner's Memorandum, dated 4 September 95, Att. - #5F3 Planner's Memorandum, dated 15 September 95) Applicant: Mark Haymaker Location: 4300 Enchanted Drive E. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution Regarding a Simple Subdivision (Att. - #5E Proposed G. Zachary Woods - Consideration of Modification of Galpin Lane Street Improvement (Att. - #5G Planner's Memorandum) 6. CONSIDERATION REGARDING BOULDER BRIDGE AND BADGER FIELD WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A. Presentation by Springsted Regarding Financing/ Bonding Recommendations and A Motion Providing for Issuance and Sale of $1,920,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Bond, Series 1995, for Improvements to the Water System of the City (Att. - #6A Proposed Resolution) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 PAGE 3 OF 3 B. A Motion to Approve Water Tower Site at Minnewashta School and Direct Staff to Negotiate an Agreement with Minnetonka School District (Att. - #6B Engineer's Memorandum) C. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Establishing a Policy Regarding Hookup to the Municipal Water System (Att. - #6C Proposed Resolution) 7. CONSIDERATION OF DEAD END ALTERNATIVES FOR CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD (Att. - #7 Engineer's Memorandum) 8. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION APPROVING A WATER CONTINGENCY AND CONSERVATION PLAN PROPOSAL BY OSM (Att. - #8 Proposal) 9. ADMINISTRATOR & STAFF REPORTS Report on Status of the Sewer Rate Advisory Task Force 10. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Senior Community Center Work Session 9/13/95 B. Livable Communities Act Meeting 9/20/95 11. ADJOURN TO WORK SESSION FORMAT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Att. - 411) 09/22/1995 12:24 6127851167 TIMESAVER PAGE 01 CITY OF S H OREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL 9 DRAFT Present: Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee, Rosenberger and Turgeon; and Planning Director Nielsen. Absent: Commissioner Pisula and Council Liaison Benson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Rosenberger moved, Kolstad seconded to approve the September 5, 1995 Commission meeting minutes as amended by adding on Page 7, Paragraph 5 "I .feel this type of housing will not do anything to further the goals of the city for a variety in housing stock. "; Page 6, Paragraph 4, Line 1 replace "Indian" with "Indian"; and on Page 7, Paragraph 13, Line 1 replace "it's" with "its ". Motion passed 6/0. C.U.P TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLING ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT AND SETBACK VARIANCE (Tabled from September 5, 1995) Applicant: Mark Haymaker Location: 4300 Enchanted Drive Chair Borkon announced the case. Nielsen reported he had met with Mr. Haymaker and his architect subsequent to the September 5, 1995 Planning Commission meeting to discuss how this home could be located within the constraints of current regulations, C.U.P. regulations and the Tree Preservation Policy. Nielsen indicated he suggested Mr. Haymaker situate the home within the following cor&mes: 41.5 foot setback from Lake Minnetonka, .� which is the average setback established by the two adjoining homes, on the south side using the dripline of the stand of three oak trees and the row of pine trees, on the front side far enough back so as to allow a 20 foot parking space in front of the garage without extending into the street right -of -way, and the northeast side using the dripline of vegetation growing along the property line. Mr. Haymaker has since submitted a plan which conforms to these parameters. Nielsen indicated staff is recommending approval of the C.U.P. and setback variance request subject to installation of construction fencing along the dripline of the trees and at a setback of 20 feet from the shoreline prior to the start of any site work and the excavation near the oak trees shall be cut in so as to sever any roots as cleanly as possible. Nielsen reported Mr. Haymaker has submitted a conceptual landscape plan but is intending to hire a landscape architect. Nielsen stated he intended to confer with the landscape COUNCIL CRAM 3ERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7.00 P_M_ 09/22/1995 12:24 6127851167 TIMESAVER PAGE 02 e PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 - PAGE 2 architect for advice as to any other methods that could be employed to further protect the trees. Chair Borkon outlined the procedure for a public hearing and opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Ernest Marciniak, 4325 Enchanted Drive, asked if there would be changes made to the perimeter of the cul -de -sac or to the ten foot easement for the dry hydrant. Nielsen indicated there would be a curb cut for the driveway and the City of Shorewood does allow the driveway to cross the right -of -way. Nielsen stated this will not affect the access to the dry hydrant easement. Carl Sheely, 4320 Enchanted Drive, indicated he wanted to be assured the easement to the dry hydrant had been properly recorded. He also inquired as to where the snow from the driveway would be located now as there would no longer be a vacant lot on the cul -de -sac. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. • Nielsen explained the City of Shorewood owns the land the cul -de -sac is built on and a certain amount of property around the cul -de -sac called "right -of- way ". The owner's property line goes up to the right -of -way. It is however necessary for the City to allow the driveway to cross the right -of -way area in many cases. He explained in the case of an easement, the City has an interest in the property but no ownership. The interest is for a specific purpose, which in this case is a water line for the dry hydrant which extends into the lake. The proposed house at 4300 Enchanted Drive will not block the City's access to maintain or use the dry hydrant. Nielsen stated there were three property owners involved with the easement in question. Commissioner Rosenberger asked if the easement had been recorded. Nielsen indicated he would verify they were recorded. Mr. Marciniak indicated he was confused as to the width of the easement. He questioned if it was ten or twelve feet. Nielsen stated he would clarify the width of the easement. 40 Nielsen explained the snow had been placed on the vacant land but will now be placed wherever there is room within the public right -of -way. Mrs. Sheely, 4320 Enchanted Drive indicated one of their driveways had been blocked by snow from the snowplows last winter. Chair Borkon suggested. Mrs. Sheely contact the Cit Utility Department or Jim Hurm if she experiences further difficulties. In response to Commissioner Lizee, Nielsen reported this proposal would have 239o' hard cover surface. 09/22/1995 12:24 6127851167 TIMESAVER PAGE 03 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1995 - PAGE 3 Commissioner Kolstad complimented Mr. Haymaker for arriving at a solution that would work for everyone. Commissioner Rosenberger complimented Mr. Haymaker for turning this around as quickly as he had and also Mr. Nielsen for availing himself to resolve this item. Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to recommend the Council approve the C.U.P. to construct a single - family dwelling on a substandard lot in the shoreland district and setback variance for Marls Haymaker, 4300 Enchanted Drive subject to staff recommendations and clarification of the easement width as noted and verification the easement has been recorded. Motion passed 6/0. There was direction for staff to notify the residents involved with the easement when the information was received. Mr. Haymaker stated he was in favor of keeping all the mature trees on the site. The Council will consider the recommendation at its September 25, 1995 meeting. 2. REVIEW TREE PRESERVATION POLICY / ORDINANCE Nielsen outlined the changes that had been made to the third draft of the tree preservation and replacement policy. He indicated there had been substantial changes to the purpose statement on page 1. There was Commission consensus that the purpose statement did convey the intended message. Nielsen indicated the nest substantial change was on page 3, section IV.B.b. This statement now reflects that the tree preservation and replacement policy pertains to the construction of anew principle building only. Commissioner Kolstad stated she did not agree with this change and wanted some wording to be added which would apply standards or caution when any changes are made on a property. Commissioner Turgeon indicated if this were the case, residents may feel their rights were being tread upon. Nielsen stated there must be 'a balance. He reminded the initial intent of the policy had been to have a devise to educate builders. He indicated a home owner will usually move a garage over a bit rather than remove a tree. Most homeowners appreciated the trees and it is also very costly to remove trees. Commission Kolstad asked if the Commission had the authority to require someone who is building a garage to replace a tree they remove. Nielsen indicated the Commission only had that right if the homeowner was requesting a variance or a conditional use permit. The statutes then give the City the authority to impose reasonable requests on the property owner. 09/22/1995 12:24 6127851167 PLANNING COMMISSION M (MUTES September 19, 1995 - PAGE 4 TIMESAVER PAGE 04 Commissioner Kolstad stated she did not feel the policy for existing properties should be as strict as the policy for new buildings but felt it should be addressed. Chair Borkon stated she understood Commissioner Kolstad's concern but indicated she was concerned that the policy could already be too restrictive. She questioned if there would be a way to request someone coming in with an application to take the trees into consideration. Nielsen stated if a person made application to build a garage, the City has no input at all. If there was a variance request or a conditional use permit request with the garage, the City would then have input. He agreed with the concern for the potential of over restriction. He stated he was not sure the initial intention of the policy or the intention of the comprehensive plan was to save every individual tree. He indicated the policy was appropriate for initial development of land and construction of the initial house but after that point the property owner's rights take over. Commissioner Rosenberger stated he agreed with Commissioner Kolstad. He felt if the policy was appropriate for primary buildings it was also appropriate for secondary buildings. He stated the Commission had made the decision to create this policy because trees are very important to the character of the neighborhood. In that case public policy is more important than public rights. He suggested the policy should be more restrictive. Commissioner Lizee stated she felt the policy should not be more restrictive. Commissioner Foust stated the City of Shorewood did not have a problem with wide scale clear cutting. He asked what percentage of the City was left for new development. Nielsen indicated the City of Shorewood was 90 % developed. He questioned the need of the policy for 10% of the land. He stated he was not in favor of taking individual property owners rights on removing a tree to put in a shed or removing one or two trees to erect a garage. Commissioner Turgeon stated if a property owner does not require a variance he should be able to use his property as he likes. It is his property. Nielsen stated in the past he has frequently received a variance request so a tree could be saved. At times it has been more appropriate to remove the tree than to grant the variance. He suggested removal of one tree would not necessarily damage the wooded character of the area. Commissioner Kolstad stated it was important to have something in place for existing property. She indicated residents do feel it is important to save the tress in their neighborhood. Nielsen clarified even though the City was 90% developed, there were still a number of lots that haven't been subdivided that this ordinance will apply to. ' ' ' 09/22/1995 12:24 6127851167 TIMESAVER PAGE 05 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 19, 1945 - PAGE 5 Commissioner Borkon stated she felt if the policy pertained to existing property it would be an encroachment of her personal rights of her property. She added a person comes to the Planning Commission when something is going to be different in the future and all the pros and cons are taken into consideration. Once the structure is built the ownership is more yours that when you were discussing it with the City. There are more private rights involved. Now you are no longer talking about what a person can do in their backyard but what a person can do immediately out their door. Commissioner Turgeon stated the City has no policy currently. She felt the Commission could not take giant steps in something that adds restrictions. She suggested this policy would not be set in granite and could be changed if needed. Chair Borkon stated this policy is geared to the community and the way they would like the City's mode of development. She stated she was outraged at the idea of considering this policy for existing properties. Nielsen continued through the body of the Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy noting other small changes which had been made. It was noted in Appendix A, paragraph 4, "critical root zone" should be replaced with "'protected root zone" to be consistent with the rest of the document. There was Commission consensus of approval of the changes that had been made. The Commission returned to their discussion of item 43.b. Commissioner Kolstad stated she agreed that she did not want to be restricted as to what she could do on her property but felt that a lot that was done on a property also had an impact on the neighboring property. She indicated there is a lot of restriction as to where you can build on the property anyway and she would like to require the trees be taken into consideration when this is done. She stated she would like some restriction or guidelines for replacement of trees removed on existing properties. Chair ]Borkon asked if Nielsen had noted any policy for existing properties in any City's Tree Preservation Policy. Nielsen stated there was one ordinance which required a permit to remove a tree over eight inches. Nielsen indicated he felt there could be an enforcement problem with this type of requirement. Commissioner Kolstad noted she interpreted the policy infers tree preservation and replacement is only important in new construction. Chair Borkon stated the ijuplicetion is that developers coming in to the City may not feel that trees are important but with the policy in place they will act in a responsible manner. Nielsen; stated he was not certain a problem existed with existing properties. Commissioner Roseuberger stated if a policy was to be implemented for new development it should also be implemented for old development. He suggested that if there were not a problem with existing buildings, then there should not be a problem with putting it in writing 09/22/1995 12:24 6127851167 k. . . TIMESAt /ER PAGE 06 PLANNING COMMISSION )VQNUTES September 19, 1995 - PAGE 6 as part of the policy. He stated the value affixed to a grove of trees was also a value to the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Kolstad stated she had moved into an older developed area with many trees which she has watched be destroyed one by one. She expressed concern there was no education in regard to trees for the residents. Nielsen suggested a handout explaining tree preservation could be attached to each building permit. Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to recommend the Council adopt the 3rd draft of the Tree Preservation and Replacement Policy as corrected. Motion passed 4/2. (Commissioners Kolstad and Rosenberger voted naye). The Council will consider the recommendation at its September 25, 1995 meeting. 3. DISCUSS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATES There was Commission consensus to that Planning Commission meetings will be held on October 3, October 17, November 21, and December 5, 1995. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - Commissioner Rosenberger asked if a report had been prepared in regard to the drainage issue in the Brenmar Ponding area. Nielsen indicated it had and he would supply it to the Commission. Commissioner Foust apologized for missing the Cable Commissions meeting. REPORTS - None. ADJOURNMENT Foust moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Motion passed 610. ! RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. ' Lorri L. Kopischke Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial a CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Borkon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Borkon; Commissioners Foust (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Kolstad, Lizee, Pisula, Rosenberger and Turgeon; Council Liaison Benson and Planning Director Nielsen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Pisula moved, Kolstad seconded to approve the August 1, 1995 Commission meeting minutes amended by removing "Hard cover surface is 25%." on Page 1, Paragraph 7, Line 9. Motion passed 6/0. 1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A VACANT LOT Applicant: James McCleary Location: 5480 Carrie Lane Chair Borkon announced the case. Nielsen reported he had received a call from Mr. McCleary indicating he was withdrawing the request for a variance to allow an accessory structure on a vacant lot. Commissioner Foust arrived at 7:06 p.m. There was Commission consensus to address Agenda Item #6 prior to Agenda Item #2. 6. SIMPLE SUBDIVISION Applicant: Alan Krutsch Location: 25725 Smithtown Road Chairman Borkon announced the case. Nielsen indicated in 1990 a simple subdivision was approved for the property at 25725' Smithtown Road but the owners at that time, did not record the division and the approval has since expired. The current owner, Mr. Krutsch is now requesting the same subdivision. This subdivision would divide the property into two lots. One lot has an existing home and the other lot will be vacant. Both lots meet and exceed the requirements for the R1 -C single family residential district. The westerly parcel will contain 47,084 square feet of area and the other 23,520 square feet of area. The difference in size is partly because the original owner wanted to keep the existing trees on the site. The only changes from the previous recommendation is the amount of the fees. The new lot will be subject to a $750 park dedication fee, a $1000 sewer charge, a $5000 trunk water charge and the subdivision is subject to water assessments of $5000 for each lot (one has already been assessed). Nielsen indicated- staff is recommending approval subject to the recommendations in the original report. Commissioner Kolstad questioned why one lot had a backyard setback of 40 feet and the other a backyard setback of 10 feet. Nielsen indicated this was a due to the fact it is a triangular lot and the setbacks do meet code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 2 Turgeon moved, Lizee seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the simple subdivision for Alan Krutsch, 25725 Smithtown Road subject to staff recommendations. Motion passed 7/0. The Council will consider the recommendation at it's September 25, 1995 meeting. Councilmember Liaison Benson reported a representative of MNDOT had been present at the August 28 City Council meeting to report on the Christmas Lake Road intersection project. He indicated construction was scheduled for 1996. MNDOT also reported the bridge into Excelsior is in bad repair and could last for as little as days or up to 10 years and there are no funds available to replace the bridge. Benson expressed concern regarding the traffic which would be rerouted to Christmas Lake Road if the bridge failed. He expressed his dissatisfaction that the two projects were not being done together and indicated he was in receipt of a letter drafted by City Engineer to MNDOT explaining the City's view and asking MNDOT to contact Benson. 2. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - SETBACK VARIANCE / VARIANCE TO STRUCTURALLY ALTER A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE Applicant: John Hunner . Location: 20625 Radisson Road Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing. Nielsen reported Mr. Hunner owns the property at 20625 Radisson Road which contains a home which does not conform to the setback requirements of the R -1C /S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district. Mr. Hunner is proposing to remodel the home by replacing the existing flat roof on the house with a gable roof. Construction of the gable roof will bring the ceiling heights in the upper level of the home into conformity with code. Mr. Hunner is proposing to turn the gables sideways in order to minimize the height of the structure and have it resemble the old Radisson Inn. The proposal will not increase the floor area of the house. Mr. Hunner is also proposing to remove an existing detached garage on the site and construct a new larger garage. The garage will be moved forward on the site and will create more yard area between the house and the garage and also make up for lack of storage in the existing home. The new garage meets all setback requirements and will decrease the hard cover surface, increasing conformity with City Code. The current driveway encroaches over the property line on the east side of the lot. The new driveway will correct this non - conformity as it will be contained on the applicants lot. There is also a fence on the corner of the lot which encroaches over the property line and will need to be moved onto the owners property. Nielsen indicated staff is recommending approval of the variance with the conditions that the applicant protect trees during construction and provide a cash escrow or letter of credit if the proposed garage is built before the other is torn down, to ensure that the improvements are completed within six months. Mr. John Hunner provided the Commission with a photograph of the original Radisson Inn. He stated the purpose of the design of the gable roof was to try to capture some of the old Radisson Inn and to reduce the visual impact to the neighbors. He stated there is a lift station located on the corner of the lot with a concrete pad. The fence next to this pad is located on the neighboring property. He indicated there is some confusion as the survey he and the neighbor, Mr. Gopan, had performed, was completed by the same surveyor but produced different results. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Mr. Gene Gopan, 20645 Radisson Road, asked that the issue of the property line be rectified. Mrs. John Rennie, indicated she lived on the east side of Mr. Hunner and had no objection to the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 3 Chair Borkon entered a letter received from Mr. Jo_ hn B. Wrede, 20595 Radisson Road into record. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Nielsen stated the survey would have to be confirmed. He noted if anything was encroaching onto the neighboring property, the applicant would be obligated to bring it into confor*niry. Commissioner Foust asked if the size of the garage could be reduced to lower the amount of hard cover surface. Nielsen stated this is a small lot and the alteration of the driveway does reduce the amount of hard cover on the site by approximately 4 %. Commissioner Foust asked if it would be practical to move the roof back to meet the setback of the lot. Nielsen indicated it would not. He stated if a new structure was built in the buildable area of the lot, it was likely a retaining wall of some type would have to be built where the existing structure is now located. In effect, there would have to be some type of structure located where the existing structure is now. Nielsen indicated the existing structure is very sound and does fall within the provision of the Zoning Code as the modification does not expand the structure. Commissioner Turgeon asked if the large tree next to the existing garage would be protected. Nielsen stated the tree would not likely survive. Commissioner Turgeon inquired as to the size of the garage. Nielsen indicated the garage will contain 1032 square feet of area. He stated Mr. Hunner is not planning to park cars in the entire area of the garage but will use a portion of the garage for storage and the new driveway will not extend the entire width of the garage. Mr. Hunner indicated the tree in question was a box elder and was not in very good condition. He stated he would like to remove the tree. Commissioner Tur asked is Mr. Hunner intended to store the two inoperable vehicles on the property in the proposed garage. Mr. Hunner indicated he hoped to. Commissioner Kolstad stated she liked the plan but was concerned with removing the large tree. She asked if Mr. Hunner would be required to replace the tree. She also stated she would recommend the hard cover on the lot be brought closer to the shoreland requirements. Nielsen stated the tree replacement policy would require Mr. Hunner to replace the tree in question with three smaller trees. Chair Borkon inquired as to the landscaping that would be seen from the road and the design of the garage. Tom Ellison, Architect, indicated there is a lot of existing landscaping and additional landscaping had not been discussed. Mr. Hunner stated the garage had been moved closer to the road to attain more usable lot area and create more lawn. He indicated the garage will be screened from the road with existing landscaping. He stated the garage will tie in with the architectural character of the house. He again stated his intent to store the antique cars in the garage. Commissioner Rosenberger inquired as to City policy regarding the storage of "parts cars" outside. Nielsen stated they can be stored up to 30 days. Pisula moved, Rosenberger seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve the setback variance /variance request to structurally alter a nonconforming structure for John Hunner, 20625 Radisson Road subject to staff recommendation, resolve of the issue of the potential encroachment of the fence, the lift station and concrete pad, and replacement of the large tree in accordance with the tree preservation policy. Motion passed 7/0. The Council will consider the recommendation at it's September 25, 1995 meeting. 7:30 PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 4 Applicant: Jim and Julie Simondet Location: 5390 Shady Hills Circle Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing. Nielsen indicated the Simondets are proposing to build a utility shed on the property located at 5390 Shady Hills Circle. The property is zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential and a C.U.P. is required as the new shed will increase the accessory space to 1358 square feet. The proposal does meet all four criteria required to grant a C.U.P. He indicated the design of the proposed shed does not match the existing house but it is a standard building sold by a lumber yard which is used often. It will be screened from the east and south, is far enough back as to not be seen from the street and will be blocked from view by the house. He indicated staff had received an unsigned letter and two other letters in regards to the proposal. There was concern Mr. Simondet was operating a home occupation of restoring old cars. Nielsen stated he did not believe this was the case. He stated if there are inoperable cars stored outside, they will need to be kept inside and the City will monitor this. Nielsen indicated staff is recommending approval of the C.U.P. Jim Simondet, 5390 Shady Hills Circle, stated restoring old cars is a long term hobby not a business. He explained he has had a lot of vehicles which have come and gone. He reported he currently has a car which is covered and listed in the paper. If the car does not sell, it will be moved to storage. He indicated he also has a van, boat, camper, two cars, etc. and the utility shed will provide him with more storage area. Chair Borkon again questioned the City policy for outside storage of vehicles. Nielsen stated the ordinance prohibits storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles. If these vehicles are in repair, they can be stored for up to 30 days. Mr. Simondet stated all vehicles on his property were operable, licensed and insured. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Patrick Wilder, 5365 Shady Hills Circle, indicated he had received the public notice and was in attendance to obtain more information. He stated he had no objection to the utility shed. Mrs. Wilder expressed her full support also. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Chair Borkon entered the unsigned letter into record. She also entered letters from John W. McKey Jr. PID 25- 117 -23 -44 -0054, Lot 12 and Mark Hergt, 5395 Shady Hills Circle into record. Commissioner Lizee asked if any shrubs or trees would be required on the north side of the shed. Nielsen stated the shed was set back on the lot and screened quite well. Pisula moved, Turgeon seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve a C.U.P. for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for Jim and Julie Simondet, 5390 Shady Hills Road subject to staff recommendations and including language to remind of home occupations and outside storage on the site to be provided by City Council. Motion passed 7/0. The Council will consider the recommendation at it's September 25, 1995 meeting. 4. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P. AND VARIANCE TO ALLOW ACCESSORY SPACE IN EXCESS OF 1200 SQUARE FEET / VARIANCE TO TEMPORARILY ALLOW TWO SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLINGS ON ONE LOT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 5 Applicant: Gerald Grewe Location: 4550/4560 Enchanted Point Chair Borkon announced the case and outlined the procedure for a public hearing. Nielsen indicated Mr. Grewe owns the home at 4550 Enchanted Point and has arranged to purchase the home at 4560 Enchanted Point. He intends to combine the two properties, demolish both homes and existing garage and build one new home. He is requesting a variance to live in the existing home at 4560 while the new home is being built. The ordinance limits the number of dwellings on any given lot to one. The applicant is also requesting a C.U.P. as the existing boathouse and proposed attached garage will exceed 1200 square feet. He is also requesting a variance to exceed the requirement which limits accessory space to 10% of the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which the property is located. The lots combined contain an area of 98,733 square feet. The proposed house will contain 5295 square feet on the main level and the second level appears to be the same as the main floor. The proposed garage will contain 1100 square feet on the first level and 1450 square feet on the second level. The upper access will face south and the lower access will face north. The total amount of accessory space on the site will be 3975 square feet. Nielsen indicated the City has on three other occasions granted a variance for the temporary location of two homes on one lot. A cash escrow or letter of credit for one and a half the amount of the bid for removal and site restoration of the temporary home will be required before the applicant occupies the new home. The applicant has requested he be given twelve months to construct the new home. Nielsen indicated there are four criteria which need to be satisfied in order to grant a C.U.P. This proposal does not comply with the second criteria. The accessory space can not exceed 10% of the minimum lot area of the district. This district (R -1C /S) allows a maximum of 2000 square feet of accessory space. The applicant proposes approximately twice that and has requested a variance for this. The third criteria limits building height to 35 feet but allows an additional five feet, subject to an additional three feet of side yard setback and an additional five feet of lakeshore setback for each foot of height over 35 feet. The applicant has submitted a revised site plan which has reduced the ceiling height of the lower level and pitch of the roof to 37 feet. He has corrected the position of the home for the setback but still needs to shift the building down to move the patio so no part will encroach the 60 foot setback. In regard to the variance to exceed 10% minimum lot size, Nielsen indicated once the properties are combined, the new home constructed and the existing building removed, the amount of accessory space on the property will be reduced by approximately 10 %. The total proposed hardcover will be less than 19.5 %. The attached garage is on two different levels. The only direction from which both levels can be seen is the west and from that view the garage appears to be part of the structure. The lot will be five times larger than the R -1C /S district requires. If the variance is granted, staff is recommending a protective covenant that the property not be redivided unless brought into conformity with code at that time. Nielsen indicated staff is recommending approval of the variance to temporarily allow two homes on one lot. Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 8:36 p.m. and reconvened at 8:42 p.m. Jerry Grewe, 4550 Enchanted Point, stated he loved trees and would do all he could to protect them. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Dave Bleason, 4540 Enchanted Point, stated he felt the existing boathouse was not a problem and was in good shape. He enjoyed the privacy he received from it on his lot. Bob Rascop, 4560 Enchanted Point, asked the Commission to look favorably upon the variances being asked for. He indicated all the conditions had been put on the lot after the buildings were built and he felt this was a hardship the City had imposed when the zoning was changed from R 1 A to R 1 C. Roy Kramer, 4475 Enchanted Lane, stated he felt the building would be an asset to the neighborhood PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 6 Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Commissioner Turgeon asked when the zoning for this lot had been changed. Nielsen indicated the zoning had been changed in 1986 when the City redid the zoning ordinance. Commissioner Kolstad asked why the driveway encroached the 50 foot setback. Nielsen explained the way the driveway exists today it necessitated that Mr. Grewe g rant the City an easement to access and maintain the dry hydrant that serves this portion of Enchanted Island. Commissioner Foust thanked Mr. Grewe for all his time volunteered to the City of Shorewood in regards to the dry fire hydrants and natural gas service to the island. He indicated he was in favor of the proposal but was having difficulty determining the hardship in this case. Commissioner Rosenberger asked if there had been a survey performed to determine if there were indian mounds on the property. Mr. Grewe stated he has performed soil boring and the area in which he is building is all backfill. He also stated he has made a tentative offer to buy the Yacht Club and retain the area as green space. Commissioner Rosenberger again questioned Mr. Grewe. Mr. Grewe indicated he had taken samples of the ground and had also discussed the history with Jewels Illis, the former excavator to determine which areas of the lot were backfilled. Chair Borkon indicated she was concerned with the hardship criteria of the variance. She asked Mr. Grewe if he had thought of removing the boathouse. He indicated he would not remove the boathouse. Chair Borkon asked what the options were regarding the amount of accessory space. Nielsen indicated the limit of 2000 square feet was tied to the minimum lot size of the R -1C /S district. He again indicated the lot being created was five times the size of the normal lot in this district. The concern was that the lot may be subdivided at some later date. Nielsen indicated the applicant had been agreeable to record a restrictive covenant that the property will not be subdivided. If someone wanted to subdivide the lot, they would have to remove the boathouse and reduce the size of the attached garage. Commissioner Turgeon asked if a precedent would be set if the variance was granted. Nielsen indicated it would. He indicated this situation was somewhat unique to Shorewood but was occurring more and more on Lake Minnetonka. He suggested if this appeared to be a trend, it may necessitate investigating an amendment to the ordinance. Chair Borkon asked Mr. Grewe if it was a priority to have such a large amount of accessory space. Mr. Grewe indicated it was. He stated the lower three garage spaces would be used as storage space. He indicated he has had problems with theft and would like to have everything in a locked garage. Chairman Borkon asked if he had room for storage in the boathouse. Mr. Grewe indicated the boathouse is used to store the boat, lawn tractor, leaf machine and general lumber. The boathouse has modern utilities. He indicated the boathouse is kept open in the winter so if the dry hydrant freezes up, the fire department can draft out of the boathouse. Nielsen noted the boathouse is structurally sound. Chair Borkon complimented Mr. Grewe on his plans for the home but asked if there were any way to reduce the accessory space. Mr. Grewe indicated he had cooperated with the City in all aspects of the planning. He suggested the property be rezoned to R -1 A. He indicated the neighborhood could go through the petition process to have the area rezoned, but he preferred not to do this. He stated he had lived the area for thirty years and plans to die here. In response to Chair Borkon, Nielsen indicated the island had been reviewed as part of the current zoning ordinance. The vast majority of the property complies with the R -1C zoning rather than the R -1A. In response to Commissioner Kolstad, Nielsen indicated it would be more appropriate to make a zoning ordinance text amendment than to amend the zoning district the property was located in. He indicated the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 7 C.U.P could be modified to stated that the property cannot be redivided in the future. A zoning ordinance text amendment can be initiated by request of an applicant, staff, Planning Commission or City Council. A study would then be performed, a public hearing held, the Planning Commission would then make a recommendation and the City Council would have to approve on a four -fifths vote. He indicated the process would take 60 -90 days. He noted a variance similar to this was g ranted previously and that triggered the amendment which changed the maximum accessory space from 1000 square feet to 1200 square feet. Turgeon moved, Foust seconded to recommend to the Council that it approve a variance to temporarily allow two single - family dwellings on one lot, approve a C.U.P. and variance to allow accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet for Gerald Grewe, 4550/4560 Enchanted Point subject to staff recommendations, not to exceed the maximum allowed in any zoning district (which is 4000 square feet), and tree preservations measures be done on the site during construction. Commissioner Kolstad stated she felt uncomfortable granting a variance that does not meet all the legal conditions. She indicated she could not vote in favor of the motion. Commissioner Turgeon indicated she agreed with Commissioner Kolstad but the property was unique in that it was five times larger than the other properties in the zoning district. Commissioner Rosenberger indicated he personally felt the house was a bit excessive. He stated he would support the motion but it did not agree with his personal philosophy. Commissioner Pisula stated he agreed with Commissioner Rosenberger. He indicated he would vote against the motion. He noted the plan was reasonable based on the size of the property but he still could not determine a hardship in this case. Chair Borkon stated she would vote against the motion. She stated she liked the plan but could not justify a hardship. Commissioner Turgeon indicated she felt granting a variance with a cap on it was more appropriate than CP an amendment to the ordinance due to the time factor. a Nielsen indicated if a lot more of these requests were made, he would strongly suggest amending the code. He suggested the Planning Commission may want to look at the code anyway. He noted there may be a number of smaller lot combinations similar to this but he did not believe many would request this much accessory space. He suggested the Commission did not have to grant the variance. They could table the proposal and initiate an amendment. They could also deny the request and have the applicant come back under the amended code. He noted this could defer construction until spring. Mr. Grewe indicated he had worked with his partner and the Board of Directors of his company to obtain time away from work to do this project. He stated it would create a great hardship if he was not able to get into the ground almost immediately. Council Liaison Benson reminded the Commission can be very specific as to why a variance is denied, they can also be very specific as to why a variance is granted. This would then establish a specific precedent without opening the door to everyone. Voting on the motion: 4 ayes /3 nayes. (Chair Borkon, Commissioners Kolstad and Pisula voted naye.) Motion passed. The Council will consider the recommendation at it's September 25, 1995 meeting PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 8 5. PUBLIC HEARING - C.U.P TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE SHORELAND DISTRICT AND SETBACK VARIANCE (Tabled from July 18, 1995) Applicant: Mark Haymaker Location: 4300 Enchanted Drive Chair Borkon announced the case. Chair Borkon recessed the meeting at 9:50 p.m. and reconvened at 9:53 p.m. Nielsen indicated this request had been tabled at the July 18, 1995 meeting. The applicant has since complied with staff recommendations and submitted a revised site plan shifting the proposed house on the site to preserve trees on the property but in the process has enlarged the home. This home is wider than the home originally proposed. Nielsen indicated that based on a visit to the site, it is evident that the dripline of the northernmost oak tree is approximately at the south edge of an old tennis court on the site. He suggested this be the construction limit for the new home. Nielsen indicated staff is recommending the C.U.P. and setback variances be granted subject to the applicant placing the original house design on the site plan and the south line of the tennis court to be the drip line, fenced off and subcontractors made is aware they are not to enter this area. Mark Haymaker, 4300 Enchanted Drive, indicated he understood the concerns of the Commission and had shifted the house and took the trees into consideration. He suggested the trees could be trimmed before construction. He asked if the tree preservation was an ordinance or a policy. Nielsen indicated it was a draft policy. Mr. Haymaker indicated he felt he should be granted the variance as the trees were causing a hardship. Chair Borkon opened the public hearing at 10:03 p.m. Carl Sheely, 4320 Enchanted Drive, stated Nielsen's report had failed to mention the trees on his property which would have been damaged by the proposed retaining wall. He questioned the elevation of the house, if it was consistent with the homes on either side, the height of the building, and if it would be constructed on pilings. Mr. Haymaker indicated he had performed soil testing and pilings were not required. He stated the home would be one and a half stories in height with a cape cod style. Chair Borkon closed the public hearing at 10:06 p.m. Nielsen indicated the home would be consistent relative to the way it fits the site and consistent with the size of other structures in the neighborhood. The variance was based on the specific plan. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had recommended changes to protect the neighboring and site trees. If these were destroyed it would adversely affect the character of the lot. Nielsen indicated the average setback was forty one and a half feet from the lake. The house would need to go five to seven feet further toward the lake if the tennis court were used as the dripline. Nielsen again stated staff was recommending using the original house plan as it had a smaller footprint, and shifting it on the lot so it was not closer than the south line of the tennis court. Mr. Haymaker stated he was told he could not exceed 25% hard cover surface. He hired an architect to maximize what can be done within the ordinance. He stated a variance was necessary due to a hardship caused by the trees. He noted he had a survey performed to locate the trees and understands he will need to replace any which are cut. He noted he could also just shift the house to the original position and cut down the trees and plant little ones again. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 9 Nielsen stated the purpose of locating the trees was to determine if there was a way to locate the house on the lot so the trees can be preserved. In the revised plan the house has been shifted but also enlarged, defeating the purpose. Mr. Haymaker stated he needed to know the largest house available to build so he could attempt to get the maximum allowable footprint. He stated the architect has informed him the driveway would be too short and he would not be able to park a car, except in the garage, if he used the original proposed house and shifted it on the lot as staff had suggested. Nielsen indicated the driveway looked workable to him. Commissioner Foust asked if Nielsen had sufficient time to communicate his concerns regarding the revised site plan to the applicant. Nielsen indicated he had not. He had received the revised plan the end of August. Commissioner Kolstad stated the trees were important but this was a difficult lot. She questioned if the best solution might be to remove some trees, place the house in the proper position and replace trees, where possible, in front of the house. Chair Borkon asked if Nielsen had met with Mr. Haymaker's architect. Nielsen reported there had been a meeting scheduled but the architect had canceled. Chair Borkon stressed it was essential that the architect, Nielsen, and Mr. Haymaker meet in order to communicate the desires of the Planning Commission. Nielsen asked Mr. Haymaker if the purchase agreement was in jeopardy if he did not receive approval tonight. Mr. Haymaker stated there was no time factor involved. Rosenberger moved to table the C.U.P. to construct a single - family dwelling on a substandard lot in the shoreland district and setback variance for Mark Haymaker, 4300 Enchanted Drive to September 19, 1995. Chair Borkon once again asked Mr. Haymaker if the sale of the property was in jeopardy. Mr. Haymaker indicated it was. He stated his architect said the house cannot be twisted on the lot. The Planning Commission had asked him to locate the trees on the lot and he had done so. Commissioner Turgeon noted the Planning Commission had asked for a revised site plan to preserve the a trees on the neighboring lot and the site. This is not however, what they received. Chair Borkon noted there was a definite communication problem. Commissioner Rosenberger stated he did not see that the communication problem was the City's responsibility. He felt the Planning Commission had been clear in what they were requesting at their last meeting with Mr. Haymaker. He felt some of the responsibility was Mr. Haymaker's. The motion by Commissioner Rosenberger died for lack of a second. Rosenberger moved, Pisula seconded to recommend the Council deny the C.U.P. to construct a single- family dwelling on a substandard lot in the shoreland district and setback variance for Mark Haymaker, 4300 Enchanted Drive. In response to Chair Borkon, Nielsen indicated Mr. Haymaker could still proceed forward to the City Council with his proposal. Approval from the City Council would require a four fifths vote. If the Council denied his request, he could not submit a similar request for six months. Chair Borkon reiterated it was imperative the architect meet with Nielsen and understand what the priorities are. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 5, 1995 - PAGE 10 Commissioner Rosenberger withdrew his motion to deny the C.U.P. to construct a single - family dwelling on a substandard lot in the shoreland district and setback variance. Commissioner Pisula concurred. Rosenberger moved, Pisula seconded to table recommendation on the C.U.P to construct a single - family dwelling on a substandard lot in the shoreland district and setback variance for Mark Haymaker, 4300 Enchanted Drive until September 19, 1995. Motion passed 7/0. 7. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Commissioner Turgeon asked if there had been an increase in requests for C.U.P. for accessory space over 1200 square feet. There was Commission consensus to schedule this subject for a study session. 8. REPORTS i Comrriissioner Foust reported there had been a fire on the island and the dry hydrant was dry, apparently plugged with milfoil. There was Commission consensus to direct staff to investigate responsibility of the maintenance of the dry hydrant. Council Liaison Benson reported on the actions taken at the City Council meeting of August 28, 1995. Commissioner Lizee reported the Park Commission had chosen the park dedication fee for the land involved in the Smithtown Road, Lundgren Bros. project. Commissioner Foust reported the cable budget had been approved by the City Council and that he was a member of the Future Needs Assessment Committee. 7. ADJOURNMENT Foust moved, Lizee seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:23 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Lorri L. Kopischke Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 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 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25 1995 Larry Brown, the newly appointed Engineer/Public Works Director will be here at 7:15 p.m. before the City Council meeting. Please come early to meet and visit with Larry. He will officially starting his duties October 2. Agenda Item #3A The Planner recommends approval of a request to extend the deadline for landscaping for Roxanne Martin's conditional use permit by 30 days. Agenda Item #3B: The City Council should set the regular Council meeting dates in November and December as the regular meeting date of November 13, moving the November 27 meeting to November 29 which is the same evenin as the budget hearing, and having one meeting in December. The first regular meeting is December 11. Because the second meeting in December would be on Christmas night, we suggest we cancel the second meeting in December. Agenda Item #5A: The Planner recommends that David Rice be allowed to store dock sections on his property until 1 June 1996, subject to conditions. Agenda Item #5B: Mr. John Hunner proposes to alter the roof on a nonconforming home on Christmas Lake and also build a new detached garage. The proposed alteration does not increase the size of the home or the nonconformity and the owner's plans include reducing nonconforming hardcover on the site by approximately four percent. The Planner recommends approval and the Planning Commission agreed unanimously, subject to conditions. Agenda Item #5C: The Planner and the Planning Commission recommend in favor of a request by Jim Simondet to build a shed, the area of which when added to his existing accessory space, exceeds 1200 square feet in area. Agenda Item #5D: Mr. Gerald Grewe has requested a variance to temporarily have two homes on one site while he constructs his new home. He also requests a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet and a variance to allow 4000 square feet of accessory space in an R -1 C/S zoning district. After considerable discussion the variance for two homes was recommended by the Planning Commission unanimously. The c.u.p. and variance was recommended on a 4 -3 vote. Staff should be directed to prepare a findings of fact. Approval of both requests requires a four - fifths vote by the Council. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Executive Summary - City Council Meeting September 25, 1995 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item #5E: The Planner and the Planning Commission recommend approval of a subdivision creating one new lot at 25725, a request which had been approved previously, but never recored. Agenda Item #5F: After two revisions, the Planner and the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Condition Use Permit and setback variance to allow Mark Haymaker to build on a substandard lakeshoe lot at 4300 Enchanted Drive. Staff should be directed to prepare a findings of fact. Agenda Item #5G: Brent Sinn requests approval of a revised plan which only widens 90 feet of Galpin Lane rather than 190 feet which was previously required by the City in the approval of the Zachary Woods plat. The Planner stronly recommends against this change. Agenda Item #6A: Representatives from Springsted Inc. will be present to present the appropriate resolution to initiate proceedings to borrow funds for the 1995 watermain project. Agenda Item #6B: The Engineer' report on the various potential water tower sites on the Minnewashta School property is enclosed. Ed will give a verbal report and will ask the Council by motion to authorize us to negotiate a specific site with the School District. Agenda Item #6C: Please review the enclosed resolution very carefully. We have attempted to draft a resolution consistent with the direction given at the last Council meeting regarding the requirement of hookup to the municipal water system. If there is any problem with the wording, please give us specific direction at this Council meeting and we can bring it back at the next Council meeting. Agenda Item #7: Several meetings ago the Council directed the Engineer and Staff to consider alternatives and to make a recommendation on improving the Christmas Lake deadend at Brand Circle. Agenda Item #8: The enclosed memorandum from Ed DeLaForest explains OSM's proposal to prepare for us our water contingency and conservation plan which is required now be the State before the end of 1995. We recommend that the Council accept the proposal by which the work is accomplished for an amount not to exceed $6,000. Agenda Item #9: It looks as though the Sanitary Sewer Rate Advisory Task Force work is coming to a close. It is my intent to give a report to the City Council on the Committee's work to date. This item can certainly be postponed if the meeting gets late and we want to be able to get into a work session. 4F Work Session: Up for discussion at this work session are portions of the proposed 1996 -2000 Capital Improvement Program and organized garbage collection as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. j CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 7:30 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, Malam, McCarty, and Stover; Administrator Hurm, City Engineer DeLaForest, City Attorney Keane, Planning Director Nielsen, and Finance Director Rolek. B . Review Agenda • Benson moved, McCarty seconded to approve the agenda for September 11, 1995 amended by removing Item 3L. and 3M. from the consent agenda to discussion items following Item 5. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Regular Minutes - August 28, 1995 McCarty moved, Benson seconded to approve the August 28, 1995 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes as amended on Page 2, Paragraph 8, Line 1 and Paragraph 9, Line 2 and Paragraph 10, Line 2 replace "Pastruck" with "Pastuck ", Page 3, Paragraph 7, Line 1 and Line 2 replace "site" with "sight" and on Page 5, Paragraph 5, Line 1 replace "Rich" with "Rick ". Motion passed 510. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Bean read the Consent Agenda for September 11, 1995. McCarty moved, Benson seconded to approve the Motions on the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions therein: A. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -79, "A Resolution Accepting Park Trails and Playground Surfacing Project, Project No. 94 -9, and Authorizing Final Payment." B. RESOLUTION NO. 95-80, "A Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for Space in Excess of 1,200 Square Feet." Applicant: Kurt Scheurer. Location: 26930 Edgewood Road. C. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -81. "A Resolution Approving a Setback Variance / Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure." Applicant: Jim Kantola. Location: 20845 Radisson Road. go REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 11, 1995 - PAGE 2 D. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -82, "A Resolution Approving a Setback Variance / Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure." Applicant: Robert West. Location: 5815 Ridge Road. E. RESOLUTION NO 95 -83 "A Resolution Approving a Setback Variance / Variance to Expand a Nonconforming Structure." Applicant: Stephen and Joan Olson. Location: 20760 Radisson Road. F. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -84, "A Resolution Approving a Revision to Previously Approved Setback Variance." Applicant: Richard Kowalsky. Location: 5740 Christmas Lake Point. G . Motion to Approve a Subdivision Sign Permit - Zachary Woods. Applicant: Brent Sinn. Location: 6035 Galpin Lake Road. H. Motion to Extend a Deadline to Comply with Notice to Remove and Zoning Violation Letter. Appellant: Michelle Richter. Location: 22740 Murray Street. I. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -85 "A Resolution Approving a Right -of Way • Permit." Applicant: Whitley Mott. Location: 24890 Yellowstone Trail. J. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -86 "A Resolution Setting the 1996 Proposed General Fund Budget and the Preliminary 1995 Property Tax Levy Collectible in 1996." K. RESOLUTION NO. 95 -87 "A Resolution Setting a Public Hearing and Subsequent Hearing on the Proposed 1996 Municipal Budget." Mayor Bean noted the public hearing to review the proposed 1996 budget for the City of Shorewood addressed in Item K is scheduled for Wednesday, November 29, 1995 at 7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Motion passed 510. 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 10 Dave Rice, 22740 Murray Street, stated he lived with his girlfriend, Michelle Richter, at the property addressed in agenda Item 3H. He stated they had just bought the house and had gotten everything cleaned up, licensed and insured. The only thing remaining on the property is a dock which he will have a spot for next spring. He stated he did not want to put the dock in the garage as he wants to park his cars there. He noted people who live on a lake are not required to put their docks in the buildable area of the lot but are allowed to leave it on the lakeshore. Mayor Bean explained the ordinance was different for Lakeshore property than it was for non - lakeshore property. Councilmember Stover asked if the dock could be moved to Mr. Rice's lakeshore property now. Mr. Rice indicated he would not own the lakeshore property until spring. He stated he could move the dock behind the garage where it would not be visible to anyone but he would not be able to move it off the lot until next spring and intends to move it as soon as the ice is off the lake. Mr. Rice stated all other conditions had been complied with. He noted he had lived on a lake in Tonka Bay for 34 years and now moved to Shorewood and has no lakeshore. He indicated he would like to store the dock right below the garage within the legal setbacks. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 11, 1995 - PAGE 3 Mr. Nielsen indicated he would change his recommendation to grant the appellant 30 days to comply with City Code with regard to all items except the dock sections which could be stored on the property until May 1, 1996. There was Council consensus to direct staff to prepare a motion to extend a deadline to comply with notice to remove for all items by October 12, 1995 except the dock sections which could remain in a location within the buildable area of the lot until May 1, 1996. 3L. CONSIDERATION OF ENGINEER JOB DESCRIPTION AND SALARY RANGE City Administrator Hurm reported the City Engineer and Public Works Director position will be combined to one position. Councilmember Benson explained Donald Zdrazil, the current Public Works Director is retiring. The new City Engineer will be able to train with Zdrazil before he leaves. He stated the top candidate is very qualified. Benson moved, McCarty seconded to approve the City Engineer Job Description and Establish a Salary Range. Motion passed 510. 3M. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO ENGINEER / PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR POSITION Councilmember Benson indicated the candidate chosen was Mr. Larry Brown. Hurm indicated everyone was pleased with the candidate. Benson moved, Malam seconded to adopt RESOLUTION 95 -88, "A Resolution approving the Appointment of Lawrence Brown to Engineer / Public Works Director Position." Motion passed 510. Councilmember Malam, on behalf of the City Council, thanked Councilmember Benson for all his efforts in this process. 5. 7:45 PUBLIC HEARING - DELINQUENT UTILITY AND OTHER PROPERTY SPECIFIC CHARGES • Finance Director Rolek explained once per year delinquent utility accounts, including sewer, stormwater utility, City clean -up, dry hydrant, and property clean-up charges, are levied against the affected properties. After this year there will not be a public hearing on this issue because a review of the State Statute has indicated a public hearing is not required. Mayor Bean opened and closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. since no one appeared to address the Council. Mayor Bean expressed surprise at the length of the list. Rolek explained there was no mechanism to shut off the services and this is the City's only recourse. He indicated there will be an assessment against the affected properties as soon as the resolution is adopted. Stover moved, Malam seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO 95 -89. "A Resolution directing Delinquent Sewer Charges, Stormwater Utility Charges, City Clean -up Charges, Dry Hydrant Charges, and Property Clean -up Charges be Placed on the 1996 Property Tax Rolls." Motion passed 510. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 11, 1995 - PAGE 4 6. PARKS - Report by Representative Commissioner Dzurak reviewed the discussions by the Commission at its August 29, 1995 Park Commission meeting. (Details are provided in the minutes of that meeting.) 7. PLANNING - Report by Representative Commissioner Pisula reviewed the discussions and recommendations made at the Planning Commission's September 5, 1995 meeting. (Details are provided in the minutes of that meeting.) A. Consideration of an Appeal to a Zoning Violation Letter. Applicant: Peter Lehman. Location: 21285 Radisson Road. Nielsen reported Mr. Lehman had indicated he would not be able to attend the meeting tonight because he was out of town. Nielsen stated staff is recommending the property owner be granted an extension until October 11 to comply with City Code or make appropriate application for a zoning request by that time. Nielsen explained the ordinance requires outdoor storage occur only in the buildable area of the lot. Mr. Lehman would prefer storage to occur in the driveway or on the street side of the property. Nielsen indicated the applicant could consider a variance request, if • he can demonstrate a hardship, but he presumes there are other options available. Stover moved, McCarty seconded to grant an extension to October 11, 1995 to comply with the Code or, as an alternative, make appropriate application for a zoning request by that time, per staff recommendation. Motion passed 510. 8. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING BOULDER BRIDGE AND BADGER FIELD WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT A. A Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract for Boulder Bridge and Badger Field Water System Improvements. City Engineer DeLaForest explained on August 25, 1995, four bids were received for the project with the lowest bid of $903,914.00 being received from Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. He indicated the City has the option of contracting all of the work or only a portion. He explained there were two reasons the prices were higher than anticipated. One was the ambiguity of how the watermain fittings were bid. If the work is awarded to Dave Perkins, the fittings will be at the . price bid per pound, but the quantity will be based on the actual weight of compact fittings used. This will result in a price reduction of $41,000. The second reason the bid was higher is the bidders seemed to view the work as being more difficult than the engineer did due to the restrictive work space and the requirement to maintain traffic on Smithtown Road. DeLaForest explained the two main factors in the difference between the feasibility report estimate and the lowest bid received are the amount of necessary pavement restoration and the utility interference which will require more expensive "directional boring" techniques. He stated Rolek had studied the cash flow and determined the project was still financially feasible. The Heritage Development is relying on water being provided this fall and Lundgren Bros stated they can wait until next Summer. He also noted if Council awards all of the work for the project at this time, it is unlikely all the work will be completed this year. DeLaForest recommended City Council award all work to Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. for $903,914. If only part of the work is awarded, he recommended awarding Schedule D, so Heritage Development will be served this year. Benson moved, Malam seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 95 -90. "A Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding Contract for Boulder Bridge and Badger Field Water System Improvements to Dave Perkins Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $903,914. Motion passed 4/1. (Stover voted nay.) REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 11, 1995 - PAGE 5 B . A Resolution Establishing Water Connection Policy. Rolek reported he had performed a cash flow with the assumption hook -ups would be required as water is made available and the water fund becomes fairly low in the year 2010 but increases after that point. An analysis was also done on the presumption one tenth of the residents would hook- up to the water system and this resulted in a deficit in the year 2010. Councilmember Stover asked if the projections took into account any other expansions to the water system. Rolek indicated this only considered the project at hand. Rolek noted this project had a large capital expenditure. The water tower is being built to serve a large area but is now only affecting a small area. Mayor Bean asked what areas are anticipated to be served by next year. DeLaForest stated they are planning stage development implementation of the water system by looking at the potential assessments, trunk charges, and user revenue of the people who will be coming onto the system. There are also other possibilities such as serving part of the City of Victoria. In response to Councilmember Malam, Rolek indicated the cash flow analysis did assume everyone with water available would hook -up within two years. Councilmember Benson stated he was not troubled by the bid process but was not comfortable with forcing people to hook -up immediately to the system when it comes by on their street. He stated some people may need longer as the hook -up may be very expensive. He indicated he was also not comfortable in charging a user fee to those who chose not to hook -up. He suggested an analysis be performed in one year to determine if mandatory hook -up was necessary. Councilmember McCarty stated it was always known there would be a point when everyone would have to hook -up but no specific deadline had been determined. She stated this was painful but is the only fiscally responsible thing to do. Mayor Bean indicated he did not agree with a year to year analysis as he wanted consistency for the residents. Councilmember Stover stated she did not want to force people to hook -up to the system. She indicated she would prefer an annual analysis and if hook -ups are necessary, require them at that time. If enough people hook -up, mandatory hook -ups may never be necessary : Councilmember McCarty stated she would prefer the availability charge. She noted Orono and Victoria use this procedure. Mayor Bean stated the decision to move forward with the water system was made because the community needs City water. In order to make this economically viable, it requires hook -ups. He stated he believed it was appropriate to give people a reasonable timeframe to work with so they can plan. Mayor Bean indicated the choices were to have higher assessments or a lower assessment and utility charges to fund the difference. The assessments alone would not fund the system. Councilmember Benson stated some people may not be able to afford a $5000 assessment and then the fee to hook -up at the same time. He indicated he was uncomfortable making a decision tonight. He stated he would agree with a mandatory hook -up in 18 months but believed the issue should be reviewed in one year. Councilmember Malam indicated he was comfortable with this timeframe. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 11, 1995 - PAGE 6 Councilmember Stover stated she felt it would be appropriate for an analysis to be done one year from today and a determination made at that point when or if hook -up will be required. She believed there would be better facts to deal with at that time, such as real costs, who had hooked - up, etc. There was Council consensus to direct staff to prepare a resolution establishing policy regarding hookup to the municipal water system to include "residents shall hookup to the water system within 18 months of water being available unless City Council determines the deadline be extended following an analysis of the status of the water fund by September 1996 ". Mayor Bean recessed the meeting at 9:52 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:07 p.m. 9. ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF REPORTS A. Engineer's Report on Resident Request to Extend Watermain Project. DeLaForest reported the property owners of 5935 and 5970 Afton Road have requested water hook -up during the 1995 water improvements. He stated both properties are quite a way off Smithtown Road and hook -up cannot be implemented under the Smithtown Road project. He stated an implementation plan for future water extension is being done and when a schedule for extension along Afton Road and Cathcart Drive is reached, the residents will be notified when they can expect water. B . Engineer's Report on Minnewashta School Tower Site Investigation. DeLaForest reported he met with Eugene George, Mr. Lloyd Law, Mr. Terry Forbord and Mr. John Uban to discuss the sighting of the water tower on the Minnewashta School property. He stated three sites are being considered. There was also a fourth potential location identified which is closer to the school and Smithtown Road. The City has agreed to provide soil borings for each site. A report should be received from the company performing the soil borings by the middle of the week and a report will available for the City Council on the cost of the different options within two weeks. Mayor Bean recognized Mr. Forbord and the Minnewashta School for their help in researching alternative plans for the water tower site. C. Administrator's Report on Metro Mobility Service to the City Hurm reported he had met Mark Fuhrmann from the transit staff of the Metropolitan Council to discuss the issue of Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Plymouth, Maple Grove, Osseo, Vadnais Heights and White Bear Township losing Metro Mobility Service. It was initially determined that the Metropolitan Council is not required to provide Metro Mobility Service to these seven communities according to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Fuhrmann indicated he will be recommending a compromise to the Metropolitan Council that the service run from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. This would cover 90 -92% of the current calls. The proposal is to take $7,000 from the Shorewood property taxes and $5,580 from State funds. • McCarty moved, Stover seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 95 -91. "A Resolution Maintaining Metro Mobility Service for Shorewood Residents Amended by Adding "Request Service to the Shorewood Residents be Maintained at the Same Level as Other Metropolitan Communities ". Motion passed 510. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES September 11, 1995 - PAGE 7 Hurm reported he received a letter form the State of Minnesota Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation regarding meetings sponsored by State Senators and Representatives. These meetings will be held at the Minnetonka City Hall Council Chambers on Wednesday, September 27 and Wednesday, October 18 from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. Hurm reported there will be a final work session regarding the Senior Community Center on September 13 at 5:30 p.m. Hurm reported with regard to the Livable Communities Act, the Administrators of the lake area have been getting together on a monthly basis. At the last meeting, staff from the Metropolitan Council has determined that the South Lake area should have one meeting in which the elected officials hear the presentation regarding the Livable Communities Act and discuss actions. This meeting will be at the Deephaven City Hall on Wednesday, September 20 at 7:00 p.m. City Council has to take action on whether to participate by November 15, 1995. 14. ADJOURNMENT TO WORK SESSION FORMAT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS • Malam moved, Stover seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting at 10:49 p.m., subject to approval of claims. Motion passed 5 10. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Lorri L. Kopischke Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST ROBERT B. BEAN, MAYOR U JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS WORK SESSION 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1995 10:50 P.M. MINUTES CONVENE WORK SESSION MEETING Mayor Bean called the meeting to order at 10:50 p.m.. A. Roll Call Present: Mayor Bean; Councilmembers Benson, Malam, McCarty, and Stover; Administrator Hurm, Planning Director Nielsen, and Finance Director Rolek. 2 ESTABLISH GOALS FOR 1996 AND REVIEW PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET Rolek outlined the proposed 1996 operating budget. Rolek explained the growth rate from . 1994/1995 to 1995/1996 was 11.7% with new construction accounting for 5 -6% and inflation 6 -7 %. He indicated the tax rate for 1995/1996 was 17.548% compared to 1994/1995 of 18.471%. Rolek explained the increases in 1996 proposed expenditures were in police, fire, Christmas Lake Study, increased CIP effort, assessor, election judges, salary adjustments, and the Senior Community Center. If these increases were subtracted from the proposed expenditures the 1996 budget would actually be $5,551 less than the 1995 adopted budget. The increases in the 1996 proposed levy included a decrease in HACA and in liquor store transfer. If these increases were subtracted from the 1996 proposed levy, the levy would actually result in an increase of $48,790 more than the 1995 General Tax Levy. Rolek illustrated the alternatives to reduce the 1996 budget by the Senior Community Center amount. There was Council consensus to not reduce the 1996 budget by the Senior Community Center amount. 3. ADJOURNMENT Benson moved, McCarty seconded to adjourn the Work Session meeting at 11:50 p m. Motion passed 510. 9 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Lorri L. Kopishcke Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial ATTEST ROBERT J. BEAN, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ,-� • MAYOR Robert Bean COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty Doug Malam CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • ( 612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 13 September 1995 RE: Martin, Roxanne - C.U.P - Deadline Extension FILE NO. 405 (95.16) Due to adverse weather conditions the Martins' plans to construct a landscape berm in front of their home have been delayed (see attached letter, dated 8 September). Since the conditional use permit stipulated that the berm must be landscaped by 1 October 1995, their request for a 30 -day extension to complete the work must be approved by the Council. Approval of this extension is recommended. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Monday night's meeting. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Roxanne Martin 3.A. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore N-T wu uv�-� �I$ � 4 sn �CZ c� * tiL at�� (Y�aqt�n a+ SG ' 'vu�a� P ALJ V-) CSC C VEll By jotL I 161, C - UA-L d CLtL cq 5 ism �UJa,a�vt �c c�c� 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 1 ••� t TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 21 September 1995 RE: Rice, David - Appeal Notice to Remove and Zoning Violation FILE NO. 405 (Property - 22740 Murray Street) At the last meeting I attempted to revise my recommendation regarding the above - referenced appeal (see memo re: Richter, Michelle) to extend the deadline for removal of dock sections being stored on the property. Under the circumstances I suggest that the owner be allowed to store the dock sections until 1 June 1996, at which time they will be relocated and not returned to the subject property. This recommendation is based on a condition that the dock sections be stacked neatly behind the owner's garage and that the other violations be corrected within 30 days of the last Council meeting. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Monday night's meeting. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane David Rice S.A. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 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 TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen • DATE: 29 August 1995 RE: Hunner, John - Variance to Alter a Nonconformin Residential Structure FILE NO.: 405 (95.30) BACKGROUND Mr. John Hunner proposes to remodel his home at 20625 Radisson Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). As can be seen on Exhibit B, the home does not conform to the setback requirements of the R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential/Shoreland zoning district in which is it located. Mr. Hunner proposes to replace the existing flat roof on the house with a gable roof. He also proposes to remove an existing detached garage and replace it with a larger garage which complies with setback requirements. The property in question contains only 12,268 square feet of area. The north half of the lot is level, dropping off dramatically south of the existing driveway. The house contains approximately 1235 square feet of area on each of two levels. It is located only 15 feet from the ordinary high water level of Christmas Lake. The existing garage contains 535 square feet. As proposed, the new garage would contain 1032 square feet of area. Existing impervious surface coverage on the-property is 41 percent, 16 percent over the maximum. Mr. Hunner proposes to move the new garage forward on the lot to create some yard area between the garage and house. The applicant's request is explained in his letter (Exhibit C), dated 1 August 1995. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 of the Zoning Code contains provisions relative to nonconforming uses and structures. Although the intent of these provisions is to discourage the survival of nonconforming structures, they are tempered somewhat for nonconforming single - family dwellings. Subd. l.j. states: "Alterations may be made to a building containing lawful nonconforming residential units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or the nonconformity." A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: ' Hunner, John Variance 29 August 1995 The applicant's request is considered to fit with this provision. Although the walls and foundation of the home are very sound, the roof is badly in need of repair. Not only does the flat design create leakage problems, the resulting ceiling height does not meet current building codes. Construction of a gable roof with increased ceiling heights certainly can be construed as improving the livability of the home. Exhibit D shows how the remodeled structure will look from different directions. The applicant's architect is to be commended for creating a design which minimizes the height of the structure. What does not show on the building elevations is that several mature trees on the lake side of the home significantly soften the mass of the structure as viewed from the lake. Since replacement of the roof does not cause damage to the root systems of the trees, the trees need not be damaged by construction (some trimming will be necessary). • In addition to creating more yard area between the house and garage, the new garage is intended to make up for the lack of storage in the existing home. Although the new garage will be larger than the existing one, a significant amount of driveway pavement will be removed, actually reducing the amount of impervious surface on the site and increasing conformity with the Code. Note: The amount of and percent of impervious surface to be removed has not been calculated as of this writing, but should be available at the meeting. Based upon the preceding, the variance is considered justified and will allow the applicant to make reasonable use of his property. Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. While trimming of the existing trees will be allowed, they should be protected during construction. 2. If the new garage is proposed to be built before the old one is torn down and the pavement removed, a cash escrow or letter of credit must be provided prior to issuance of a building permit to ensure that the improvements are completed within six months. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane - John Hunner Tom Ellison -2- GOVT LOT 2 2646. I4 RES LOT to °0 T :p� r 4 y4 \ (�) xe °0 s • .dA tti �yE,� i� 40f 7 7 • - -' �1! T i m r I c a"e. of :ao•ot',: o ` y ATI ' , R..6e]•� , • lt .tip �- o" ; ' SSS S • ° 24 ' �. o' •b . . r• ...3 .. R (� (22) x (30) Z S g 66'71.1 W TSB `u T,.1 96. to 25 ' °' tom• h AGQ t� \', E. ®, .7. , y • ' ms s.. C=l= 'p e•� T aM tet. E;Si J ® WilOT 9 GA (7 (8) vo. $, r . a(83) (�9) IT9.eT • e �;(s0 '(9) - RAOISSON } 35), �A (91. , �l a �. 4 •- • •, fit 7 .T n \\- t q �� ;'ta �11 IT } \\ ° s Is (15)(14) : w e ,.1 ` ^y t ,`. 1 S( I6) y`e) ➢ Q� 19 (25) (27) 0 .. ........... :.................... • y ' EAST o1 t�. (23) �E a ..CT T� T , y . ' me, "` North C TRACT 0 o. I o y � ae. ": _ " r C (I '..• �� ,?� Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Hunner variance A � - •1 FRO dw 3 , C/2 W l + r z N ` T ` o If ' �v o r _ GHKlc.T AI LAKE' 0 .q 4� 7 i v �I August 1, 1995 TO: Shorewood Planning Commission and City Council SUBJECT: Request for approval to replace and modify existing roof and relocate garage on property. CRITERIA: The existing building is a substantial structure built prior to the 1900's consisting of 18" thick concrete exterior walls on three sides with post and beam interior construction. The building was part of the Charles A.F. Morris residence and Glen Morris Inn (later known as the Radisson Inn) complex built in 1885. This structure served as the boat house and is one of the few remaining remnants of the Christmas Lake Landmark. The existing flat roof is inadequate and needs to be replaced. Flat roofs in this climate are impractical and we have found are prone to many problems. Therefore we are requesting a variance to replace the flat roof with a pitched roof. The architect has put a great deal of thought and effort into this proposed design. Our goal is not only to create an esthetically pleasing structure, but also to recall the original character of the Radisson Inn. We appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, F hn % Hunneir Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 1 August 1995 �I\ Tor of HK,;- fieyp T ToF or ExISf. 0, LL _ Rf E T FLAT 2coF woof- ►JW t mj vow r. - T`fr. Mau L L,,JER LEVEL SOUTH ELEVATION Ili n n � I��IL�iI riff N6�.J STLICGO f-INKH c ep Exlg i0ea BRJCK - TYP. FILE Is is" RarF ' _ - - ;JCS r {Plcv� GABLE ¢arm y I?/12 PITcs-I. 1] D \ Tov op PILL BE Tor of 69 KT. WAL �mAl" L I I I I I. I I � I I Lo "ER Lev E I 1 _ I, 11 rl NORTH ELEVATION f . FTFHIM cr l �I 1 I I 0 41 + Toaar LaI.�R LEY6L• i r- -1ATER LEVEL WEST ELEVATION 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 UT -14Me ►1bI�1 rI TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 30 August 1995 RE: Simondet, James - C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (95.29) BACKGROUND Mr. and Mrs. James Simondet propose to build a utility shed on the east side of their property at 5390 Shady Hills Circle (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). Since the area of the proposed shed, when added to their existing attached garage space, exceeds 1200 square feet of floor area, they have requested a conditional use pen nit pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the City Code. The property in question is zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential and contains approximately 25,200 square feet. The existing house contains approximately 2158 square feet of floor area above grade. The existing attached garage contains 1118 square feet, and the proposed 12' x • 20' shed contains 240 square feet. Total proposed accessory space is 1358 square feet. Exhibit B shows the location of existing and proposed structures on the site. Exhibit C shows how the shed will look. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the City Code provides four criteria for granting an accessory space C.U.P. Following is how the applicant's request complies: a. The total area of accessory space (1358 sq. ft.) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure (2158 sq. ft.). b. The accessory space does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which the property is located (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 sq. ft.). A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore _ 15 Re: Simondet, James C.U.P. for Accessory Space 30 August 1995 c. The proposed building complies with R -1 C setback requirements and has no apparent impact on site drainage. Existing vegetation at the east and south sides of the property will provide screening from adjacent properties. d. While the design of the proposed shed does not match the existing house, it is a commonly used plan for residential utility sheds. Given its location and the screening referenced in c. above, the design should be compatible with the property and surrounding neighborhood. In response to the public hearing notice for this request, we have received an unsigned letter (Exhibit D) expressing concerns about the subject property. While the applicants' restoring of classic and antique cars is considered to be a hobby rather than a home occupation, at least one of the concerns raised in the letter has merit. Outside storage of unlicensed or inoperable vehicles is prohibited by City Code. It is assumed that the accessory space is intended to alleviate the applicants' storage situation. As a condition of the C.U.P. approval the City may wish to include language regarding home occupations and restricting outdoor storage on the site. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Jim Simondet 0 -2- FORE ( T o 17) (39) 4p t --------------------- ------ i 01 (16) 466 It • ma FAN 56 .64 109 LOT ?T (24) Z (2 µy T PART OF LOT 19 10 4 LOT zo 6) (2) 4 1 0 - 'a t. E, .m a (15) 1 0 251.6 ~ Ito A 1 2) Q ."�' o. .. A.A n2. 36.•6•:. - - - - - - V- 66 t ,,sr* 13 11,M-93 • 33 (20) r1 ye1 W 1z ° - 4 (28) - - - - 140 (8) 133- t 3 (27 Q5 (43) (25) (21) (42) ------- — - (5) (41) ON Is (221 A 52 VIL (;4): (35) Im ...... I 29 q (35) lao (33) North N A 1 93 I Or (103 . jN4 40 ART OF Z3 ' I 5D 31Z. 4 1 1 260 163da PART OF 25 a 8 18) (17) - ! (52) b. ...... 1 -IT o 6 PANT GF LOT 26 10' (16 ri 14 8 MC 4 3. MCI 15 YS FISf 53) '' i G -(25) (14) 330. .4 12 (54) Rr -13 RD 0 6. r: 1 6 7 (26) la W P 27)! 0 0 : /- QUILar 50 - 30) (29) (28) 05 (66) ounar 0 0 (34) Z 1 7 1 1 I IMI IM 'm s (2) 13 Y R = ^ (22) 17 b. ( L lb (43) Z7 , -7 Al) cr- ia .4; - �Su 6 - � qi� ( i4l) 2 (35) (4) (40) ze (6 (45) ('36) (5) 9 (56) 30) 41.25* -.91 1 4 , 5' s IA9. (28):s 1 1 at l4 (57) (4U) . ......... r — - . • ,(Z7) 134 3 (57 bt, (55) 103 .43 ml Z3 I M jd(a) M S8Q'tV-3?'f (55) (57) G T (51) OL Is z s 54) a (48) .20 11 47) M 10) (19) 33 33 (51 , A (50) (.a) Ia. n � (30 ) 2640.02 RES ....... Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Simondet C.U.P. P ° O C V4 00 i r- . h pro pope � �� N E^ h Co l � N O I > 1 C N" K� I 0 o � � O 8 � t� W '4 r Exhibit B SITE PLAN r I i Q GumE Tot1 sszrrYou WITH Yoon EZ FRAME SHED Widow Not lnaludi* , iota as am OpdON6 You map andnKn or Lm mroaiabdepeo ftm Low you bufd.Byou used mace we7 aei you mme, ryou Lace idtvvm W* I bald s. GENERAL _ Prior to beginning construction, the area selected for the shed location must be leveled and cleared of obstructions. Y Z. INVENTORY Separate all lumber, hardware, etc. into individual stacks of like items. 3. FRAME •PREPARATION Unfold eacl} frame; setting aside two frames to be used as end walls. From 1 "x4" Pine boards,* cut Gusset plates 6" long - -24 for a 12' building,32 for a 16' building or 40 for a 20' building. Apply gusset plates on each side of the top and bottom fold locations. Frames to be used as end walls require only one gusset plate top and bottom on the side opposite of the metal plate, and to the inside of the building. Use four 8d nails on each plate. See Figure 1. CGURE ,. I t um" U=9 gsia"ate 4 Upper fold location " Lower of Frame mber x" side wan Frame Member Treated 2 "x4" Bottom Frame Member Z "1" "71[6" 100 9U=Wt plate at bottom fold location 121.0" EZ BUIM BARN FT as" 121 Exhibit C PROPOSED SHED PLAN R City of Shorewood Bradley J. Nielsen Planning Director Tuesday This letter is in response to your notification concerning a public hearing for an additional shed or garage at the Simondet property in Shady Hills. A few years ago the Simondet 's added a third garage to their property. This was to provide room for a car or other property as their driveway always had two to four cars parked. This third garage we were told, was to allow space to garage more vehicles. This has not happened. Today, on inventory out front includes: 1 Van 1 Boat 1 Traitor 2 Cars 1 Covered Car It appears to some Shady Hills residents that the new shed or garage is to provide storage for antigue /classic cars that are being restored on their property. To date, a mid 1940 chev has been restored and I believe it is gone. Current restoration is on a 1949 Buick inside the garage. The covered car in the driveway is a 1920 or 1930 era. This car appears to be waiting to be restored. The driveway is an eyesore to Shady Hills. It also appears that Simondet is running a business and that is the reason for the third garage - -and now the fourth garage or "shed" is to handle the business. Sincerely, Concerned Shady Hills Residents Exhibit D RESIDENT ( ?) RESPONSE LETTER MAYOR Robert Bean COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty CITY OF Doug Malam MEMORANDUM SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 September 1995 RE: Grewe, Jerry - Variance to Temporarily Allow Two Homes on One Lot / C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet / Variance for Amount of Accessory Space FILE NO.: 405 (95.32) BACKGROUND Mr. Jerry Grewe owns the home at 4550 Enchanted Point and has arranged to purchase the home at 4560 Enchanted Point (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to combine the two properties, demolish both homes and an existing garage, and build one new home on the property. He has asked that the City approve a variance to allow him to live in the house at 4560 while the new home is being built. Since the total amount of garage space and an existing boat house on the site will exceed 1200 square feet of floor area, Mr. Grewe requests a conditional use permit. He also requests a variance to exceed the requirement which limits accessory space to 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the zoning district in which the property is located. The property is zoned R -1C /S, Single - Family Residential/Shoreland and contains a total of 98,733 square feet of area between the two lots. The proposed house will contain 5295 square feet on the main level. As of this writing square footage of a second level is not available, although it appears to equal the first floor area. The applicant proposes to build an attached two - level garage with 1100 square feet on the upper level and 1450 square feet on the lower level. The two levels will be accessed from the south and north sides of the structure, respectively. The applicant proposes to keep an existing, nonconforming boat house on the property which contains 1475 square feet, bringing the total of proposed accessory space to 4025 square feet. Exhibit B, attached, contains the applicant's proposed site plan. Exhibits C and D show building elevations from the west and the east. Exhibit E is the first floor plan for the new house. Exhibit F is the applicant's request letter. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore '— Re: Grewe, Jerry C.U.P. and Variances 1 September 1995 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Upon review of the applicant's plans and applicable provisions of the Shorewood City Code, the following issues are raised. A. Variance for Temporary Location of Two Homes on One Lot. The Shorewood Zoning Code limits the number of principal uses or structures on residential land to one. The City has, on at least three previous occasions, allowed a property owner to leave an existing home in place while a new home is being constructed. In those cases three primary issues arise: 1) making sure that retaining the old house does not force an undesirable location of the new one; 2) securing an adequate financial guarantee to ensure that the older home will be removed; and 3) obtaining assurance that the older home will be removed within a specified reasonable amount of time. 1. Due to the large size of the combined lots, the location of the existing home does not adversely affect the location of the new home. Although there are factors which may require some site plan modification (these will be discussed further on in the report), the existing home is not considered to be one of them. 2. Experience shows us that the best way to assure that the property will be brought into conformance with the Code (i.e. removal of the existing house when the new one is done) is to require an adequate financial guarantee from the applicant. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy the applicant should submit bids for demolition of the existing house and garage, removal of the existing driveway and restoration of the site. A letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of one and one -half of the bid amount shall then be required before the C.O. will be issued. 3. It is important to specify a time limit for completion of the new home and removal of the old. In past requests the City has allowed anywhere from six to twelve months for compliance. The applicant requests twelve months due to the size of the project. B. Conditional Use for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square feet. Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) sets forth four criteria for granting an accessory space C.U.P. Following is how the applicant's request complies. The area of accessory space (4025 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the principal structure. The first floor alone contains 5295. It is assumed that the second floor will be close if not equal to that of the first. 2. The area of accessory space does exceed ten percent of the minimum lot area for the R -1C /S district. This district allows up to 2000 square feet of accessory space. The applicant proposes approximately twice that, which would be consistent with the R -lA zoning district. The applicant has requested a variance, which is discussed in C. below of this report. -2- Re: Grewe, Jerry C.U.P. and Variances 1 September 1995 3. The location of the new house complies with R -1C /S setback requirements, except that the height of the structure requires additional side and Lakeshore setbacks. The Code limits building height to 35 feet. Buildings can go as high as 40 feet, subject to an additional three feet of side yard setback and an additional five feet of lakeshore setback for each foot of height over 35 feet. While ample room exists on the site to accommodate the additional setback requirements, the applicant is considering how to adjust his plans so as not to necessitate removing any unnecessary trees. One option may be to reduce the upper level garage to two stalls rather than three. Removal of the large driveway loop south of the garage would also eliminate the need to cut down the two large oak trees shown on Exhibit B. Exhibit G, attached, illustrates the required setbacks for the height of the proposed building. 4. Since the proposed garage is attached to the house, architectural compatibility does not • appear to be an issue. There is more discussion of this in C. below. C . Variance to Exceed 10 % Minimum Lot Size. The four criteria listed in B. above were established to control the amount of accessory space in residential zoning districts. Unlike agricultural areas where accessory buildings dominate the site, it was determined that in residential districts there should be some reasonable ratio between principal structures (i.e. dwellings) and the buildings accessory to them. The C.U.P. process was used to avoid the appearance of large garages with houses attached to them. It was further determined that the scale of accessory buildings should relate somehow the size of the property. Rather than use the actual site size, the minimum lot size for the zoning district was used. The reason for this approach was that large lots had the potential to be subdivided, at which time the building to property ratio would become a problem. The current accessory space provisions have served the City well, recognizing that in a recreational area such as the south shore the need for accessory space may be higher than other areas, while still maintaining a primarily residential character. In this regard it is important to be concerned about setting any adverse precedent. With this in mind there are • factors in this case which are worth considering. 1. The amount of accessory space currently located on the two sites is approximately 4447 square feet. Once the lots have been combined, the new house has been built and the existing structures on the southerly lot have been removed, the amount of accessory space proposed is 4025 square feet, a nine percent reduction overall. If the amount of accessory space is limited to 4000, which is the maximum allowed in any zoning district, the reduction in accessory space would be 10 percent. It is also worth noting that, despite the large home and accessory space size, total proposed hardcover is only 19.5 percent of the lot area. 2. The attached garage space is on two different levels. The garage doors of the upper level can only be seen from the south, while the garage doors of the lower level can only be seen from the north. The only direction from which both levels can be seen is the west (see Exhibit C), and from that direction the garages appear to be very much part of the house. -3- Re: Grewe, Jerry C.U.P. and Variances 1 September 1995 3. Once combined the applicant's lot will be nearly five times as large as the R -1 C/S district requires. To mitigate the concern that the property may be resubdivided at some later date, the City could require that a protective covenant be recorded against the property, putting future owners on notice that the property can not be redivided in the future. This would require that the amount of attached garage be reduced to 2000 square feet and that the boat house would be removed. RECOMMENDATION The variance to temporarily allow two structures on one lot is relatively simple, and precedent exists for handling this request. Approval is recommended subject to the following: • 1. The applicant must provide evidence that the two lots have been combined prior to issuance of a building permit for the new home. 2. As part of his building permit application the applicant should provide a revised site plan providing the additional setbacks shown on Exhibit G. 3. The applicant must complete the new home within one year from date of issuance of the building permit. 4. Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit the applicant must provide bids for removal of the house, garage and existing driveway for the southerly lot. From this bid, a cash escrow or letter of credit for one and one -half times the bid amount shall be required to guarantee that the existing structures and driveway will be removed and the site restored within 30 days of the applicant's occupancy of the new home. Not so simple is the variance to exceed the accessory space to minimum lot size ratio. If this • variance is granted it should be subject to the applicant recording a restrictive covenant against the property stating that the property can not be redivided until such time as it is brought into conformity with the City Code. The covenant shall include the,City as a signatory so that it can not be changed without the City's consent. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Jerry Grewe Joe Pazandak In PHELPS BAY 4� .e. Te ` Z as ''' (6) es ?� S�q oi�E tea. 4 �A_ (32) � � « (i3) " 4 ■ \ �.. � � 'ELF ''ER j M.3 (26) (14) ISZ, Sr ti' of �'�" sr E' •4 ' 7_.,. p t SNORE lI ER outtoT a . } °/ $� t . ,� 89 AERIAL AS ppo P / f ;�J • •j1 �� fill � ,e.x PARK NO r PJU I *gANFED S E t � ruRw, (19) :•• �p r _ ten � ?� .:.SZt _ (tt v^•.18 • �' p 9 .t OUTtOt : •� , (b) 2 4 r J' ................... 0. ?.:.,...... �......;.. .......................... ® (I) g ad (b) . 3 ;.._ (28J (34) ' e _ t. '•2r t i t b {1 c 11y _ N � r i t' /y IZ q Id i r 1 4 11) (14) it•;rr. L _ °_� ; ` � r !` /., ' � !! :�e. SS ss �03_>•_ :_._ my _ rov. n i ro '(' ti ', •� ' /e t ; a :�a. of !' ITS- r � _ 41C 10 y.. ,a t — Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Grewe - Variances and C.U.P. Jll I® �s r -A N� lit y O O td d 1-1 r a z 1 ' 1 � _ o� 7 0 a I I 1 , / 1 I t k n 1 A T Z 1 S - �� I • I 1 - - y • I I1 F I - — 9 T .S Z } Y T d N N • p L r 1 v �- V _il 11 � N 6' 4 i � Y � n I- 0 1 Q iy V VIM Exhibit C PROPOSED WEST BUILDING ELEVATION o � v 3 I- 0 1 Q iy V VIM Exhibit C PROPOSED WEST BUILDING ELEVATION 0 • ul I MING ELEVATION 1. • 11,3'- 0 . Fit IN J in L-A �� }l 11 L -7 I TI m I 11'K)3 p )'' :4,- kA i ll LV I �I \ - ANN PI UI Kil I � , K C � AI August 15, 1995 REQUEST LETTER Accompanying the Zoning / Subdivision & Building Permit Applications For The GREWE PROPERTIES 4550 & 4560 ENCHANTED POINT SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA Dear Sirs: This letter respectfully requests City approval of the variances needed to build a new home on the (soon to be) combined lots at 4550 and 4560 Enchanted Point. The first variance is two -fold and requests permission to: 1. Build over the existing lot lines of the two properties. It is understood that approval of this variance is contingent upon combining the two lots in question. The Owner is working out details on this lot combination with Hennepin County and other involved parties. The legalities will hopefully be finalized in the near future. This variance is needed to allow the new home to be located as shown on the site plan. The location shown maintains the property value of the combined lots and the siting of the house is appropriate not only to the newly created lot but consistent with similarly sized lots. 2. Live in the existing house on the 4560 lot during construction of the new home. Byway of explanation: • The 4550 and 4560 lots each have a single family home on them. • The Owner proposes to tear down the house on the 4550 lot to make way for construction. • The Owner proposes to live in the existing house on the 4560 lot during construction and then to demolish it when a Certificate of Occupancy has been secured for the new home. A copy of the demolition proposal for house on the 4560 lot is attached to this letter. In discussing this variance with the City, . Brad Nielsen indicated that a similar variance had been granted in three other instances. Exhibit F APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER City of Shorewood Request Letter, continued August 15, 1995 Page 2 The second variance requests permission to build a garage, attached to the house, with 1,100 square feet on the main level and 1,450 square feet on the level below for a total of 2,500 square feet. Approval of this variance will allow the garage size and setting to be consistent with and proportionate to the house design and the area of the property. Jerry & Gretchen Grewe • • V J Nr. nl d O. �8 z � 1 ' I 1 1 _ 1 A T 1 F "E. e- P • 1 1 �3 '� Q . 9• t �� - -71 I' 1 z �I "• - - - - - -i 1' I \\ _ Exhibit G REQUIRED SETBACKS BASED ON PROPOSED SETBACKS BASED ON PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT ,I i 0 5535 Gideons Lane Shorewood, MN 55331 September 11, 1995 Dear Council Members: I am writing this letter in applications. support of the Grewe variance The Planning commission approved the application on a 4 to 3 vote. The problem that caused this split vote appeared to me to be more of a procedual problem than an unwillingness to approve the application. They all spoke in favor of the recombination and what a fine home this would be for the community. The problem appeared to be one of defining'a real hardship on the part of Mr. Grewe with respect to the amount of accessory space that he needs. Mr. Grewe would like 7000 sq.ft. and the Planning commission could not see allowing more than 2000 sq.ft., i.e. ten percent of the 20,000 sq. ft. allowed, in the R1C zone. To treat an application that contains almost 100,000 sq. feet as if it were only 20,000 is absurd, illogical, and inflexible. This 2000 sq. ft. restriction is a hardship because it was created by the actions of the city and not by the property owner. Mr. Grewe currently has a legal, conforming 4700 sq. ft. accessory space that was allowed at the time the structures now on his property were built. The zoning code in this area was changed by the city in response to the small lots on Shady Island. No allowance was made for preserving large estate type lots that do exist on the islands in some locations. If you feel that you need-to change the code to address these large parcels in smaller zoning districts, please grant Mr. Grewe a temporary building permit while the rewrite is taking place. Respectfully, / Bob Rascop MAYOR Robert Bean CITY OF COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty Doug Malam SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen 0 DATE: 1 September 1995 RE: Krutsch, Alan - Simple Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (95.28) In 1990 the City approved a simple subdivision of the property located at 25725 Smithtown Road. Based upon a staff report (see attached, copied yellow), dated 31 July 1990, the City approved the division. The owners at the time did not, however, record the division and the approval has since expired. The current owner, Alan Krutsch, now requests the same division as that which had been approved in 1990. Issues and the recommendation made in the previous staff report are still considered valid. As an update, park dedication fees have increased to $750 since then, sewer charges are $1000 for the new lot and the subdivision is subject to water assessments of $5000 for each lot (one has already been assessed) and a $5000 trunk water charge for the new lot. Subject to these revisions, approval is recommended. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Ed DeLaforest Alan Krutsch A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore L MAYOR Jan Haugen COUNCIL Kristi Stover Robert Gagne Barb Brancel Vern Watten CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: BRAD NIELSEN DATE: 31 JULY 1990 RE: LUKICH, JAMES - SIMPLE SUBDIVISION FILE NO.: 405 (90.20) BACKGROUND James and`Rhonda Lukich request approval to subdivide their property located at 25725 S,<<ithtown Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) into two lots. The property is zoned R -1C, Single-Family Residential and contains approximately 71,000 square feet of area. The applicant's residence is located on the west side of the subject site. Exhibit B illustrates the proposed division. The proposed westerly parcel contains 47,084 square feet of area and the easterly parcel 23,520 square feet. • ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION• To retain the existing character of their home the applicants have made parcel A larger than parcel B. The dividing line was established primarily by a row of existing trees on the property. Although parcel A has adequate area for two lots, the way the property is proposed to be divided, it will not have adequate width to be further divided. The record should reflect that the applicants are aware of this issue. Both lots meet or exceed the minimum size requirements for the R -1C zoning district. As can be seen on Exhibit B, both lots have ample buildable area, despite the triangular shape of parcel B. It is therefore recommended that the division be approved subject to the following: A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: Lukich, James simple Subdivision 31 July 1990 1. Drainage and utility easements 10 feet along each side of all side and rear lot lines must be provided. Since a 16.5 foot driveway easement exists on the west side of the property, all parties having an interest in the property must sign the easement. 2. Park dedication fees ($500) must be paid prior to release of the resolution approving the division. Credit has been given for the lot with the existing home. 3. The division must be recorded with Hennepin County within 30 days of the applicant's receipt of the Council resolution approving the division. Failure to record the division will void the approval. .l. The applicant should advise.the City Clerk as to how sewer equalization charges should be spread against the lots. BJN:ph cc: Larry Whittaker Glenn Froberg Jim Norton Jim and Rhonda Lukich 11 2 79 i ll. 61 12 (27) I S P 14 (2 1- 54. f is , '30) -� I ST (5) (34 (4) 11 2 79 i ll. 61 12 (27) I S P 14 (2 1- 54. f is , '30) -� I ST 0 13 ------- 14 P (3 X (34 10 - ( , 25) IN / 0.6 LOT 13) ----------- 112 112.78 14) ' 105 c, 46, 15, 4 b 15 (33) (34, .0 8 . Ca 13* 10' R -4129. 6 (4) 4 11 2 79 25 3 .88 12 (27) I S P 14 (2 1- 54. f is , '30) -� I ST 0 13 ------- 14 P (3 X 7'57 10 - ( , 25) (26) / 0.6 05 ----------- 1b I M 1!0 (46) c, 46, 15, 4 b 15 (33) (34, .0 8 . Ca 13* 10' R -4129. 6 (4) 3 36) : Z . Sit .... 4 1 L - -- -------- 21) 33 54 110 V) 2 2 1 P. 15 1 1 T ;2'9 cX ZT, 15 ..... .. 31199 ....... ............ (29) (48) ............ ------ ------ LOT- 101 3 i0o 50 76 76 1,. 79. A (30) 6 - 5 t PAAT OF LOT 90 4 5) J 5) (20) 35) . 76 77.7 15A 53 53 76 362.6 85 66 86. Z 229 7 C P- 11 2 79 25 3 .88 12 (27) I S P 14 (2 1- 54. f is , '30) -� 229. 1 .65.46 86.85 lc_ - - - — ( 1 - (32) 0 13 ------- 14 P (3 X 7'57 10 - ( , 25) (26) / 0.6 05 ----------- 1b 8 (24)-� (46) c, 46, 15, 4 b 15 .0 8 . Ca 13* 10' R -4129. 190.69 Q)5 83 (4) 3 36) : Z . 96 wq. .... 4 1 L - -- -------- VL •......... 54 110 37) LOT 91 - 35) UOT 9 6� � F_ 4 35) (41) (40) (9) > (12) t98,78 154 ' 95 (2) IRES 0 (i (24) 4 Z � ( 27) ----------- (46) : Z . ......... .... (28) 1 L - -- -------- VL •......... (43) (44' LOT LOT 29 100 �d ............. .. 31199 ....... ............ (29) (48) ............ ------ ------ LOT- 101 .......... (30) (24) Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Lukich - simple subdivision I lr 1% Jr M r . 1 r I " T', I I T 4 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Lukich - simple subdivision I lr 1% Jr M r . 1 r I " T', I I T 996-P Bituminous Road OWN SMITH TRACT B TRACT A (0.54 acres excluding r/w) North All � ~ 1 Exhibit o PROPOSED DIVISION MAYOR Robert Bean CITY OF COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty Doug Malam SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 15 September 1995 • RE: Haymaker C.U.P. / Variance - Second Revision FILE NO.: 405 (95.20) After Mr. Haymaker's application was tabled at the 5 September meeting, I met with Mr. Haymaker and his architect to discuss the location of the proposed home on the lot. Based upon discussions at the two previous Planning Commission meetings at which Mr. Haymaker's application was considered, I suggested that the applicant situate the home within the following confines: 1. Shoreline - 41.5 feet from the ordinary high water level. This conforms with the average setback established by the two adjoining homes. 2. South side - the dripline of the stand of three oak trees and the row of pine trees. 3. Front - far enough back so as to allow a 20 -foot parking space in front of the garage • without extending into the street r.o.w. 4. Northeast side - the dripline of vegetation growing along the property line. Mr. Haymaker has submitted the revised plan shown on Exhibit A. This plan is consistent with the direction given the applicant. It is therefore recommended that the conditional use permit and setback variance be granted subject to the following conditions: A. Prior to the start of any site work the applicant must install construction fencing along the dripline of the trees and at a setback of 20 feet from the shoreline. B . The excavation near the oak trees shall be cut in so as to severe any roots as cleanly as possible. C. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the home the site must be landscaped as shown on Exhibit B. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Mark Haymaker A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore rn 0 AO& x JAA -s' ill ILA A j 7 -Z a- aj cn - IAMM M s a A m=m BYLAN AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS INC 13931 HILL RIDGE DRIVE MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55305 �0 ;J I Z IN 00 z o z N 00 1 (Tf a I m • cr 1 19) l � �I m Z z m 0 z p � z N 1 (Tf a I m • cr 1 19) l � �I m Z z m 0 z p 6 V i P r- rn V 1 � 1 6 0 cc� r fT� ° z N i W 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council • FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 4 September 1995 RE: Haymaker, Mark - Revised Site Plan FILE NO.: 405 (95.20) At the August Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Haymaker was directed by the Commission to submit a revised site plan shifting his proposed house on the site to preserve trees on the property. Mr. Haymaker has done so (see attached exhibit), but in the process has enlarged the proposed home. Based upon our tree protection research, it is important to protect the root system of the trees out to at least the dripline. Upon revisiting the site the dripline of the northernmost oak tree is approximately at the south edge of the old tennis court. As can be seen on the revised site plan the larger house plan extends beyond the edge of the court. It is recommended that the C.U.P. and setback variances be granted subject to the applicant placing the original house design on the site plan so as not to extend south of the old tennis court. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Mark Haymaker A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 5 1 0 \-3 9 x� C-i ci m no 0 5 Q � � O v ZU , mo o , ��> i i 3 _ a P ci + — — — -- -- -- _ —" — — — — - Revised Site Plan MAYOR Robert Bean COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bruce Benson Jennifer McCarty Doug Malam CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (6121474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 12 July 1995 RE: Haymaker, Mark - C.U.P. to Build on a Substandard Lot and Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (95.20) BACKGROUND Mr. Mark Haymaker proposes to build a new home at 4300 Enchanted Drive (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). Since the lot does not comply with the area requirements of the R -1C /S zoning district, the applicant requests a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 1201.26 Subd. 5.b. of the City Code. In addition, the applicant requests a 14 -foot variance to the front yard setback requirement. As can be seen on Exhibit B, the property is currently occupied. by an old bituminous tennis court. The. lot contains 14,431 square feet of area. The home to the south of the subject property is located approximately 50 feet from the ordinary high water level (O.H.W.L.) of Lake Minnetonka and 50 feet from the right -of -way of Enchanted Drive. The house to the east is located approximately 33 feet from the O.H.W.L. and only 10 feet from Enchanted Drive. Exhibit B shows how the applicant proposes to locate the home on the lot. At staff's direction he has attempted to maintain the 50 -foot setback from the lake. The site plan shows the house 10 feet from the south lot line and 36 feet from the east side. A 21- foot -front yard setback is proposed. The proposed house, shown on Exhibits D - G, contains 2593 square feet of area, including an attached two -car garage on the first level and 798 square feet on the second level. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Section 1201.26 Subd. 5.b. contains provisions for construction on substandard shoreland lots. Following is how the applicant's request complies with the Code: A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: Haymaker, Mark C.U.P. and Setback Variance 12 July 1995 1. R -1C Use and Setback Requirements. The proposed single - family residential use of the property is consistent with the zoning of the property. The applicant has requested a 14- foot variance to the 35 -foot front yard setback requirement. The following factors support some variance to the Code: a. The average front yard setback between the two adjoining homes is 30 feet. The average lakeshore setback is 41.5 feet. As mentioned, the applicant moved the home closer to the street to comply with the 50 -foot Lakeshore requirement at staff's direction. While past precedent has been to favor the lake, there may be justification to relocate the proposed home between the average street setback and the average lake setback. b. The lot is substantially level except where it rises up approximately four feet at the • south property line. The shallowness of the lot (66' on the east side), its configuration and the applicant's attempt to maintain the 50 -foot lakeshore setback necessitate the construction of a retaining wall along the south property line. This adversely affects a cluster of oak trees located on the south side of the applicant's property and possibly some large trees on the adjoining lot. Shifting the proposed house to the north and east, although decreasing the lakeshore setback, would provide an opportunity to save the existing trees. Exhibit H illustrates one way the building could be repositioned between the average setback lines. c. Neither the front setback variance nor the lakeshore variance are inconsistent with the character of the existing homes on Enchanted Drive. d. The lot shallowness and configuration of the property cause a hardship for the applicant which was not brought on by himself or the previous owner. The lot was platted under different standards than those found in the current Code. The variance is considered necessary to make reasonable use of the property. Also, the proposed home is not oversized for the area in which it is located. Consequently, the variance is the minimum required to make reasonable use of the site. 2. Separate Ownership The applicant does not own either of the adjoining lots. 3. Seventy Percent Requirement. The Code requires that a nonconforming lot of record meet at least 70 percent of the area and width requirements of the zoning district to be considered buildable. The subject property is 118 feet wide at the building line (110 feet at the 30 -foot average setback line) and contains 14,431 square feet, 72 percent of the 20,000 square foot requirement. The applicant has submitted a proposed landscaping plan (see Exhibit I) for the new home. It does not, however, show existing vegetation. The Shoreland regulations require that the applicant show existing trees to be saved and which will be cut. It appears to be possible to save the cluster of oak trees on the south side of the site. The landscape plan should be revised to show existing trees on the site and should include protection measures per the advice of a registered landscape architect or certified forester. -2- Re: Haymaker, Mark C.U.P. and Setback Variance 12 July 1995 RECOMMENDATION Based upon the preceding analysis a conditional use permit and some type of setback variance should be favorably considered. It is further recommended that the applicant be required to submit a shoreland impact plan designed to save the existing oak trees on the site. The plan should minimize site grading on the south side of the property and should address an erosion problem along the old retaining wall along the westerly shoreline. Some modification of the proposed building plans may be necessary and desirable. In this regard, the applicant should consider additional outdoor recreational space (deck or patio) besides the porch shown. Finally, there is evidence that the site has been substantially filled. The shoreland impact plan . should include soil tests for the building pad. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Mark Haymaker U -3- - 71TY UFHOREW OOD ' A, 70" ENCHANTE .4f 139.6 5) (CARDEN 0 (6) I 0 L (7) 1 0) (3 (2) 10 ae a 2 (4 DAL (5) f'30 * & k os C' z L SHADY :SLAW OT SHADY SLANZ. 7F PHELPS 9,4Y 2 SHADY SLAND CIR S SHWDY 151-4NO ,FIVCH_41VTZ'O 'SLAIVL? � J � ' Tp.R4y "S4,4 r LAKE MINIMETONK4 (upgF LAKE ) I q Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Haymaker - C.U.P. and Setback Variance 1 U v: W � C L N O U o L v _ m '" O N Q N t v ._ ui 0 U_ v0 h , W 1 j N � � f 1 > W 1 � WJ 1 Z � 1 cruju II I I 1 1 ' II L 1 I i 1 � 1 II 1 1 i J tii LLJ O Z N O 96, x.. i� 1 ri N , o - 6 c- a O U O = + a � Ot o= c O o U •E U " �3c�n Q W J O U) Z o, M h a t X O N m M O CD n z 1 m [`� n pi it K �) n k y n m 93 � vw_ C J 9 5 .� / W U � , z O �U z Z W O z z 8 N w O I1 W �+ Exhibit B �=. EXISTING SITE SURVEY n z' I 1 IM7 A k- -lei �2 _VF 0 I c r j ��voN d ZOL EL v Np0Z�� it V c 4 W it tL � c1 W k I to Z� . � u k�CL-a� t.-Z e*l ",-// \ J Exhibit C PROPOSED SITE PLAN ?ll i r� Zl S o 0 c� n c t' c IL k 'sc 00sQa O O Ir 9 In it ci ll Exhibit D FIRST FLOOR PLAN O E ,9-.9 1 . 91- . 07 1 "1 I v o 0 U it , J 4 Exhibit E SECOND FLOOR PLAN I I r J • El w� r 111 1 SID C) Exhibit F NORTH ELEVATION • r� L VA < ) > ! n O U Exhibit G SOUTH ELEVATION X11 (A n` �u tI- u"' N 0 Cl c �l'C70 w t! Q z rn Exhibit H ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN t� t� 1 1 �1. ttJ _ � o 1 C)� i� V-- : stm �a a I - o !lf i tll t: • m w I� LIL R 3 of Z W � a� � JU 4 Exhibit I LANDSCAPE PLAN 6 -23 -1995 2:22PM FROM HAYMAKER_CONST. 5222728 P.2 In HAYMAKER CONSTRUCTION, INC. June 23, 1995 Attn: Patty To the Planning Commissioner, Mayor, and City Council, I would appreciate your consideration for a variance to make reasonable use of my property located at 4300 Enchanted Drive, Shorewood, MN. Special conditions that exist due to the shape, size and proximity to Lake Minnetonka which makes the building site very restricted to a average size livable dwelling. I have done everything possible to keep the variance necessary to minimum. Again, I appreciate your consideration of my request. Sincerely, Mark H • 2201 West River Road North Minneapolis, MN 55411 612.522 -2200 Exhibit J APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 23 June 199 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 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 21 September 1995 RE: Zachary Woods - Revised Road Plan FILE NO. 405 (95.09) As you may recall the Zachary Woods plat was allowed to create two lots which access Galpin Lane, a private road. After considerable discussion the plat was approved, subject to the developer widening Galpin Lane to 20 feet (the minimum width for a fire access road), obtaining the necessary. easement and joining in on the future maintenance of the road. This widening was only required to extend easterly to the driveway of the easternmost lot in Zachary Woods, a distance of approximately 190 feet. To reduce costs Brent Sinn now proposes to widen the road for a distance of only 90 feet as shown on Exhibit A, attached. We have been advised that some residents on Galpin Lane favor this change for aesthetic reasons. From a planning perspective, it is strongly recommended that this request be denied. Neither the cost or the aesthetic consideration should outweigh the safety aspect and the serious potential precedent such an approval would set. As Shorewood continues to fill up, the City will increasingly be confronted with requests to subdivide land in a piece -meal fashion, with increasing demand for access which does not meet City standards. The City's approval of the development of this property was considered to be a very reasonable solution for both the property owner and the Galpin Lane residents. It is recommended that the original conditions of that approval be adhered to. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Monday night's meeting. cc: Jim Hurm Ed DeLaForest Tim Keane Brent Sinn 5. G. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka 's South Shore ej 1 r I \I Ob CL Id V _ S — Z �.�6� _ ry o C �_ .#I Recommendations For City of Shorewood, Minnesota $1,920,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1995A s • Study No. S1 106M1 SPRINGSTED Incorporated September 21, 1995 1tJ�N 1 t Recommendations for City of Shorewood, Minnesota $1,920,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1995A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • • This summary is intended to highlight data contained in these recommendations. It is intended to be an adjunct to the recommendations and not to be used solely as the basis of determination of actions required. Your actions should be based on the information more fully set forth in the recommendations. 1. Action Requested To establish the date and time of receiving bids and establish the terms and conditions of the Proposal. 2. Type and Purpose of Offering 3. Principal Amount of Offering 4. Repayment Term 5. Source of Debt Service Revenues 6. Optional Redemption 7. Credit Rating Comments 8. Sale Date and Time 9. Award Date and Time Proceeds of the issue will be used to finance the construction of water improvements in the City. $1,920,000 February 1, 1997 through 2011 Water utility net revenues. February 1, 2006 through 2011 maturities will be callable commencing February 1, 2005, and any date thereafter, at par plus accrued interest. Rating application to Moody's Investors Service will be made for the bond. The City's existing Moody's rating of Al is expected to be confirmed. Monday, October 23, 1995 at 12:00 Noon Monday, October 23, 1995 at 7:30 P.M. N 85 E. SEVENTH PLACE, SUITE 100 SAINT PAUL, MN 55101 -2143 612 - 223 -3000 FAX: 612-223-3002 M SPRINGSTED Public Finance Advisors September 21, 1995 Mayor Robert Bean Members, City Council Mr. James Hurm, Administrator /Clerk Mr. Alan Rolek, Finance Director/Treasurer City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Recommendations for the Issuance of $1,920,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1995A We respectfully request your consideration of our recommendations for the issuance of the above - referenced issue according to the attached Terms of Proposal. The Water Revenue Bonds are being issued pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 444 and 475. Proceeds will be used to finance the construction of water utility improvements involving Boulder Bridge and Badger Field. The composition of this issue is as follows : Project Costs $1,946,560 Costs of Issuance 24,640 Allowance for Discount Bidding 28,800 Less: Prepaid Assessments 8( 0.000) Total Water Revenue Bonds $1,920,000 Attached as Appendix I is the recommended maturity schedule for this issue. The bonds have been structured with even annual principal payments over a 15 -year term. This results in declining annual debt service requirements, as shown in Column 6 of Appendix I. The Water Revenue Bonds will also be dated November 1, 1995 and mature each February 1 from 1997 through 2011. The first payment on these obligations will be due August 1, 1996 in the estimated amount of $70,761. This payment will be made from net revenues of the water utility generated in 1995. The next payment will be a principal and interest payment due February 1, 1997, also payable from 1995 net revenues of the utility. This payment sequence will continue throughout the life of the Water Revenue Bonds. In addition, the City will pledge special assessment against benefited property. Special assessments totaling approximately $1,217,000 of principal are expected to be filed in November of 1995, for first collection in 1996. The assessments will be spread over 15 years, requiring equal annual payments of principal and interest with interest charged on the unpaid balance at a rate of 7 %. The assessment income is estimated to be approximately $135,000 SAINT PAUL, MN • MINNEAPOLIS, MN - BROOKFIELD, WI OVERLAND PARK, KS - WASHINGTON, DC • IOWA CITY, IA t each year and will be used to reduce the annual net revenue requirement by the water utility used to pay debt service. We have not made any projections of prepayments or delinquencies and are assuming for all structuring purposes that assessments will be collected as scheduled. Allowance for Discount We have included in the bond amount an allowance for underwriter's discount of $28,800 or 1.5% of the principal amount of the bonds. The discount provides the underwriters with all or part of their profit and /or working capital for purchasing the issue and permits them to reoffer the bonds to the investing public at a price of par. The City has successfully used the discount bidding approach in the past, and in our experience, allowing discount bidding results in lower interest rates than requiring underwriters to bid par or a premium. Prepayment Provision We also recommend that bonds maturing in the years 2006 through 2011 be callable by the City as early as February 1, 2005, and any date thereafter, at a price of par plus accrued interest. This call feature will allow the City to refinance the issue should future circumstances warrant such a course of action. The call provision should have no adverse impact on the marketability of the bonds. Rating We recommend that the City request a rating from Moody's Investors Service for this issue. The City is currently rated "Al" by Moody's. We will assist the City in providing Moody's with the necessary data upon which they will make their rating analysis. Moody's will bill the City directly for the rating. Book Entry We recommend the bonds be issued as "book entry only" obligations through the Midwest Securities Trust Company of Chicago. Under the book entry system, the holders of the obligations will not receive printed bonds but will have only a record from the broker /dealer stating they are held by the depository. The use of the book entry system eliminates all costs to the City for printing physical bonds. Although the bonds are issued in book entry form, which also eliminates the need for the registrar, we recommend the City retain a registrar for a nominal fee to send the City reminder notices indicating the date and amount of the payments coming due and to act as an intermediary with the depository, should the need arise. We can assist the City in the process of selecting a registrar. Federal Reimbursement Regulations The U.S. Treasury has enacted reimbursement regulations to regulate issuers who wish to issue tax - exempt bonds to recover costs of prior expenditures. The reimbursement regulations require that if the issuer proposes to reimburse itself for expenses they paid prior to receipt of bond proceeds, it must have made a declaration of that intent within 60 days of the actual payment of the expense. There are exemptions for architectural and engineering fees and miscellaneous start -up costs. It is our understanding the City is aware of these regulations and has taken the necessary action to comply with the federal reimbursement regulations in regard to this issue. Page 2 1 Bank - Qualified Obligations The Tax Reform Act of 1986 restricts the ability of banks to deduct tax - exempt interest as a carrying expense under certain circumstances in calculating their tax liability. However, the Act allows certain bonds to be qualified bonds which can be included in a bank's calculation of interest deduction. That qualification is reserved for municipalities that will issue less than $10,000,000 of tax - exempt debt within a calendar year. The City does not expect to exceed this $10,000,000 limit in 1995, and therefore this issue will be bank - qualified. This qualification will help the marketability of the issue. Secondary Market Disclosure The Securities and Exchange Commission has finalized amendments to its Rule 15c2 -12 which prohibits broker - dealers from underwriting municipal securities of $1 million or more unless the issuer has agreed in writing to provide annual disclosure of financial and operating information and to disclose material events when they occur. This Rule is effective for issues underwritten on and after July 3, 1995. The agreement with the underwriter and bondholders, or the "undertaking," as it is called in the Rule, must be incorporated in the bond resolution or a separate disclosure agreement and in the final Official Statement. The undertaking obligates issuers to prepare and file with all nationally recognized municipal securities information repositories ( "NRMSIRs ") annual updated financial and operating information and the annual audited financial statements, with certain exceptions as described below. As of now, there are five NRMSIRs. The Rule uses the information in the final Official Statement as the benchmark for data to include in the secondary market disclosure report so that information provided in the Official Statement must be revised annual. The Rule exempts the following securities from the requirements to provide annual financial information and material event notices: (i) securities with an aggregate principal amount of less than $1,000,000; and (ii) securities sold in denominations of $100,000 or more, if the securities are sold to 35 or fewer sophisticated investors, or have a maturity of nine months or less. (iii) Additionally, securities with a stated maturity of 18 months or less are exempt from the annual financial information requirement but not the material events notice requirement. (iv) Securities for which neither the issuer nor any other party committed to support all or part of the payment of debt service, is committed to repay more than $10,000,000 of outstanding municipal securities, including the current offering must make material events notices but may obligate themselves only to limited continuing disclosure. The obligation in (iv) is not effective until January 1, 1996. The City can meet the exemption described under item (iv) above. Therefore, the City is not required to comply with the SEC Rule for this issue. Page 3 3 Federal Rebate - Arbitrage Rebate All tax - exempt bonds are subject to federal arbitrage regulations, including rebating arbitrage profits to the U.S. Treasury. Generally speaking, all arbitrage profits (the yield difference between the earnings on the investments and the yield on the obligations) must be rebated to the U.S. Treasury. There are some exemptions to this rebate requirement which include: (i) A small issuer exemption if the obligations are for governmental purposes and the issuer reasonably expects to issue not more than $5,000,000 tax - exempt obligations during the calendar year. (ii) A six -month exemption if all of the proceeds of the obligations are expended within six months of issuance of the obligations. (iii) An 18 -month expenditure test if at least 15% of the proceeds are expended within 6 months, 60% within 12 months and 100% within 18 months. . (iv) A two -year expenditure test if at least 75% of the proceeds of the issue are used for construction and if 10% is expended within six months, 45% within 12 months, 75% within 18 months and 100% within two years. For items (iii) and (iv), if it is reasonably required that a retainage be maintained to enforce the completion of a contract, up to 5% of the proceeds may be retained for an additional 12 months. Net proceeds subject to these expenditure tests include investment earnings on the original bond proceeds. The City expects to meet the small issuer test (i) above, and will therefore be exempt from reporting and rebate requirements. Yield Restriction Debt service funds created to pay debt service on new issues are subject to yield restriction unless they fall under the definition of "bona fide" debt service funds as described below. Prior to the 1993 "final' arbitrage regulations released in June 1993, the small issuer exemption had exempted any debt service funds from yield restriction requirements. The 1993 regulations now permit only bona fide debt service funds to be exempt from yield restriction. A bona fide debt service fund is defined as a fund for which there is an equal matching of revenue to debt service expense with a carryover permitted equal to the greater of the investment earnings in the fund during that year or 1/12 of the debt service of that year. A debt service fund can lose its bona fide status if the issuer accumulates too much investment earnings. Since the City will be making transfers of water utility net revenues from the enterprise fund to the debt service fund immediately prior to a debt payment, the City should be able to retain bona fide status of the debt service fund. Economic Life of Financed Projects The 1993 final arbitrage regulations brought all tax - exempt issues into the calculation of "economic life." Previously this requirement was only for private activity bonds. The intent of this requirement is to limit tax - exempt issues which are outstanding longer than is necessary, thus creating more tax - exempt bonds in the marketplace than are needed. The general safe harbor for assuring that bonds comply with the regulations is if the average maturity of the Page 4 City of Shorewood, Minnesota September 21,1995 bonds does not exceed 120% of the economic life of the financed projects. The bonds are issued for water utility improvements, which, under the U.S. Treasury guidelines, have an economic life of 50 years. Since this issue has an average maturity of 8.26 years, it is in compliance with this regulation. Bond Sale Procedure Springsted Incorporated, together with Capital Guaranty Insurance Company, a municipal bond insurer, will again offer a surety bond service, "Sure- Bid," to underwriters in lieu of putting up a good faith check in order to bid on the bonds. In addition to allowing underwriters to submit their bids by mail or telephone, we will also allow them to submit bids through PARITY, an electronic bid filing process. Springsted has access to the bids via modem and will verify and tabulate the bids received to determine the winning bid. We have allowed for the use of Sure - Bid and PARITY in the Terms of Proposal, attached to these recommendations. We believe that the use of these bidding options may attract more bids for the bond sale, since it reduces administrative barriers for an underwriter to bid. There is no cost to the City for these services and Springsted does not have a financial interest in the use of Sure -Bid or PARITY. We recommend these bonds be offered for sale on Monday, October 23, 1995, with proposals received at the offices of Springsted Incorporated at 12:00 Noon. After proposals are received, they will be opened, verified for accuracy, tabulated and then presented to the City Council for consideration of award at 7:30 P.M. the same evening. Proceeds will be available approximately 30 days later. Respectfully submitted, SPRINGSTED Incorporated / jmc 0 Page 5 ti s City of Shorewood, Minnesota G.O. Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1995A Dated: 11- 1 -1995 Mature: 2- 1 First Interest: 8- 1.1996 Year of Year of Levy Mat. Principal Rates (1) (2) ( ( 1995 1997 125,000 4.05% 1996 1998 130,000 4.20% 1997 1999 125,000 4.35% 1998 2000 130,000 4.45% 1999 2001 130,000 4.55% 2000 2002 125,000 4.70% 2001 2003 130,000 4.80% 2002 2004 130,000 4.90% 2003 2005 125,000 5.00% 2004 2006 130,000 5.10% 2005 2007 130,000 5.25% 2006 2008 125,000 5.40% 2007 2009 130,000 5.55% 2008 2010 130,000 5.65% 2009 2011 125,000 5.75% TOTALS: 1,920,000 Prepared September 21, 1995 By SPRINGSTED Incorporated 821,559 2,741,559 2,878,636 Total 15,850.00 Annual Principal 105% Interest & Interest of Total (5) (6) ( 117,936 242,936 255,083 89,286 219,286 230,250 83,826 208,826 219,267 78,388 208,388 218,807 72,603 202,603 212,733 66,688 191,688 201,272 60,813 190,813 200,354 54,573 184,573 193,802 48,203 173,203 181,863 41,953 171,953 180,551 35,323 165,323 173,589 28,498 153,498 161,173 21,748 151,748 159,335 14,533 144,533 151,760 7,188 132,188 138,797 821,559 2,741,559 2,878,636 APPENDIX I Page 6 Bond Years: 15,850.00 Annual Interest: 821,559 Avg. Maturity: 8.26 Plus Discount: 28,800 Avg. Annual Rate: 5.183% Net Interest: 850,359 T.I.C. Rate: 5.378% N.I.C. Rate: 5.365% Interest rates are estimates; changes may cause significant alterations of this schedule. The actual underwriter's discount bid may also vary. APPENDIX I Page 6 THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,920,000 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, October 23, 1995, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. . SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (612) 223 -3002 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (612) 223 -3000 or fax (612) 223 -3002 for inclusion in the submitted Proposal. Springsted will assume no liability for the inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. Proposals may also be filed electronically via PARITY, in accordance with PARITY Rules of Participation and the Terms of Proposal, within a one -hour period prior to the time of sale established above, but no Proposals will be received after that time. If provisions in the Terms of Proposal conflict with the PARITY Rules of Participation, the Terms of Proposal shall control. The normal fee for use of PARITY may be obtained from PARITY and such fee shall be the responsibility of the bidder. For further information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact PARITY at 100 116th Avenue SE, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington 98004, telephone (206) 635 -3545. Neither the City nor Springsted Incorporated assumes any liability if there is a malfunction of PARITY. All bidders • are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner of the Proposal submitted. DETAILS OF THE BONDS The Bonds will be dated November 1, 1995, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1996. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30 -day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1997 $125,000 2001 $130,000 2005 $125,000 2009 $130,000 1998 $130,000 2002 $125,000 2006 $130,000 2010 $130,000 1999 $125,000 2003 $130,000 2007 $130,000 2011 $125,000 2000 $130,000 2004 $130,000 2008 $125,000 BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form and one Bond, Page 7 representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing in each year, will be registered in the name of Kray & Co. as nominee of Midwest Securities Trust Company ( "MSTC "), Chicago, Illinois, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of MSTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to MSTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of MSTC will be the responsibility of MSTC; transfer of principal and interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with MSTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2005, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2006. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify MSTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. MSTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. In addition the City will pledge net revenues of its water utility. The proceeds will be used to finance improvements to the City's water utility. TYPE OF PROPOSALS • Proposals shall be for not less than $1,891,200 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ( "Deposit ") in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond in the amount of $19,200, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond is used, it must be from an insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated in the form of a certified or cashier's check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 1/8 of 1 %. Rates must be in ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single Page 8 rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, in accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: (i) waive non - substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'S OPTION If the Bonds qualify for issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of • the Bonds. Any increased costs of issuance of the Bonds resulting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identification numbers shall be paid by the purchaser. • SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser. Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, including a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds shall be made in federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non- compliance with said terms for payment. SECONDARY MARKET DISCLOSURE Although the principal amount of the Bonds exceeds $1,000,000, at the time of delivery of the Bonds, the City will not be obligated with respect to more than $10,000,000 of outstanding municipal securities, including the Bonds being offered hereby. The new continuing disclosure provisions of SEC Rule 15c2 -12 do not apply to such small issuers for offerings commencing prior to January 1, 1996. Consequently, the City is not covenanting to provide annual financial Page 9 information, notices of certain material events or any other disclosure which might otherwise be required by SEC Rule 15c2- 12(d)(2). OFFICIAL STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223 -3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturity dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term is defined in Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 75 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated September 25, 1995 BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL /s/ Mr. James Hurm Administrator /Clerk • Page 10 , WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12 :22 No.001 P.02 A. THOMAS WORST, P.A. CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A. JAMES D. LARSON. P.A. THOMAS F. UNDERWOOO, P.A. CRAIG M. MERTZ LAW OFFICES WORST, PEARSON, LAASON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ A PARTNERSHIP INCL.9-C PgQrC6*1ONAL ASSOCIATIONS - ONE FINANCIAL PLAZA, SUITE [100 120 SOUTH SIXTH STRCET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 -1803 TIELEPHON6 (612) 930 4ZOO CAX NUMBER September 22, 1995 335 -262.5 Mr. James Hurm Administrator /Clerk City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood MN 55331 -8927 Re: $1,920,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1995 Dear Mr. Hurm: We received from Springsted the details on the proposed sale of $1,920,000 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds by the City of Shorewood. I have been approving Shorewood's bonds for approximately 30 years. We have prepared the necessary Resolution for the Council's action on September 25, 1995, and enclose the same herewith. I am currently in the process of merging my legal practice with the firm of Kennedy & Graven. Since I will be a member of that firm on approximately November 1, when the bonds are being Issued, I have determined that the proper bond opinion would carry the Kennedy & Graven name rather than Wurst, Pearson, Larson, Underwood and Mertz. Our current firm will have dissolved by that time, and therefore we have inserted Kennedy & Graven as the approving attorney. I am enclosing herewith the proposed resolution for the issuance and sale of the bonds. David Kennedy of the Kennedy & Graven firm has talked with Tim Keane, who is your City Attorney, and as far as we know he has no objection to the Kennedy & Graven firm issuing the opinion. I have previously worked with Al Rolek and with you in the issuance of Shorewood bonds. I have tried to reach you both by phone on Friday, September 22, and find you are both out of the office. I will try to rilm WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12:22 No.001 P.03 WORST, F P EARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ visit with you by phone on the morning of September 25, and I hope everything enclosed is in order for the Council's approval Lely, ar on CAP:ih Enclosures cc: Ms. Nancy Langness, Springsted Incorporated Mr. David Kennedy, Kennedy & Graven 0 • WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12:22 No.001 P.04 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Pursuant to notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, was held at the City Hall in said City on Monday, September 25, 1995, commencing at 7:30 p.m. The following members were present: • and the following were absent: w,tw www * ww Councilmember introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF $1,920,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1995, FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATER SYSTEM OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood owns and operates a municipal water • system, and WHEREAS, said water system is in need of improvements which will allow the system to adequately serve the residents of the City, and WHEREAS, the Council has determined that it is necessary to make said improvements, and to borrow funds to provide for the construction of said improvements by the sale of general obligation water revenue bonds, and WHEREAS, the City is authorized under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 444 and 475 to construct, reconstruct, and improve said system and to provide funds for WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12:22 No.001 P.05 such purpose by the issuance and sale of general obligation bonds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The project, consisting of the construction of improvements to the water system of the City by the construction of water utility improvements involving Boulder Bridge and Badger Field, is hereby approved for completion in accordance with authority granted to the City by Chapters 444 and 475 of Minnesota Statutes. 2. The City shall issue and sell its General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds, Series 1995, in the aggregate principal amount of $1,891,200 for the above stated purposes. It is further determined that additional bonds in the amount of $28,800 shall be issued to represent the additional cost of marketing bonds, as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.56, which amount does not exceed 2% of the amount otherwise authorized. All amounts received for the sale of said bonds in excess of $1,891,200 shall be credited to the sinking fund for the payment of interest on these obligations. 0 3. Springsted Incorporated is hereby directed to negotiate for the sale of the Bonds in accordance with the attached Terms of Proposal (Exhibit A), as authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.60, Subd. 2, paragraph (9). Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, October 23, 1995, until 12:00 noon, Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 p.m., Central Time, on the same day. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Councilmember The following voted in favor thereof: The following voted in opposition: �WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22.95 12:22 No.001 P.06 The following were absent: Whereupon the resolution was declared to be adopted. Mayor Attest: City Administrator /Clerk • WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12 :22 No.001 P.07 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN CITY OF SHOREWOOD i 1, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting City Administrator /Clerk of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on September 25, 1995, with the original thereof on file in my office and the same is a full, true and complete transcript thereof, insofar as i the same relates to the issuance and sale of $1,920,000 General Obligation Water i Revenue Bonds, Series 1995 of the City. WITNESS My hand as such City Administrator /Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this day of 1995. (SEAL) City Administrator /Clerk City of Shorewood • r WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12:22 No . 001 P.08 EXHIBIT A THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED SPRINGSTED INCORPORATED TO NEGOTIATIE THIS ISSUE ON ITS BEHALF. PROPOSALS WILL BE RECEIVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS: TERMS OF PROPOSAL $1,920,000 CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GENERAL OBLiGATION WATER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES '1995A (BOOK ENTRY ONLY) Proposals for the Bonds will be received on Monday, October 23, 1895, until 12:00 Noon, Central Time, at the offices of Springsted Incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Piaui, Minnesota, after which time they will be opened and tabulated. Consideration for award of the Bonds will be by the City Council at 7:30 P.M., Central Time, of the same day. SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS Proposals may be submitted in a sealed envelope or by fax (612) 223 -3002 to Springsted. Signed Proposals, without final price or coupons, may be submitted to Springsted prior to the time of sale. The bidder shall be responsible for submitting to Springsted the final Proposal price and coupons, by telephone (612) 223 -3000 or fax (612) 223 -3002 for inclusion In the submitted Proposal. Springsted will assume no liability for the Inability of the bidder to reach Springsted prior to the time of sale specified above. Proposals may also be filed electronically via PARITY, in accordance with PARITY Rules of Participation and the Terms of Proposal, within a one -hour period prior to the time of sale established above, but no Proposals will be received after that time. If provisions In the Terms of Proposal conflict with the PARITY Rules of Participation, the Terms of Proposal shall control. The normal fee for use of PARITY may be obtained from PARITY and such fee shall be the responsibility of the bidder. For further Information about PARITY, potential bidders may contact PARITY at 100 118th Avenue $E, Suite 100, Bellevue, Washington 9$004, telephone (206) 635 -3545. Neither the City nor $pringsted Incorporated assumes any liability If there is a malfunction of PARITY. All bidders are advised that each Proposal shall be deemed to constitute a contract between the bidder and the City to purchase the Bonds regardless of the manner of the Proposal submitted. OF-TAILS OF THE BONDS • The Bonds will be dated November 1, 1995, as the date of original issue, and will bear interest payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 1996. Interest will be computed on the basis of a 360 -day year of twelve 30-day months. The Bonds will mature February 1 in the years and amounts as follows: 1997 $125,000 2001 $130,000 2005 $125,000 2009 $130,000 1998 $130,000 2002 $125,000 2006 $130,000 2010 $130,000 1999 $125,000 2003 $130,000 2007 $130,000 2011 $125,000 2000 $130,000 2004 $130,000 2008 $125,000 BOOK ENTRY SYSTEM The Bonds will be Issued by means of a book entry system with no physical distribution of Bonds made to the public. The Bonds will be Issued in fully registered form and one Bond, WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12 :22 No.001 P.09 representing the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds maturing In each year, will be registered In the name of Kray & Co. as nominee of Midwest Securities Trust Company {"MSTC "), Chicago, Illinois, which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Individual purchases of the Bonds may be made in the principal amount of $5,000 or any multiple thereof of a single maturity through book entries made on the books and records of MSTC and its participants. Principal and interest are payable by the registrar to MSTC or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds. Transfer of principal and interest payments to participants of MSTC will be the responsibility of MSTC; transfer of principal and Interest payments to beneficial owners by participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other nominees of beneficial owners. The purchaser, as a condition of delivery of the Bonds, will be required to deposit the Bonds with MSTC. REGISTRAR The City will name the registrar which shall be subject to applicable SEC regulations. The City will pay for the services of the registrar. OPTIONAL. REDEMPTION The City may elect on February 1, 2005, and on any day thereafter, to prepay Bonds due on or after February 1, 2008. Redemption may be In whole or in part and if in part at the option of the City and in such manner as the City shall determine. If less than all Bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the City will notify MSTC of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. MSTC will determine by lot the amount of each participant's interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests In such maturity to be redeemed. All prepayments shall be at a price of par plus accrued Interest. SECURITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds will be general obligations of the City for which the City will pledge its full faith and credit and power to levy direct general ad valorem taxes. in addition the City will pledge net revenues of its water utility. The proceeds will be used to finance improvements to the City's water utility. TYPE OF PROPOSALS Proposals shall be for not less than $1,891,200 and accrued interest on the total principal amount of the Bonds. Proposals shall be accompanied by a Good Faith Deposit ("Deposit"} in the form of a certified or cashier's check or a Financial Surety Bond In the amount of $19,200, payable to the order of the City. If a check is used, it must accompany each proposal. If a Financial Surety Bond Is used, it must be from an Insurance company licensed to issue such a bond in the State of Minnesota, and preapproved by the City. Such bond must be submitted to Springsted Incorporated prior to the opening of the proposals. The Financial Surety Bond must identify each underwriter whose Deposit is guaranteed by such Financial Surety Bond. If the Bonds are awarded to an underwriter using a Financial Surety Bond, then that purchaser Is required to submit its Deposit to Springsted Incorporated In the form of a certified or cashiers check or wire transfer as instructed by Springsted Incorporated not later than 3:30 P.M., Central Time, on the next business day following the award. If such Deposit is not received by that time, the Financial Surety Bond may be drawn by the City to satisfy the Deposit requirement. The City will deposit the check of the purchaser, the amount of which will be deducted at settlement and no interest will accrue to the purchaser. In the event the purchaser fails to comply with the accepted proposal, said amount will be retained by the City. No proposal can be withdrawn or amended after the time set for receiving proposals unless the Meeting of the City scheduled for award of the Bonds Is adjourned, recessed, or continued to another date without award of the Bonds having been made. Rates shall be in integral multiples of 5/100 or 118 of 1%. Rates must be In ascending order. Bonds of the same maturity shall bear a single • 0 I WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12:22 No.001 P.10 rate from the date of the Bonds to the date of maturity. No conditional proposals will be accepted. AWARD The Bonds will be awarded on the basis of the lowest interest rate to be determined on a true interest cost (TIC) basis. The City's computation of the interest rate of each proposal, In accordance with customary practice, will be controlling. The City will reserve the right to: @ waive non - substantive informalities of any proposal or of matters relating to the receipt of proposals and award of the Bonds, (ii) reject all proposals without cause, and, (iii) reject any proposal which the City determines to have failed to comply with the terms herein. BOND INSURANCE AT PURCHASER'$ OPTION is If the Bonds qualify for Issuance of any policy of municipal bond insurance or commitment therefor at the option of the underwriter, the purchase of any such insurance policy or the issuance of any such commitment shall be at the sole option and expense of the purchaser of the Bonds. Any increased costs of Issuance of the Bonds resutting from such purchase of insurance shall be paid by the purchaser, except that, if the City has requested and received a rating on the Bonds from a rating agency, the City will pay that rating fee. Any other rating agency fees shall be the responsibility of the purchaser. Failure of the municipal bond insurer to issue the policy after Bonds have been awarded to the purchaser shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery on the Bonds. CUSIP NUMBERS If the Bonds qualify for assignment of CUSIP numbers such numbers will be printed on the Bonds, but neither the failure to print such numbers on any Bond nor any error with respect thereto will constitute cause for failure or refusal by the purchaser to accept delivery of the Bonds. The CUSIP Service Bureau charge for the assignment of CUSIP identifi cation numbers shall be paid by the purchaser, SETTLEMENT Within 40 days following the date of their award, the Bonds will be delivered without cost to the purchaser at a place mutually satisfactory to the City and the purchaser, Delivery will be subject to receipt by the purchaser of an approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and of customary closing papers, iholuding a no- litigation certificate. On the date of settlement payment for the Bonds Shall be made In federal, or equivalent, funds which shall be received at the offices of the City or its designee not later than 12:00 Noon, Central Time. Except as compliance with the terms of payment for the Bonds shall have been made impossible by action of the City, or Its agents, the purchaser shall be liable to the City for any loss suffered by the City by reason of the purchaser's non - compliance with said terms for payment. SECONDARY MARKET DISCLOSURE Although the principal amount of the Bonds exceeds $1,000.000, at the time of delivery of the Bonds, the City will not be obligated with respect to more than $10,000,000 of outstanding municipal securities, Including the Bonds being offered hereby, The new continuing disclosure provisions of SEC Rule 15c2 -12 do 114.1 apply to such small issuers for offerings commencing prior to January 1, 1996. Consequently, the City is not covenanting to provide annual financial WPLUM TEL: 338 -2625 Sep 22,95 12:22 No.001 P.11 information, notices of certain material events or any other disclosure which might otherwise be required by SEC Rule 15c2- 12(d)(2). OFFICIAL. STATEMENT The City has authorized the preparation of an Official Statement containing pertinent Information relative to the Bonds, and said Official Statement will serve as a nearly -final Official Statement within the meaning of Rule 15c2 -12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. For copies of the Official Statement or for any additional information prior to sale, any prospective purchaser Is referred to the Financial Advisor to the City, Springsted incorporated, 85 East Seventh Place, Suite 100, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101, telephone (612) 223 -3000. The Official Statement, when further supplemented by an addendum or addenda specifying the maturtty dates, principal amounts and interest rates of the Bonds, together with any other Information required by law, shall constitute a "Final Official Statement" of the City with respect to the Bonds, as that term Is defined In Rule 15c2 -12. By awarding the Bonds to any underwriter or underwriting syndicate submitting a proposal therefor, the City agrees that, no more than seven business days after the date of such award, it shall provide without cost to the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded 75 copies of the Official Statement and the addendum or addenda described above. The City designates the senior managing underwriter of the syndicate to which the Bonds are awarded as Its agent for purposes of distributing copies of the Final Official Statement to each Participating Underwriter. Any underwriter delivering a proposal with respect to the Bonds agrees thereby that if its proposal Is accepted by the City (i) it shall accept such designation and (ii) it shall enter Into a contractual relationship with all Participating Underwriters of the Bonds for purposes of assuring the receipt by each such Participating Underwriter of the Final Official Statement. Dated September 25, 1995 BY ORDER OF THE CiTY COUNCIL_ !s/ Mr. James Hurm Administrator /Clerk I • • -Iv - Orr Schelen 300 Park Place East 612- 595 -5775 Mayeron& 5775 Wayzata Boulevard 1- 800 - 753 -5775 { Assoctates,lnC. Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 FAX 595 -5774 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ed DeLaForest DATE: September 21, 1995 SUBJECT: Minnewashta School Water Tower Site MEMORANDUM • The purpose of this memo is to provide information to you relevant to locating the proposed water tower on the Minnewashta School site. Action Requested We are asking that you approve a location for the water tower and authorize staff to negotiate an agreement with the school district covering the particulars of tower location, watermain routing, access to the tower, and other pertinent issues. This agreement will be brought back to you for your approval. Back rg ound Refer to attachment A regarding the City's right to construct a water tower on the Minnewashta School property. At this time, five potential water tower sites are under consideration, shown as sites 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 on attachment B. Preliminary subsurface information has been collected and estimated costs associated with construction of a tower at each site have been developed. School District Position The Minnetonka School District favors site 7 as offering the least potential interference to their operations. Attachment B depicts one potential plan for construction of athletic facilities and expansion of the school within the boundaries of property now owned by the school district, as well as residential development of the Skjervold property. It also shows a portion of the planned Lundgren Bros. development. Previously, the district favored site 4 over sites 2, 3 and 5. They now feel that site 4 would not be acceptable if they purchased the Skjervold property. In that case, they would likely construct additional athletic fields on the westerly portion of that property, placing site 4 directly between those facilities and the H: \CIVIL\ NM\ FJD \092195.MCC Engineers •'Architects • Planners • Surve,'Ors Mayor and City Council Members City of Shorewood, MN Minnewashta School Water Tower Site September 21, 1995 Page 2 proposed soccer field on the north end of the property they now own. Additionally, the school district is sensitive to locating a water tower in close proximity to current or potential home sites. The district is opposed to site 3. Lundgren Bros. Position Refer to Lundgren Bros.' letter of September 8, 1995, attachment C. This letter states Lundgren Bros.' acceptance of sites 4 and 7. Subsequently, Lundgren Bros. has indicated a preference for site 7, in consideration of potential residential development of the Skjervold property. Site 3 may be acceptable to Lundgren Bros. Sites 2 and 5 are unacceptable to 40 them. Skjervold Position Mr. Chris Skjervold has advised that his parents, the owners of the property, are concerned about locating the tower on sites 3 or 4 due to potential impacts on the value of their property. Mr. Skjervold has asked for the opportunity to speak at the council meeting. Proximity to Existing Homes There is one existing home on Smithtown Road just west of the school parking lot, and four homes north of sites 4 and 5. Site 7 is 270 feet northeast of the Smithtown Road home. The closest home to site 4 is 285 feet away, and the closest home to site 5 is 260 feet away. We have not yet discussed siting of the water tower with these property owners. However, they have been advised of the council meeting and they may wish to offer their comments directly to you at the meeting. Construction Costs For some sites, alternate routes for access and watermain were investigated. The "A" alternates are routed southerly through the school parking lot to Smithtown Road. Attachment D is a listing of estimated construction costs associated with each site. The 'B" and "C" alternates are routed westerly through the Lundgren Bros. development. The water tower superstructure and foundation costs were developed by a tower supplier in consideration of the subsurface information recently developed. Other costs for each site include access for construction, trunk watermain, lighting, access for maintenance, grading, and landscaping. Depending on how access is actually achieved and how the watermain is finally routed, estimated construction costs range from $742,000 to $834,000. The least H:\CML\NM\EJD\092195.MCC Mayor and City Council Members City of Shorewood, MN Minnewashta School Water Tower Site September 21, 1995 Page 3 costly site is site 3, with access achieved through the school parking lot. The next least costly site is site 7, also with access through the school parking lot, estimated at $765.000. The feasibility report estimate was $700,000 and the estimate provided at the September 11 council meeting was $755,000. All figures are exclusive of contingencies. Recommendation It is recommended that you approve site 7. This site is favored by the school district and is the most favorable from a visual impact standpoint to all adjacent properties except the one on Smithtown Road, just west of the parking lot. However, site 7 is about 270 feet from the home on this property, which is further than any other site is from its nearest potential neighboring home. Construction costs for site 7, assuming access through the school parking lot, are estimated at $765,000, $23,000 more than the least costly site, site 3. Our most recent budget estimate is $830,000 ($755,000 plus ten percent contingencies). H:\CML\NM\EJD\092195.MCC ATTACHMENT A August 1, 1995 History of Discussions Regarding a Water Tower at Nlinnewashta School 5/9/90 Tom Berge, Director of Business Services, memo requesting City to assist the School District in acquiring property from Hennepin County. City permission is required to allow the sale to the School District. It is important the City respond within 4 to 5 days. 5/14/90 City Council passes a required resolution allowing the School District to acquire the land for school purposes. Because of the time constraints, minutes show that the Council wished to discuss the use of the property later. The City passed on its option to obtain the land for public purpose (i.e. parks, water tower, etc. ). 5/24/90 City Attorney advises the City: "Assessor's value for the property is $50,000 which would be the selling price to the School District. Pursuant to Shorewood Resolution #45 -90, the property was taken off auction list and is presently being held by the City as `park' land. If we wish to release it and recommend it be sold to the School District for the approved value of $50,000, a new resolution will be required. It will then continue to remain tax exempt land while the School District holds it for later development." 6/5/90 Tom Ber memorandum to the City of Shorewood states: "This is the primary open space immediately adjacent to Minnewashta School. It is available at a very reasonable price. Future site expansion, if not dealt with now, will likely occur through condemnation proceedings which is always more expensive to the tax payers. To the Minnetonka Board of Education this purchase seems to be a perfect way to-address the site size problem, to provide a contingency to accommodate future enrollment growth, and to do so at a very reasonable cost to the tax payers." 6/11/90 Resolution #50 -90 is passed by the Shorewood City Council requesting Hennepin County to sell the property in question to the School District. The meeting was attended by Tom Berge. An excerpt from the City Council minutes of that meeting is as follows: "Engineer Norton stated that the property has been identified as possible site for a water tower. Stover asked if we can retain one acre and sell 9 acres? Froberg stated that the property would have to be split and the County would have to approve this. This would also be true of an easement. History of Discussions August 1, 1995 Page 2 of 2 Re: Water Tower at Minnewashta School Gagne did not want to hold -up sale of property. Haugen required that Mr. Berge inform the School Board that the water tower location was a concern of the Council. Councilmember Watten felt the water tower should be part of the Resolution. Froberg explained that the Resolution should only address the sale of the property and the water tower site be mentioned in the minutes. Motion carried - 4/1 (Watten) on roll call vote." 7/9/90 The School Board passes a resolution resolving that: "The Minnetonka Public School, at such time that the City of Shorewood determines need for water tower construction, will make every effort to respond favorably to a specific request from the City of Shorewood to construct such a water tower on the Minnewashta site." 40 An easement could not be worked out at that time because the specific location of the tower could not be determined. 7/6/93 The Planning Commission approved the proposed subdivision/combination/ C.U.P. revision for the Minnewashta Elementary School. The minutes of that meeting state: "Nielsen pointed out although plans do not exist for location and access for a future water tower on this property, the City should consider acquiring the easement for a tower location at this time." Working out the easement was not made one of the conditions of the approval. Two plans submitted by the School District during the approval processes indicating a future water tower site acre attached. 7/26/93 The City Council approved a resolution granting a conditional use permit for the Minnewashta Elementary School expansion. The following quote is taken from those minutes: "Stover requested clarification regarding the water tower issue. Dresel indicated a different location for the water tower at the same elevation has been proposed. Nielsen clarified that was not included as a condition, however the School District representatives indicated the granting of the easement for the water tower will be formalized as a separate transaction." History of Discussions August 1, 1995 Page 2 of 2 Re: Water Tower at Minnewashta School Gagne did not want to hold -up sale of property.. Haugen required that Mr. Berge inform the School Board that the water tower location was a concern of the Council. Councilmember Watten felt the water tower should be part of the Resolution. Froberg explained that the Resolution should only address the sale of the property and the water tower site be mentioned in the minutes. Motion carried - 4/1 (Watten) on roll call vote." • 7/9/90 The School Board passes a resolution resolving that: "The Minnetonka Public School, at such time that the City of Shorewood determines need for water tower construction, will make every effort to respond favorably to a specific request from the City of Shorewood to construct such a water tower on the Minnewashta site. An easement could not be worked out at that time because the specific location of the tower could not be determined. 7/6/93 The Planning Commission approved the proposed subdivision/combination/ C.U.P. revision for the Minnewashta Elementary School. The minutes of that meeting state: "Nielsen pointed out although plans do not exist for location and access for a future water tower on this property, the City should consider acquiring the easement for a tower location at this time." • Working out the easement was not made one of the conditions of the approval. Two plans submitted by the School District during the approval processes indicating a future water tower site acre attached. 7/26/93 The City Council approved a resolution granting a conditional use permit for the Minnewashta Elementary School expansion. The following quote is taken from those minutes: "Stover requested clarification regarding the water tower issue. Dresel indicated a different location for the water tower at the same elevation has been proposed. Nielsen clarified that was not included as a condition, however the School District representatives indicated the granting of the easement for the water tower will be formalized as a separate transaction." C .. � . .ti ��.. .. /r..St . n � . .... .. � t. C.. . ATTACHMENT C LUDGR n BRoi September 8, 1995 CONSTRUCTION NC Mr. Jim Hurm, City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Sirs: 93s C 1,1 al The purpose of this letter is to summarize my understanding of the actions taken at the meeting that took place Wednesday, September 6, 1995 at the Minnetonka School District Administrative Wayzata Offices and the following field visit to the Minnewashta School site to preview potential water esota 55391 tower placement sites depicted on Exhibit A and subsequent phone conversation relating to 0n473-1231 same. The meeting was attended by Lloyd Law, Principal of Minnewashta Elementary School, Ed DeLaForest from OSM the City of Shorewood Engineer, Gene George from the Minnetonka School District, John Uban from Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban ( "DSU ") and Terry Forbord, representing Lundgren Bros. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the impacts of the initial five proposed water tower sites and to provide Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban parameters for the preparation of conceptual site plans of the Minnetonka School District property taking into consideration the impact that each proposed site may have on the future use of the property (including expansion of the school building itself). In a spirit of cooperation Lundgren Bros. agreed to hire and pay DSU to develop the concept plans. During the office meeting a new alternative (Site 96) was identified by Gene George on behalf of Tom Berge of the Minnetonka School District. Apparently alternative Site #6 is an acceptable alternative for the School District. However, this alternative is quite close to a home on Smithtown Road. At the meeting much discussion took place about the pros and cons of each site alternative. Notes were taken by John Uban in preparation for drawing of the concept plans. Immediately following the office meeting the group went to the Minnewashta School site to review the proposed site locations which had been field located with stakes by OSM. During the field visit the following decisions were made by the group: 1. Site 91 was eliminated from consideration. 2. Site #2 was eliminated from consideration. 3. Site #3 remains the same and is the preferred site by the City of Shorewood, but is strongly opposed by the Minnetonka School District. 4. Site 94 is still an option and is acceptable to Lundgren Bros., the School District and may be acceptable to the City. However, there is concern what impact it may have on the Skjervold property, which is immediately east of Site 94. As part of the analysis DSU will prepare a concept plan of the Skjervold property to ascertain how close the proposed structure may be if the Skjervold property ever develops. Lundgren Bros. will also pay DSU for this additional work. September 8, 1995 Page 2 5. Site #5 was eliminated from consideration. 6. New alternative Site #6 was eliminated. 7. New alternative Site #7 was identified and appears to be acceptable to all parties. Ed DeLaForest was going to let Jim Hurm, Shorewood City Administrator, know of the groups decisions and request soil tests for Sites #3, #4, and #7. These three sites appeared to be the most viable except the Minnetonka School District is strongly opposed to #3. Later in the day Ed DeLaForest called me to let me know he had spoken with Jim Hurm and that Jim did not want to eliminate any sites at this time but preferred to conduct tests and prepare estimates of each alternative so as to have accurate comparisons for the City Council. I'm not sure if complete analysis of sewer sites is underway. 0 Lundgren Bros. continues to be strongly opposed to Site 42 and Site #5 and agrees to accept the School District's concern and position regarding Site 93. Lundgren Bros. preference for water tower site selection is either site #4 or site #7. The next meeting of the group is scheduled for September 12, 1995 at 4:00 p.m. at Tom Berge's office. At this meeting DSU will present the concept plans of the School Property and the impacts for placement of the water tower. Very truly yours, Terry M. Forbord Vice President TMF: bw cc: Ed J. DeLaForest, Orr Schelen, Mayeron and Associates, Inc. Mayor Robert Bean, City of Shorewood Tom Berge, Minnetonka School District John Uban, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban Ken Adolf, Schoell and Madson, Inc. H Z W U Q Q • • Z O W Cl) jr W Q ZQ a 0 LLI0 J WQ� Q ui I--0 � to U Z O W cr N CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. 95- A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING HOOKUP TO THE MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEM WHEREAS, the City is responsible to keep the municipal water system in a safe, healthy, and fiscally sound manner; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan calls for the extension of the municipal water system in phases, over a period of time, thereby making municipal water available to many more properties within Shorewood; and WHEREAS, capital expenditures for elevated storage and trunk mains for system interconnection are a major part of initial expenditures; and WHEREAS, certain properties currently have municipal water available to them and are not hooked up to the system; and WHEREAS, current projections of revenue anticipate a certain hookup rate to the municipal water system to maintain the fiscal integrity of the water system. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood Aat the following policy shall hereafter be effective for: Those Along Current System Mains: 1. It shall remain the policy of the City to not require hookup to the municipal water system of those properties which currently have municipal water available to them but have not hooked up to the system. Those Along Main Extensions Made During or After 1995: 2. Properties to which municipal water becomes available during or after 1995 shall be required to hookup to the municipal water system within eighteen (18) months of water becoming available as determined by the City Engineer. 3. The City Administrator and Finance Director shall prepare a financial analysis of the system and report to the City Council at or before the first regular council meeting of September, 1996. 4. Upon review of said system financial analysis, including revenue, expenditure and surplus fund projections for at least 20 years, and a resulting finding by the City Council that the system will have sufficient cash reserves to remain in sound financial condition, the 18 month deadline for hookup to the system may be extended to a date certain by the City Council. Those who are eligible for deferral: 5. Hookup to the municipal water system may be deferred by City Council action for those homestead property owners who qualify under the hardship criteria set forth in Chapter 903 of the City Code, adopting an assessment policy for the provision of municipal water. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in all cases hookup to the municipal water system shall be required for any property which has municipal water available at the time a well problem would require a new well to be drilled had municipal water not been available. Resolution #95 -__ Policy Regarding Hookup to Water System Page 2 of 2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Council may require hookup for health or other reasons at any time. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 25th day of September, 1995. Robert B. Bean, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD EMERGENCY ACCESS ROAD Alternate No. 1 - Existing Condition The existing emergency access route (E.A.R.) illustrated in Exhibit 1 consists of a 20 -foot wide bituminous surface approximately 260 feet in length with concrete curb and gutter and breakaway timber posts at each end. The existing E.A.R. does not provide access for winter maintenance. The breakaway posts and barrier curb create access problems for smaller emergency vehicles such as police cars and ambulances. The smaller emergency vehicles could be damaged when passing through the breakaway posts and may not be able to drive over the barrier curb during the winter season. Except for backfilling the existing curb, there are no costs to leave the E.A.R. in its existing condition. Alternate No. 2 - Remove Breakaway Post The alternate emergency access route (E.A.R.), illustrated in Exhibit 2, consists of removing one of the timber breakaway posts in the Christmas Lake Road cul -de -sac and replacing the "B6" concrete curb and gutter with a surmountable type of curb and gutter. This alternative would provide access for street maintenance, but the breakaway posts may create access problems for smaller emergency vehicles. Estimated costs for this alternative is $500, primarily to remove the existing "B6 ", the curb, and install 20 feet of surmountable curb. Another variation of this alternative would include removing a post at the Christmas Lake Road and Brand Circle ends of the E.A.R., placing surmountable curb to allow small vehicle access, and signing at each end for emergency vehicles only. Installation of concrete pavers that allow growth of turf through voids could provide a hard surface for vehicle access while giving the appearance of a boulevard to discourage cut -thru traffic. Estimate costs for this variation of alternate No. 2 is $3,500 where $2,000 is associated with the concrete pavers. Alternative No. 3 - Gated Access The alternate emergency access route (E.A.R.) illustrated in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 are variations of gated access. The gates could be locked or unlocked. Provide access to large and small emergency vehicles with the placement of surmountable curb, as well as street maintenance vehicles. The drawback to this alternative is that the gates would have to be opened and closed to provide access. The estimated costs to furnish and install a vehicle gate with surmountable curb is $800 with an additional $800 to add a second gate. H:\5572.00\CTVIL\\41SC\092295.CLR srl Ij / /� `✓ ,J � EXIS T NG CURB 1 t V f BRAND CIR. c 01 EXISTING 8 "x 8" T 71�SERS -� I L CD ' S EX;S'';; BCrJLDER - --� r f J ,00 50 o 1uo Zoo \ ` •>, ` : � � SLUE lM FEET r ' / CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD. Drawn By: Drawing Title Comm. No. R.G.D. Schelen CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD 55 72.00 'ayeron & Date' Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT Engineers ■ ArehiLecU • Planners a Surveyors EXISTING CONDITIONS S 500 Park Fla" Center ■ 5 TaTrala Bovlevard 9_13 -95 Wima.apolla 55116 - 1279 ■ d12- 525.575 1 J I* I* 'J a / fir ,♦ � g �� C) G .,. 8' VEHICLE ACCESS EX ISTI N G 8 "x 8" TIMBERS ` s J EXISTING CURB i T 1 ! j ERAND CIR. I � 1 E> ::ST NC 20ULL ) S - - f �1 1 r �1 I r� L / f f C- i ,00 so o - + oo - CRISTMaS L:^,KE ROAD • 10 Drawn By: Drawing Title Comm. No. R.G.D. Orr CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD 5572.00 Ltaeron & Asso Inc. Date= EXHIBIT 9 -95 Engineers ■ Architects ■ Planners • Surveyors soo park Plow Center • 5775 Tgsala Boulevard 8 ' g R AN D CIRCLE GATE 3 Minneapolis, MM 55.116 -1= • 812 - 595.5775 1 E X IS TU; " J BRAN D CiR. EXISTING 8 "x 8" TUBERS j _ F3 I �: tx S .G =KULDERS 8' VEHICLE ACCESS GATES I 1 : - 10 So 0 - ,C.0 200 c' i TPJAS LAKE ROAD HR S )rawn By: Drawing Title Comm. No. R.G.D. Wag n CHRISTMAS LAKE ROAD 5 572.00 llayeran & Date' Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT Engineers . ArcbiLeets ■ Planners . Surveyor= TWO ACCESS GATES 9 -13 -95 J00 Park Place ce nter • 5775 lr.rrata Boulevard wnn..P.u.. rx ss�le -tzsa . alz•s>as•srrs Orr Schelen Mayeron& _�- Associates, inc: , September 15, 1995 ; P 300 Park Place East 5775 Wayzata Boulevard By Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 — - 612 Mr. James Hurm I- 800 - 753 -5775 City Administrator FAX 595 -5774 Engineers City of Shorewood Architects 5755 Country Club Road surve ors s �J Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Water Contingency and Conservation Plan Proposal Dear Jim: As you requested, we have prepared a proposal for the preparation of a water contingency and conservation plan requirement for the City of Shorewood. This proposal will present a brief background of why the city is required to prepare a water system emergency and conservation plan, the sequence for the preparation and approval of these emergency and conservation plans by both the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Met Council, a proposed plan outline and a summary of the data needed to complete the plan. Background Information The DNR requires that each public water supplier serving more than 1,000 people must submit an emergency and conservation plan by January 1, 1996. This requirement is mandated by Minnesota Statute 103G.261. In addition, the Metropolitan Council requires that each community in the seven- county metropolitan area prepare an amendment to their comprehensive plan for water contingency and conservation planning and submit this amendment by January 1, 1996. This requirement stems from the passing of Chapter 186 of the 1993 Legislative Session Laws. Guidelines for preparation of these plans have been developed by the Metropolitan Council in conjunction with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The general requirements of these plans are as follows: 1. Provide a description of the water supply system including water use data, a summary of supply, treatment and storage facilities, and an evaluation of the system's ability to meet supply demands. 2. Prepare an emergency plan, including a discussion of alternate water sources, demand reduction procedures, water allocation procedures, enforcement procedures and water supply protection. 3. Prepare a water conservation plan, including plans for short -term and long -term conservation, leak detection and water audit programs, evaluation of water conservation rates, education and information programs, and retro- fitting programs. H: \CIVIL \N.I \PROPOSAL \SHORE2JDP .{ter Equal Opportunity Employer / 1 Mr. James Hurm City of Shorewood, MN September 15, 1995 Page 2 Plan Preparation Sequence The sequence for preparation and approval of these emergency and conservation plans is as follows: 1. Prepare emergency and conservation plan 2. Submit plan to DNR 3. DNR reviews plan with input from Met Council is 4. DNR approves plan 5. Prepare and submit comprehensive plan amendment to Met Council 6. Met Council reviews and approves amendment 7. City adopts amendment to comprehensive plan 8. We propose to submit the water contingency and conservation plan to the DNR within 60 days of receipt of Notice to Proceed. Proposed Plan Outline The following is a general outline for the DNR emergency and conservation plan. The Met Council amendment will include the DNR plan as a reference. 1. Introduction - This section will explain the goals and objectives of the plan. 2. General Background Information - This section will summarize the general background of the Shorewood Water System. Information to be summarized includes the following: A. Name and address of the water system. B. Population served and number of service connections. C. Water demand and use information including a breakdown by category. D. Current sources of water and potential alternate sources. E. Current water appropriation permit limitations. F. System storage capacities. H: \CIVIL\ NM\ PROPOSAL\ SHORE2JDP Mr. James Hurm City of Shorewood, MN September 15, 1995 Page 3 3. Emergency and Contingency Plan - Plans for responding to emergency situations will be developed. These plans will include voluntary water reduction methods, as well as alternate source utilization. In addition, restrictions will be described which may be enacted during severe emergency situations. Enforcement procedures will be established for dealing with non - compliance with restrictions. 4. Water Conservation Plan - An assessment of potential long -term conservation practices and their impact on the Shorewood Water System will be prepared. Potential feasible alternatives will be identified. Conservation goals will be established. Required Information Information which the City will need to supply for the completion of the emergency and conservation plan is as follows: 1. Water pumping records from the wells and water treatment facilities for the past 10 years. 2. Copies of current DNR Water Appropriation Permits. 3. Water use by category for residential, commercial, industrial, public and other users for the past ten years. 4. Number and type of service connections. Service connections should be broken down by residential, commercial, industrial and public connections. 5. General summary of the city's water system including well information, storage tower information, water treatment facility information. Much of this information has already been gathered as part of the water distribution system study undertaken earlier this year. Compensation Based on our experience in developing plans for other communities, and our knowledge of the Shorewood Water System, we propose to develop the water contingency and conservation plan for a sum not to exceed $6,000.00. We propose to bill the City time and materials utilized based on our 1995 Fee Schedule. H:\CIVIL\N.M\PROPOSAL\StiORE2JDP Mr. James Hurm City of Shorewood, MN September 15, 1995 Page 4 If you have any questions pertaining to this information, please give me a call. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Edward J. DeLaForest, P.E. Vice President c: Jon Peterson - OSM • • H: \CIVIL \NM\ PROPOSAL\ SHORE2JDP CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING CHECKS ISSUED SINCE SEPTEMBER 13, 1995 Page 1 CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT 16842 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AUGUST SALES TAX $12,593.00 16843 BROWNING FERRIS IND. SEPTEMBER RECYCLING 27.00 16844 CHAMPION AUTO STORES SHOP SUPPLIES 10.61 16845 DEPUTY REGISTRAR #59 SALES TAXIPLATES 4 NEW TRUCKS 2,811.60 16846 JAMES HURM MILEAGE/EXPENSES 122.26 16847 METRO COUNCIL WASTEWATER AUGUST SAC 1, 683.00 16848 NORTHERN STATES POWER UTILITIES 2,209.16 16849 ALAN ROLEK MILEAGE/EXPENSES /SEC 125 REIMB 343.05 16850 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 161.90 16851 BELLBOY CORPORATION LIQUOR/MISC/SUPPLIES 5,360.51 16852 BOYD HOUSER CANDY/TOBACCC MISC 1,717.95 16853 MIDWEST COCA -COLA MISC 967.80 16854 DAY DISTRIBUTING BEER/MISC 8,558.80 16855 GRIGGS, COOPER & CO LIQUOR/WINE/MISC 4,430.85 16856 JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO LIQUOR/WINE 2,235.41 16857 LAKE REGION VENDING MISC 68.08 16858 LEEFBROS. MAT CLEANING 25.17 16859 LINDERHOLMTRUCKING FREIGHT 84.00 16860 MARK VII BEER/MISC 8,479.55 16861 NORTH STAR ICE MISC 224.16 16862 PAUSTIS & SONS WINE 203.00 16863 PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS LIQUOR/WINE 631.63 16864 QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS LIQUOR/WINE 1,558.87 16865 SW SUBURBAN PUBLISHING ADVERTISING 135.00 16866 THORPE DISTRIBUTING BEER/MISC 7,073.60 • 16867 THE VICTORIA GAZETTE ADVERTISING 41.25 16868 WEEKLY NEWS, INC. ADVERTISING 496.33 16869 FIRST STATE BANK FED /FICA TAX 6,799.31 16870 PERA _ PERA 2,130.69 16871 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457 DEFERREDCOMP 864.98 16872 CITY COUNTY CREDIT UNION PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 564.00 16873 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CHILD SUPPORT -C. DAVIS 98.50 16874 ANOKA CTY SUPPORT /COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT -C. SCHMID 139.44 16875 MN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE PAYROLL TAX 1,148.34 16876 ARMOR LOCK & ALARM SVCS 4TH QTR MONITORING 136.26 16877 AT &T LONG DISTANCE 5.20 16878 KATHLEEN HEBERT SEC 125 REIMB 192.31 16879 JOSSEY -BASS PUBLISHERS BOOKS 120.30 16880 AT &T WIRELESS SERVICES AIRTIME 15.18 16881 THERESA NAAB MILEAGE/SCHOOL 191.80 16882 BRADLEY NIELSEN SEC 125 REIMB 100.00 Page 1 CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR SEPTEMBER 25, 1995 COUNCIL MEETING • CK NO 16883 16884 16885 16886 16887 16888 16889 16890 16891 16892 16893 16894 16895 16896 16897 CHECKS ISSUED SINCE SEPTEMBER 13,1995 TO WHOM ISSUED JOSEPH PAZANDAK PEPSI COLA CO US POSTMASTER US WEST MR. GERALD GREWE BELLBOY CORP EAST SIDE BEVERAGE CO GRIGGS, COOPER & CO JOHNSON BROS LIQUOR CO LAKE REGION VENDING LEHMANN FARMS PAUSTIS & SONS PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS WORLD CLASS WINES, INC. PURPOSE MILEAGE POP MACHINE RENT/MISC NEWSLETTER POSTAGE COMMUNICATIONS REFUND DEPOSIT -CODE BOOK LIQUOR BEER/MISC LIQUOR/WINE/MISC LIQUOR/WINE MISC MISC WINE LIQUOR/WINE LIQUORNVINEBEER WINE AMOUNT 69.54 25.13 509.48 48.93 50.00 2,887.26 6,608.95 4,881.94 1,632.82 85.10 161.01 458.95 1,113.78 905.15 122.80 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED • Page 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR SEPT 25, 1995 COUNCIL MTG CHECK* VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEll "T. AMOUNT 16 898 ALL- METRO PLUMBING 16 899 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. 1690() JEFF REIP'di -TART DBA 1690.1 BOY'ER TRUCK PARTS REPLACE TOILET TANK SIGNS AUGUST JANITORIAL RELf - - iY CITY GAR 130.00 fRAF CON 950 MUN BLDG 60.00 .16902 G.E. LASALLE & ASSOCIATES APPRAISAL SERVICES __._._._._._... 4,612_50 .169:73 CARL-SON EXCAVATING COMPACTOR RENTAL- -MANOR P _.._w.__._._ � 250.00 16904 CROWN MARKING NOTARY STAMP GEN GOVT X6 .4,`. , '+0'S E RICKSON, ROLF E.A. ASSE33OR FEES /SUPPLIES PROF SER 3,669.16 A33ESSOR FEES, /SUPPLIES PROF SER 208.56 :K;KzK T0TPiL F OR ERI CKSON , ROL.i° E.A. 3 :, 877 . 7 2 16906 EXCELSIOR -CITY OF SIGNAL LT UTILITY TRAP CON 139.83 SEWER RENTAL FEES SEWER DE 2 ; ,16.1..00 = TOTAL FOR EXCELSIOR-CITY OF 2,300.83 16907 EXCELSIOR ROTARY CLUB OTRL'Y DUES ADMIN 132.00 16908 GOPHER STATE ONE--CALL, IN ONE CALL SERVICE WATER DE 21.00 ONE CALL SERVICE SEWER DE 2.1.00 : = *- TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-- 42.00 .16909 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER JULY PRISONER EXPENSE POLICE ' 374.50 910 HOISINGTOtA, /'KOEGLER GROUP PARK PLANS PA & 64. 20 16911 a -' ^'.� LARKI N,, HCFFMAN, Dr,LY ... I JULY LEGAL PROF SER 1,649.40 JULY LEGAL -_ - - - - - 1 , 978.00 - JULY LEGAL PROF SER 905.50 JULY LEGAL --------- 234.00 TOTAL FOR LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAL 4,766.90 16912 LEGAL COURIER DELIVERY SERVICE GEN GOUT 34.00 169.13 LONG LAKE POWER EQUIPMENT MANUALS PUB WKS 8.50 WEED WHIP RENTAL CITY GAR 106.50 TOTAL_ FOR LONG LAKE POWER EOUI 1- 1.5. .16914 M C I TELECOMMUNICATIONS LONG DISTANCE MUN BLDG 19.51 169.15 METRO COUNCIL WASTEWATER OCTOBER TREATMEN SEWER DE "a, 569. 00 16916 MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP. ASPHALT STREETS 97 -74 16917 MIDWEST BUSINESS PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES GEN GOVT 193.14 1691.:5 MOUND-­CITY OF 4TH QTR FIRE PROTECTION ;= IRE PRO 1 , 61.0.7':: Page 3 CITY O F SH SEPT CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR 25, 199 COUNCIL_ MTG C }-'ECK. #1 VENDOR 'NAME:: DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT 169 MUNITECH, INC. 20.00 OCTOBER MAINTENANCE WATER DE 4,340.00 WATER DE 37.88 OCTOBER MAINTENANCE SEWER DE 1,560.00 TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC. 6,200.00 16920 NAVARR.E:; TRUE VALUE PLAYGROUND INSTALLATION PARKS & 50.52 BEACH PARKS & 10,.10 RETURN PARKS & 59-78— SHOP SUPPLIES CITY GAR 4,.12 CI HALL MUN B LDG B . 4.1. SMALL TOOLS CITY GAR 4.04 +� ►� TOTAL F OR NAVARRE TRUE VALUE 17.41 16921 NORTHERN TRAILER HITCH REPLACE PUS WKS 91..57 0 9' 2 ORR.,SCI•IELEN,MAY'EROP'!/A SOC B=EG ENGINEERING -------- 184.50 1692 ice`. T ..� S ,, KENN N,. A UGUS T PROSECUTIONS PROF SER 1,458.33 16924 I:: .'.{ I S I ON COMPUTER SYSTEM ANNUAL LICENSE F E;E FINANCE 1,1.t70 a oo e+('•.1NUAL. LICENSE FEE WATER DE 225..00 ANNUAL LICENSE FEE SEWER DE 225.01..) TOTAL FOR PRECISION SIGN COMPUTER S 1,550.00 16925 RESEARCH QUIK ANALYZE CITY SURVEY COUNCIL 853.70 1699 RO► i . I NS OIL CO `"HOP SUPPLIES CITY GAR 256.18 16927 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP 41 1 928 TIME SAVER OFF SITE SEC 15929 TWIN CITY TRUCE;. ►2OUIP.INC 16930 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC 16931 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES 16932 32 W .. W. GRA I NGE►°t'. , INC OCTOBER PAYMENT N MINUTES SNOW PLOWS /MOUNTING WATER TESTING UNIFORMS VALUE FOR SE PUMPHOUSE *?t * TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL *' ;`* TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST POLICE P 35,301.7 PLANNING 215.50 PROJECTS 6,262.20 WATER DE 20.00 CITY GAR 484.1':.' WATER DE 37.88 108,376.55 202,697.24 Page 4 ' 1 10 ° CHECK CHECK CHECK EMPLOYEE NAME TYPE DATE NUMBER CHECK CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT COM 9 19 95 70 KIMBERLY A- ALLEN 209798 15.24 COM 9 19 95 lIU CONHIE D. BASTYR 209799 246'45 COM 9 19 95 120 ROBERT G. BEAN 209800 230-87 COM 9 19 95 125 BRUCE E. BENSON 209801 18400 c[]M 9 19 95 230 CHRISTOPHER M' CAREY 209802 358-06 COM 9 19 95 345 PATRICK C. CRETAN 209803 120-97 COM 9 19 95 375 3ODI A- OALLMAN 209804 69-29 COM 9 19 95 500 CHARLES S. DAVIS 209805 615,88 COM 9 19 95 775 JAMES C. EAKINS 209806 654-63 COM 9 19 95 100I JOHN M. FRUTH 209807 36-29 COM 9 19 95 lIOS KERI ANNE 8RAF 209808 147-94 COM 9 19 95 1160 STEPHANIE A. HABER 209809 102'77 COM 9 19 95 1190 KATHLEEN A. HEBERT 209810 568'94 COM 9 19 95 I400 PATRICIA R. HELGESEN 209811 642'72 COM 9 19 95 1415 SHAWN D. HEMPEL 209812 161-72 COM 9 19 95 1550 JAMES C. HURM 209813 1619'93 COM 9 19 95 1601 BRIAN D. JAKEL 209814 116-44 COM 9 19 95 1700 JEFFREY A. JENSEN 209815 790-67 CoM 9 19 95 1800 DENNIS D. JOHNSON 209816 797.18 COM 9 l9 95 1940 LOREN A. JONES 209817 145-58 CoM 9 19 95 1950 MARTIN L. JONES 209818 5l-07 COM 9 19 95 2100 WILLIAM F. JOSEPHSON 2098I9 632,19 COM 9 i9 95 2600 SUSAN M. LATTERNER 209820 256-95 COM 9 19 95 2550 PETER W. LENZEN 209821 120-97 COM 9 19 96 2800 JOSEPH P. LUGOWCKI 209822 819.56 COM 9 19 95 2875 DOUGLAS J. MALAM 209823 184-70 COM 9 19 95 2900 RUSSELL R' MARRON 209824 29-32 COM 9 19 95 2905 PAUL S. MARSO 209825 62'81 COM 9 19 95 2930 JENNIFER T. MCCARTY 209826 182.05 COM 9 19 95 2955 CHRISTOPHER M. MCNEAL 209827 146-83 COM 9 19 95 3000 THERESA L. NAAB 209828 687-95 COM 9 19 95 3100 LAWRENCE A. NZCCUM 209829 894-78 COM 9 19 95 3400 BRADLEY J. MIELSEN 209830 1069.52 CoM 9 19 95 3500 JOSEPH E. PAZANDAK 209831 1026-43 COM 9 19 95 360(} DANIEL J- RAHDALL 209832 888'40 COM 9 19 95 3615 TAMARA LYNN REED 209833 30'47 COM 9 19 95 3675 SUSAN M. RINEHIHER 209834 38-79 COM 9 19 95 3701 BRIAN M. ROERICK 209835 13'73 cOM 9 19 95 3800 ALAN J. ROLEK 209836 1113.81 COM 9 19 95 3900 CHRISTOPHER E. SCHMID 209837 411-33 COM 9 19 95 4190 DANA G. SHAW 209838 24.94 COM 9 19 95 4500 KRISTI STOVER 209839 184-70 COM 9 19 95 4575 REBECCA A. TARYZN 209840 275'08 COM 9 19 95 4600 BEVERLY J' VON FELDT 209841 605-95 COM 9 19 96 4750 RALPH A. WEHLE 209842 625'28 COM 9 19 95 4900 DEAN H- YOUNG 209843 656.84 COM 9 19 95 5000 DONALD E' ZDRAZIL 209844 1231'35 ****TOTALS**** I9892'07 PQ 5 REGISTER