The URL can be used to link to this page

113092 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1992 7:00 P.M. AGENDA 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call Mayor Brancel Gagne Stover Daugherty Lewis B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular City Council Meeting - October 26, 1992 (Att.No.2A- Minutes) B. Canvass Board Meeting - November 5, 1992 (Att.No.2B- Minutes) C. Regular City Council Meeting - November 9, 1992 (Att.No.2C- Minutes) C. Canvass Board Meeting - November 12, 1992 (Att.No.2D- Minutes) PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER JANET LESLIE 3. CONSENT AGENDA - Motion to Approve Items on Consent Agenda and Adopt Resolutions Therein A. A Motion to Adopt a Resolution Accepting the Salt /Sand Storage Building and Approving Final Pay Voucher and Change Order (Attachments 3A -: Engineer's Memo, Pay Voucher No. and Change Order #2) B. A Motion Approving Pay Estimate and Change Order for Site Grading for the Public Works Site. (Attachments 3B -: Engineer's Memo, Pay Voucher No.2 and Change Order #1) C. A Motion Approving a Seasons PUD (Concept Stage) (Att.No.3C- Proposed Resolution) D. A Motion to Accept Bid and Approve the Sale of the Public Works Building, 5735 Country Club Road to Three Star Trucking (Att.No.3D -Bid) E. A Motion to Approve a Parking Request on a "No Parking" Street - December 4, 1992 Applicant: Fremont Gruss Location: 5890 Christmas Lake Road (Att.No.3E- Request Letter) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 30, 1992 PAGE TWO 4. A. 7:15 gm - PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 1993 GENERAL, WATER, SEWER AND RECYCLING FUND BUDGETS AND THE 1992 PROPERTY TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1993 B. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1993 GENERAL; WATER SEWER AND RECYCLING FUND BUDGETS AND APPROVING THE 1992 PROPERTY TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1993 (Att.No.4B- Resolution) C. Consider a Resolution Establishing a Pay and Salary Chart for the Year 1993 (Att.No.4C- Proposed Resolution) D. Consider a Resolution Establishing a Rate of the City's Contribution toward the Monthly Insurance Premium for City Employees (Att.No.4D- Proposed Resolution) 5. PARK A. Report on Park Commission Meeting of November 24, 1992 B. Consider Adjusting Park Dedication Fees for Elderly Housing Projects (Att.No.5B- Planner's Report, Park Minutes, and Planning Commission Minutes) 6. PLANNING A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting of November 17 and November 24, 1992 B. Amendment to the L -R, Lakeshore - Recreational District Requirements of the Shorewood City Code (Att.No.6B- Planner's Memo) C. Amendment to lie from R -1C /S (Single - Family Residential /Sham '0 a) to L -R /S (Lakeshore - Recreational' �, wand) Applicar' 4 0 Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club Locati 4580 Enchanted Point O (Att.No.6C -1- Planner's Report 8/26/92; 4 6C -2- Planning Commission Minutes 9/1/92; 6C -3- Planner's Report 9/17/92; 6C -4- Planning Commission Minutes 9/22/92) D. Conditional Use Permit - Gideon's Woods P.U.D. (Concept Stage) - Katter Development Corporation - 24590 Glen Road (Att.No.6D- Planner's Memo) E. Variance for Secondary Dock on Residential Lakeshore Property - James Kesler, rep. Dorothy Smith, 27940 Smithtown Road (Att.No.6E- Planner's Memo) F. Simple Subdivision/ Combination - Reif enberger /Morford, 6130/6150 Church Road (Att.No.6F- Planner's Memo) CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 30, 1992 PAGE THREE 6. PLANNING - Continued G. Simple Subdivision - Douglas Shoutz, 6130 Cathcart Drive (Att.No.6G- Planner's Memo) H. Amendment to S, Shoreland District (Att.No.6H- Planner's Memo and Draft Ordinance) 7. PRESENTATION BY MINNETONKA SCHOOL COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP TEAM (Att.No.7- Brochure) 8. REVIEW PROPOSALS TO MAINTAIN SHOREWOOD'S WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS: City of Excelsior and Munitech Inc. - and Award a Contract (Att. No. 8-Proposals from City of Excelsior and Munitech, Inc.) 9. CONSIDER ACCEPTING AGREEMENT FOR FIRE SERVICE - CITY OF EXCELSIOR (Att.No.9- Agreement) 10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 11. STAFF REPORTS A. Attorney's Report B. Engineer's Report 1. Leroy Bishop Petition - lighting /drainage /noise (Att.No.11B -1- Letter) 2. Cost of storm sewer in Senior Housing area C. Planner's Report 1. Variance Request John Chandler, 28200 Woodside Road (Att. No. 11C-1-Memo and Chandler's Letter) 2. 30 Day Extension Mary Bussaus, Harding Lane (Notice to Remove) D. Finance Director's Report 1. Draft - Sample Sewer Bill (Att.No.11D -1 Draft) E. Administrator's Report 1. Financial Analysis of Knutson Services Inc. - RFP (Att.No.11E -1 - KSI Letter) 2. Report on LMCD Lake Access COUNCIL AGENDA - NOVEMBER 30, 1992 .. PAGE FOUR 12. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Brancel B. Councilmembers 13. ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF CLAIMS (Attachment Claims) 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LITIGATION 2. ADJOURN JCH.al 11/24/92 tJJ' IF THE MEMBERS OF THE 1993 CITY COUNCIL WOULD PLEASE COME 10 - 15 MINUTES EARLY TO THE CITY OFFICES I WOULD LIRE TO TAKE YOUR PICTURE FOR OUR USE THIS COMING YEAR. There will be a presentation of a plaque to Janet Leslie for her many years of service on the Planning Commission right after the approval of minutes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1992 AGENDA ITEM 4A - At 7:15 pm we will begin the public hearing on the proposed budget. Al Rolek and I will give a very short presentation on the budget and on the Capital Improvement Program. Even if no one attends the hearing we will try to get a very succinct summary for the television audience. Following the presentation the public hearing would be opened for public' comment. Item 4B - Following the closing of the public hearing the City Council will consider a resolution adopting budgets and the tax levy. The Planning Commission has recommended the Capital Improvement Program to the City Council at their November 24 meeting. The Council could adopt the Capital Improvement Program by motion and the Capital Improvement Budget by resolution which is presented on page 33 of the Capital Improvement Program at this meeting or deferred to the next meeting. AGENDA ITEM 3A - This item actually includes three actions. The f irst motion would approve the change order which is an increase of $5,220 to Ebert Construction Inc. for the Sand /Salt Storage Facility; the second is a motion approving final payment to Ebert Construction Inc. in the amount of $21,322.50; the final motion is �• to approve the resolution accepting the construction of the Sand /Salt Storage Building. The resolution and supporting documentation is enclosed in the packet. i ;5 AGENDA ITEM 3B - This item includes two motions. The first is a motion approving a change order which is a reduction of $3,341 to the contract with Northwest Asphalt Inc. for the grading work at the Public Works site; the second motion approves a payment of $54,628.60 to Northwest Asphalt Inc. e' AGENDA ITEM 3C - This resolution approves the concept plan for Seasons PUD as requested by the City Council. AGENDA ITEM 3D - This is a motion to accept the high bid of $2,260 for the purchase and removal of the old Public Works building by Three Star Trucking, Donald Fisher from Plymouth, MN. An •f additional deposit of $1,000 will be required. -." AGENDA ITEM 3E - This would be a motion to approve the request of Fremont and Anne Gruss, 5890 Christmas Lake Road to allow parking on the west side of Christmas Lake Road from 7:00 pm - 11:00 pm on the evening of December 4, 1992. The Police Chief's memorandum recommending approval of the request is in the packet. AGENDA ITEM 4A - At 7:15 pm we will begin the public hearing on the proposed budget. Al Rolek and I will give a very short presentation on the budget and on the Capital Improvement Program. Even if no one attends the hearing we will try to get a very succinct summary for the television audience. Following the presentation the public hearing would be opened for public' comment. Item 4B - Following the closing of the public hearing the City Council will consider a resolution adopting budgets and the tax levy. The Planning Commission has recommended the Capital Improvement Program to the City Council at their November 24 meeting. The Council could adopt the Capital Improvement Program by motion and the Capital Improvement Budget by resolution which is presented on page 33 of the Capital Improvement Program at this meeting or deferred to the next meeting. Item 4C & 4D These two resolutions are in conjunction with the budget. I have talked with the members of the City Council separately about the salary resolution which is item 4C. My recommendation is to use the first attachment A -1, which adjusts the pay ranges by 3% (attachment A -2 is a 2 1/2% increase chart). Resolution 4D will bring our non - contract employees on line with the union contract employees increasing the City's contribution toward health insurance to $290 a month, a $20 increase. Our insurance package costs employees between $445 - $485 a month an increase of about 11% over 1992. AGENDA ITEM 5B - This is a report on the discussion recommendations of the Park as well as Planning Commission regarding adjusting fees for elderly housing projects. The Park Commission recommends that park dedication fees not be lowered to less than what the fees would be under current zoning if densities were not changed due to the senior project. AGENDA ITEM 6B & 6C - Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club has equested that item 6C, the amendment to the zoning code, be ostponed until January 11. Because item 6B is directly related to and a result of item 6C the City Council might like to also table item 6B until the January meeting as well. Because citizens are expecting these items to be on the November 30th agenda, Council should decide if item 6B will be considered at this meeting or postponed so the citizens would know at the beginning of the meeting which meeting items 6B and 6C will be considered. Both items have been recommended favorably to the City Council by the Planning Commission on a 4/3 vote. AGENDA ITEM 6D - This action would be to direct staff to prepare a findings of fact resolution approving a conditional use permit for Gideon's Woods P.U.D. (Concept Stage). AGENDA ITEM 6E - The action here would be to direct staff to prepare a findings of fact resolution denying the variance for econdary dock on residential lakeshore property, 27940 Smithtown oad. This is a unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission. AGENDA ITEM 6F - This action would be to direct a resolution be prepared approving a simple subdivision/ combination for 6130 Church Road. AGENDA ITEM 6G - The action here is to direct staff to prepare a resolution approving a simple subdivision at 6130 Cathcart Drive. AGENDA ITEM 6H - This action would be to approve an ordinance which amends Shorewood's Shoreland District Ordinance. This is being recommended by the Planning Commission after public hearing. AGENDA ITEM 7 - We have been contacted by Minnetonka Community Education & Services who would like to give a very short presentation to the City Council on expanding the Minnetonka School Community Partnership Team initiative. AGENDA ITEM 8 - Enclosed for your information is a proposal to maintain our water and sewer systems from the City of Excelsior and Munitech. Munitech's proposal is similar to 1992. The contract sum of $6,200 per month is not increasing. Excelsior's proposal would cost up to $10,000 per month. At this point I would suggest that we indicate that we would like to work with the City of Excelsior in 1993 to better define our needs and to attempt to decrease the projected costs. I further recommend that the proposal from Munitech for 1993 be accepted by motion. AGENDA ITEM 9 - The enclosed agreement for fire services with the City of Excelsior would require a payment of $98,103 which is what is included in our budget for 1993. The one item that we would like to bring to the City Council's attention is the third paragraph on page 3. The final sentence in that paragraph is not consistent with our City Code. I would recommend that the Council accept the agreement with this sentence crossed: "The receiver shall also adopt regulations to limit building heights to a maximum of 35' as defined by the Uniform Building Code ". Staff finds no problem with the remainder of the proposed contract. AGENDA ITEM 11C -1- - The Planner's memorandum on this item explains that the return of $1,800 to Mr. Chandler, 28200 Woodside Road is at the City Council's discretion. There is precedent for returning the $1,800 assessment. The Council would also need to decide on whether or not interest should be returned. Please refer to the enclosed memorandum. AGENDA ITEM 11C -2- - A verbal report will be given on the 30 day inspection on the property of Mary Bussaus on Harding Lane - "Notice to Remove Debris ". AGENDA ITEM 11D -1- - Please carefully review the proposed notice to be mailed to sewer customers. Be prepared to advise staff at the meeting as to your recommendations on the format and content of this document. AGENDA ITEM 11E -1- - Knutson Services Inc. is informing the City that they would like an adjustment to their recycling contract for the years 1993 and 1994. That letter of explanation and a memorandum from our Lake Minnetonka Recycling Group with a draft compromise proposal is enclosed. This item is on at this point for discussion. Following the Regular City Council meeting we will go into closed session with the City Attorney to review pending litigation. JCH.al 11/25/92 CTTY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1992 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 PAL The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. ROLL CALL 'i Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover; Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane, Planner Nielsen, and Finance Director Rolek. B. REVIEW AGENDA Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the Agenda for October 26, 1992. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF 1�T[l1UTES A. Regular City Council Meeting - October 12, 1992 i Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the regular City Council meeting minutes of October 12, 1992. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for October 26, 1992. Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Motions and Resolutions therein: A. RESOLUTION NO. 98 -92 "A Resolution Approving Refuse Collectors License - Action Sanitation." B. RESOLUTION NO. 99- "A Resolution to Assess Water Connection Fee for Tony Studer at 5685 Minnetonka Drive." ' �R REGULAR CITY COUNCIL NBNUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 PAGE 2 C. Motion to Approve the LMCIT Excess Liability Coverage and to Not Waive the Monetary Limits. D. RESOLUTION NO. 100-92 "A Resolution Accepting Modifications and Approve Final Pay Voucher for the Rehabilitation of Lift Stations 5 & 6 - City Project No. 91- 3. E. RESOLUTION NO. 101 -92 "A Resolution Approving the Final Pay Voucher and Accepting the Final Pay Voucher for Improvements to Pine Bend - City Project No. 91 -11." F. Motion to Approve the Installation of Street Lights on Apple Road. G. RESOLUTION NO. 102-92 "A Resolution Extending the Deadline for Recording the • Final Plat of Boulder Ridge Estates." Motion passed 510. INTRODUCTION OF FIRE MARSHALL Mayor Brancel introduced Mr. Carey Smith, Fire Marshall. Smith described his duties, reviewed recent activities in connection with Fire Prevention Week and noted that he can be reached at the Excelsior Fire Station. 4. PARK - None. 5. PSG A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting of October 13, 1992. Stover reported the Planning Commission took action at its October 13 meeting on items coming before the Council at this meeting and indicated the Commission's recommendations will be presented as these matters come up on the agenda. B. Seasons P.U.D. - Concept Stage Plan - Elderly Housing Project - Pete Boyer Mr. Boyer introduced Mr. Jim Robbin, Landscape Architect, for the project and noted he has also worked with a consultant with expertise in senior housing. Using visuals, Boyer showed the location of the project at 20095 Excelsior Boulevard, presented the background, reviewed his research for the development and described his concept plan. Boyer stated that Shorewood has indicated a need for senior housing through its Senior Housing Task Force. He described three types of senior housing: 1) congregate living, 2) assisted living, and 3) cottage style living. He stated his project is a cottage style development of two 12 -unit cluster homes designed to offer independence and secure private 2 REGULAR CTTY COUNCIL NffNUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 3 homes for active seniors 62 years or older with access to a wide range of services. The Seasons will be one -level living units with attached two -car garages. The project will be accessed from St. Albans Road and Excelsior Boulevard and each cluster will be served by a separate private driveway. The site will be landscaped and existing vegetation will be retained wherever practical particularly the areas along Excelsior Boulevard and the residential area to the west. The homes will be for sale to seniors age 62 or older and will be managed by a property owners association. Construction is planned to begin in the spring of 1993. Boyer stated that consideration may be given to allowing occupancy of care- givers under the age of 62. He noted the American Disabilities Act was used as a guide for designing the project and the individual homes. He pointed out the project's tax advantage to the City. He described a potential problem related to the ponding area and the storm sewer running through the entire project. He indicated further study and additional work with the City must be conducted to resolve the situation. Gagne stated the Senior Housing Task Force was impressed with the concept of the proposed project. Stover indicated the Planning Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of the concept stage plans. Planning Commissioner Hansen stated the Commission voted to recommend approval of this P.U.D. and directed the staff to review and recommend action to allow occupancy of care - givers under age 62 in Shorewood's senior housing. In addition, Hansen noted the Commission's concerns regarding current and potential traffic issues brought to its attention by nearby residents during the public hearing. Stover explained the Planning Commission's support of striping appropriate sections of Excelsior Boulevard and St. Albans Road in the interests of traffic safety and indicated that the Council may wish to consider allowing occupancy of care - givers under the age of 62 in this project. Dresel indicated striping is not feasible at this time of the year and will be deferred until next spring. Lewis requested that the police be asked to monitor traffic speed levels in the subject area. Mr. Boyer asked that the issue of the storm sewer be resolved to assure that his project complies with the regulations of the Watershed District and asked for the City's assistance with this issue. Gagne asked the staff to determine the responsibility and cost associated with the storm sewer issue and bring the information to the Council at its next meeting. Gagne moved, Stover seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution approving the concept stage plan of the Seasons P.U.D., submitted by Pete Boyer, subject to the recommendations of the staff. Motion passed 510. C. Setback Variance - John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road 3 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MDff ES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 4 Hansen stated the Commission voted 7/0 to recommend denial of the applicant's request for a setback variance primarily because the applicant did not demonstrate a hardship in that the property can be put to reasonable use under the City's Code without a variance. He noted the applicant based his request for the variance primarily to preserve a stand of trees. Hansen noted there are several viable alternatives for use of the land which would not require variances. Stover reiterated the Commission's discussion and noted the applicant did not demonstrate any hardship whatsoever relative to use of the property and its planned restoration. In response to Brancel's request, Nielsen noted that although a request for subdivision of the lot was approved several years ago, the subdivision was not recorded and remains as one parcel of approximately 38,000 square feet. Stover moved, Gagne seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution to deny the request of John Leebens for a 25' setback variance from Minnetonka. Drive at 23825 Smithtown Road. Motion passed 4/1. Daugherty abstained. D. C.U.P. for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet - Allan Larson, 4320 Dellwood Lane Hansen stated the Commission received no comments from the public on this request and voted 7/0 to recommend approval of the request. He stated the property has a 17 -year restriction attached to it and the Commission recommended that the original owner be notified of the issuance of 'a building permit to Mr. Larson. Lewis moved, Stover seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 103 -92 "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit For Additional Accessory Space to Allan Larson," subject to the staff's recommendations. Motion passed 510. E. Subdivision of a Two - Family Dwelling /Lot Area Variance - Joe O'Connor, 20345 -47 Excelsior Boulevard Hansen stated the Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of this request. The Commission noted there may be some drainage benefit to the large wetland area surrounding the property. Nielsen noted some of the Exhibits were not available for attachment to the proposed Resolution and that receipt of those documents may make minor technical changes to the Resolution. Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 104-92 "A Resolution Adopting a Subdivision of a Two - Family Dwelling /Lot Area Variance for Joe O'Connor," subject to the staffs recommendations. 4 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MPU= OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 5 Motion passed 510. F. C.U.P. for Accessory Space over 1200 Square Feet - Dana George, 25925 Smithtown Road Hansen stated the Planning Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of this C.U.P. without escrow subject to the staff s recommendation that five existing structures be removed by July 1, 1993. Hansen suggested that the Council may wish to consider a specific formula for the determination of when escrow funds are required. He noted that in the Commissioners' view, escrow funds were not required in this case since the buildings are rather small in size, the applicant is improving the property beyond requirements and is willing to remove the buildings. Lewis moved, Stover seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 106 -92 "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Dana George," subject to the staffs recommendations. Motion passed 510. G. Simple Subdivision - Dave Nelson, 21780 Lilac Lane Hansen stated the Commission voted 7/0 to recommend approval of this subdivision subject to a number of staff recommendations. Nielsen stated the Applicant will deed Lot 3 to the City as designated wetland and will comply with the Code in regard to the driveway. Lewis moved, Stover seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 107 -92 "A Resolution Approving Subdivision of Real Property." • Motion passed 5/0. H. Request for CUP for Temporary Trailer at Manor Park Hansen stated the Commission voted 4/3 to recommend denial of this request. He clarified that the Commission does not wish to deny the children's usage of a warming house, but that the Commission's vote was designed to send the message that use of a temporary trailer on a year after year basis is a violation of the City Code and to express its desire for a permanent structure at Manor Park. He reiterated the Commission's strong views against continuing this violation of Code. The City has advised that funds for construction of a permanent structure are included in the 1994 budget with the possibility of funds available in 1993. Brancel indicated appreciation of Hansen's comments, but pointed out that the Park Commission does not have the funds to erect the warming house that is needed. Hansen indicated the Commission understands this, however, it appears that Silverwood Park has been getting consistent priority over this park and it also appears that $25,000 has been 5 REGULAR CTTY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 6 spent to acquire additional new park land. Brancel pointed out that the completion of Silverwood Park was made a part of the Capital Improvement Program and no objections were raised at that time. Stover suggested that since this is a conditional use permit, a condition could be attached to the approval of this request that a permanent warming house be constructed during calendar year 1993 so that in the fall this issue does not come up again and the children would have a warming house. Further, she stated the City could lend money to the Park Commission, as has been done in the past, in order that the City can comply with its own ordinance. Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the conditional use permit for a temporary warming house at Manor Park on the condition that a permanent warming house be built for seasonal use in calendar year 1993. Daugherty stated that the Planning Commission's intent to encourage the Council to provide for a permanent warming house vs. a temporary one at any park requiring one may not be the proper approach for the Commission to direct the Park Commission on how to prioritize its budget. Rather, he indicated, this is a Council, Park and Administration function, therefore he opposed the motion. Stover agreed that it was a Council function, noting that the Planning Commission's role and expertise lies in knowledge of the Ordinances and application of the Ordinances in an equitable manner. She pointed out, however, that in carrying out it's duties, the Commission is not telling the Park Commission how to operate. Lewis indicated that the Park Commission has outlined its capital improvement program to provide for a permanent warming house and that the Park Commission is doing the best it can with the funds available to develop a 15 -20 year schedule for the park system. • Motion failed 1/4. Brancel, Daugherty, Gagne and Lewis voted nay. Lewis moved, Gagne seconded to direct the staff to prepare a resolution to grant a conditional use permit and authorized the staff to order a trailer for use as a temporary warming house at Manor Park. Motion passed 5/0. I. Appeal Notice. to Remove Appellant: Mary B. Bussaus Location: 5565 Harding Lane Mary Bussaus, 5565 Harding Lane, stated: We moved to Shorewood about one year ago, purchased land and built a home at 5565 Harding Lane. When we purchased that land, there was already an accumulation of brush wood. Mr. Nielsen's letter stated that 30 cubic J REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 7 yards of brush has accumulated, however that pile was there before we moved there and I want to make that clear to the Council. My letter (dated October 9, 1992) basically states all the facts in the case and I will not repeat them. I am concerned that first the notice sent to us by a representative of the Council; they didn't call us about the situation. We did not create brush accumulation, prior to our purchase of the land, the owner of the land already had that accumulation of brush. The neighbors stated that the brush was there before we came and believe the City may have something to do with that. I want to make it clear to the Council that the neighbors were not complaining. In looking at this, would like to come to a compromise situation, instead of 30 days, my husband and I would like a minimum of 60 days to react to this situation to get some legal advice as to who the parties are that should be accountable for the brush accumulation. Also, I have a question as to where was the City prior to our purchase of the property. Was there some negligence on the part of the City that they didn't react sooner to the situation? We did not obviously cause the problem. Also I'd like some type of police investigation as I don't think it's feasible for us to knock on neighbors' doors to determine responsibility for the brush because I think everyone would refuse responsibility. I would like to go one step further on it and get a police investigation. Also Mr. Nielsen's letter mentioned that the Glen Road area could possibly have contributed to this and we are on Harding Lane. Mr. Nielsen's letter said that it was not our responsibility for the accumulation. I know the Ordinance states it's the responsibility of the land owner to remove it. Daugherty asked as a condition of purchase whether the Bussaus' requested the removal of the brush. Mrs. Bussaus stated: No, it was late October and we did not see what was in the woods and we thought it was the neighbors. We then started to question it and we did not cause it but I cannot pinpoint the person who caused it. Homes have been built there for the past two years and I don't know if the City was monitoring the proper disposal of brush. Gagne asked whether there was a complaint. Nielsen stated that a complaint was received. • Gagne stated that there is not a formal program for monitoring this type of situation, however, when a complaint is registered, it is the responsibility of the current landowner to clean it up. He indicated that 30 days is a sufficient amount of time to clean up the existing situation. Stover stated that visually from the road it appears to be adjacent to the subject property, but that it may be on the Bussaus' property. Brancel stated that a precedent for 30 days has already been set, however the Bussaus' still have the opportunity to pursue their options. Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to grant an additional 30 days to Mary Bussaus, 5565 Harding Lane, to correct the violation of Code, described in the October 6, 1992 Notice to Remove. Motion passed 510. 6. 7:30 PM - PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT NO. 91-2. STREET AND WATER MAIN R"ROVEMENTS - CHURCH ROAD 7 REGULAR CTrY COUNCIL NI[NUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 8 Dresel stated that this project was petitioned by the residents in the late summer and fall of 1990. Subsequent to that, the City prepared a Feasibility Report presented in November of 1990. Plans and specifications were prepared during the winter of 1991 and bids were taken in July 1991. Some of the underlying principles of the feasibility report were that the road was to be built from 62nd Street up into a cul -de -sac and would include the taking of lot 38. The City purchased the lot to enable the project to go forward. In addition, there was insufficient right -of -way the entire length of the project to get the required minim of 50'. At the time the project was initiated, there was considerable discussion as to how the right -of -way was to be obtained. The basic premise was that in order to keep the costs low, the residents along the road would donate the easements. A number of requests for right -of -way and easements were sent but the City never could get all of the residents to donate the right -of -ways. In the winter of 1992, the Council decided to begin condemnation proceedings to acquire the right -of -ways. This was completed in July and the project was begun. The project is now nearly completed with final asphalting to be applied next spring. Dresel indicated that the final costs will be assessed and distributed at this time. He stated that the guiding principle was that each home would be assessed equally on a straight division basis except for one. An assessment roll has been prepared based on the original feasibility report. The feasibility report basically stated that a standard assessment would be $12,800. Dresel stated that the net cost less the amount being returned through the condemnation procedure on an average basis is $12,891.06. The range of actual assessments is from approximately $9,200 to $14,600 after easement payments. Rolek stated that on an annualized basis spread over a 10 -year assessment, the cost per resident will be $1,563 with an interest rate of 7 -1/2 %. On a monthly basis, it would be $225 the first year, $187 the fifth year and in the 10th year $138. Gagne asked whether this included City participation. Rolek indicated the City's participation consisted of the acquisition of lot 38 which has two assessments. Dresel stated that assessment Roll A without City participation is being presented for the Council's consideration. Mayor Brancel opened the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Lance DeTrude, 26620 W. 62nd Street, read his letter dated October 26, 1992 addressed to the Mayor and City Council, Shorewood, MN and presented it to the Presiding Officer. Neil Vegsund, 6155 Church Road, stated: A lot of us know that since day one we started out naively under the pretense that we would pass around a petition and get the road black - topped. Originally it was petitioned as a through street and there was belief that if it was a through street there would be more financial participation by the City and others. An idea was brought by the staff at this point in time that it should be made into a cul -de -sac. This had two major effects: it forced the major burden on the residents of Church Road and required the purchase of a piece of land for a cul -de -sac which added another cost to us. After the preliminary feasibility studies it was decided to continue on with this project, it came out with a preliminary price of $9,995 per home owner. After you proceeded from that point and the final feasibility study was done, it was increased to $12,800, an increase of 28 per cent. Most of us felt this to be a burden, but it was a burden we felt was feasible, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL NIMUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 9 barely, but let's keep going. At completion, it's close to $16,000 at a total cost increase of 63 per cent from day one. It has to be fairly evident that the 63% increase has to be addressed some how, if nothing else it's cause for a good argument. I don't believe that the affected properties can support this especially in this real estate market. I don't think the majority of the homeowners are looking for a free handout, however compensation or something should be done for a more fair and equitable situation. Basically, the cul -de -sac lots were purchased by the residents but its being retained as saleable property by the City. The City is also gaining the assets by gaining additional improved property, additional easement land, reducing the maintenance costs on the road substantially, increasing the tax base and revenues incurred by the residents. The City has set a precedent on another project and contributed to the costs of improvements on Pine Bend Road and some funds came from State maintenance funds. Based on the items that I brought up I feel it would be justifiable for the assessment to be decreased by a certain amount. First of all seeing $12,000 for two lots down on the end that could be saleable lots deferred until such time those lots are sold as buildable. Also not to charge the easement costs to offset the assets of the City as far as the additional land and right -of -way along with the expanded tax revenues and reasonable compensation for the maintenance saving costs. Also at presentation of the final feasibility study, we were given the impression that we would have a certain amount of say in the purchase of the bond. It comes out now that the a 10 year bond has already been purchased. For ten years now, people are now looking a the equivalent of a car payment with home costs going up as much as 25 percent. Not only do we have these costs going up, but they are down to a 10 year bond and this will put some serious financial burden on a lot of people on this street. Barbara Cobb, 6180 Church Road, stated: It's my understanding that the City has come forward with this assessment on the people. I don't believe the homeowners can afford this. We purchased our house five years ago for $59,500 and felt lucky to find some place not costing more than rental property. I live there with my husband and my daughter with . occasional visits by my husband's two children. It's a small one story house with no basement or garage. I've worked for Fingerhut for 11 years. Because of the economy, I'm looking at a maximum 3 per cent increase (salary) for this year. My husband works for Musicland warehouse under a union contract for three years with minimal increases. Our health insurance costs have increased enough so that we barely notice these raises. We pay child support for his two children in addition to sharing in some clothing and school costs. Within the next four years, both of them will be in college. We won't be able to help them financially. We are faced with a 28 per cent increase in our house payment if this assessment goes through as planned. One -fourth of our income will be going to housing. If we were to sell our property, we would have to ask for $84,000. I don't know what type of increase this means for the rest of the neighborhood, but they must be similar. This is definitely a middle income neighborhood with a day -care provider, a teacher, a nurse and construction workers among other jobs. Over half of the families have one or more children, several of the families have children approaching college age and like our family will not be able to assist them. Our neighborhood has become a true neighborhood and we share both our joys and our sorrows together, but I have a real fear of the possibility that we will have to give up our houses because of this assessment. I am not asking for 9 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 PAGE 10 something for nothing and understand we will have to pay for this. Nevertheless, please work with us to help support these expenses. Mayor Brancel closed the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. Gagne asked for clarification on the proposed assessment roll hand -out. Dresel clarified a point brought up regarding lot 38. He stated the City did pay for this lot, however, in the assessment roll prepared the cost of the lot is being divided amongst the residents. He noted that at some point the City would try to sell the lots to defray some of the costs. The point being made by the residents is that they are paying for the lot while the City will receive the proceeds. Stover asked if the proceeds of the sale of the lots could go to abatement later. Dresel responded that this could be done. Stover asked if the decision to purchase the 10 year bond has been made and if the City was bound to that purchase. Rolek indicated that the city sold bond issues last year in conjunction with construction associated with the water treatment plant, Pine Bend and Church Road at a rate of 5.61 per cent. Rolek indicated the City could re- finance depending upon interest rates. Keane stated that the term of the assessment is not bound by the term of the bond. Stover asked for clarification of the City's participation in the Pine Bend project. Rolek noted that project involved reconstruction of an existing road rather than construction of a new road. He pointed out that in the past the City has participated in re- construction; however, the cost of original construction has been borne by the developer. Stover indicated that the original petition in May 1990 was for the road only, but subsequently water was included. Stover asked if easements would be required for the original petition. Dresel responded that the easements were required to build the road to the minimum standard width of 24 feet, but the right -of -way required 50 feet. Brancel stated that she understands that the reason the price increased was because of the condemnation of the right -of -ways and not because of the purchase of lot 38. Dresel noted that the average net cost stated on the original feasibility study was $12,800 and the final average net cost is $12,891.06. Dresel indicated that the City was unable to get a clear corridor of easements through the area, thus it was decided to treat all the residents equitably. Dresel presented proposed assessment Roll B with city participation on the lot. Daugherty asked what the market value of lot 38 is. Dresel stated that lot 38 was purchased for $24,000 and he would assume that two buildable lots would sell for $24,500 to $40,000 each with a paved road with water and sewer. Lewis asked what happens to the money when the City sells the lot. Hurm stated the Council may determine where the money would go. Brancel stated that under the circumstances the money should be returned to the project. Daugherty asked if any outside participation such as by the State has been considered. Dresel stated he has calculated proposed assessment Roll C with City 10 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 11 participation on the lot and 1/3 of the road cost. Dresel pointed out that at the present time the City does not own a particular parcel of land along Maple Avenue and that the two potential lots derived from lot 38 as they exist are not buildable. Lewis concluded that since the lot is not buildable, the City, in fact, does not have the potential for realizing $60,000 from sale of the lots even though it may participate in the assessment costs. Daugherty asked why the City did not purchase the entire parcel so it would end up with two saleable lots. Rolek indicated that lot 38 was purchased to build the cul -de -sac. Brancel stated that purchasing the additional parcel to make it saleable and putting the money into the project would immensely help out the residents. It was noted that the City would carry the assessments of $30,000 as originally agreed. Dresel explained that proposed Roll C includes City participation on the lot of $30,000 and $59,790 which is 1/3 of the cost of the road. Brancel noted that this project differs from Pine Bend which was re- construction, and that the residents have not yet been assessed for Church Road since it is a new road. Dresel indicated that the City participated about 50 per cent on the Pine Bend re- construction excluding water. Stover estimated that this amounted to about 1/3 of the total of that project and indicated she favored keeping things fair. Lewis questioned whether having the City pick up 1/3 would set a precedent for future road assessments and pointed out that as a result all the taxpayers would be paying those assessments. Stover noted that although the Council has not yet accepted the recommendation, the Street Reconstruction Task Force has recommended 1/3 City participation in financing and she indicated there was some correlation in terms of fairness. Dresel indicated that Church Road had a number of drainage problems. In regard to setting a precedent, Nielsen stated there are two remaining gravel roads in Shorewood. Brancel asked whether originally it was stated that proceeds from the sale of lot 38 would be returned to the project. Rolek stated the purchase of the lot for the cul -de -sac was to be included in the cost of the project. Brancel stated that proposed assessment Roll B with City participation on the lot appeared to be a compromise for the residents. Daugherty stated it appeared that whomever owns the adjoining property to lot 38 would be interested in acquiring lot 38. Nielsen indicated that is a reasonable assumption. Daugherty further noted that if the City would acquire the adjoining lot resulting in two buildable and saleable lots, proceeds from the sale could be applied to the project. Brancel suggested the City absorb the cost of the assessments on the lot and return back to the project the proceeds of the sale of the lot. Gagne expressed his support for this concept. It was indicated that if Roll B was accepted, the City's participation would include the two assessments totaling $31,000 and the $24,000 purchase price of the lot totaling $55,000. Proposed Roll C includes City participation on the lot of $24,000 and 1/3 of the cost of the road of $59,790 but does not include the assessments. Brancel suggested perhaps this situation was unique because of the need to acquire lot 38 and would not necessarily set a precedent for another developer if the Council agreed to a 1/3 participation in the cost of the road. Rolek reminded the Council of the need to acquire the adjacent parcel to make buildable lots or sell lot 38. Daugherty suggested that 11 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 12 the City retains a fair amount of leverage in this situation. Nielsen stated a developer would need to build a road and to fully develop the adjacent parcel, acquisition of lot 38 would be necessary. Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded to approve assessment Roll B with City participation on the lot with the provision that the value of lot 38 be captured by the City as a return on its investment. Stover stated that the Council is eliminating consideration of Roll C in order to avoid setting a precedent yet the City has already set a precedent in its participation in the Pine Bend project. She questioned the wisdom of attaching an unknown sale price of a piece of property as relief to the affected residents. She preferred that the City's participation be based on the actual cost of the road as shown on proposed Roll C. Daugherty indicated that the proposal is to carry the assessment costs, the acquisition costs of lot 38, plus allow the additional sale price to roll back into the project which if it sells well could amount to more than $24,000. Stover indicated her concern was the unknown estimated dollar amount involved and she would rather have an absolute number to avoid uncertainty for the residents. Lewis suggested that additional relief could be attained by stretching the length of the bond. Motion passed 4/1. Stover voted nay. Rolek compared the ten -year assessment and 15 year assessment figures. The total principal and interest paid under a 10 year assessment is $271,622 or an average of $19,400. The total principal and interest paid under a 15 year assessment is $307,678 or an average of $21,900. Stover asked what happens to the assessment if a property is sold. Keane stated property owners generally are required to pay the principal outstanding at the time of sale. Brancel polled the audience as to their preference for either a 10 or 15 year assessment period. Brancel stated that a 15 year assessment period was preferred. - 7. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT NO 91 -2 STREET AND WATER MAIN DAPROVEMENTS - CHURCH ROAD Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 105 "A Resolution Approving Special Assessments for Project No. 91 -2, Street and Water Main Improvements, Church Road," establishing the assessment term for 15 years. Stover asked when this bond would be re- financed. Rolek indicated the likely scenario would be that this issue would be re- financed along with another issue, subject to favorable market interest rates. Hurm noted, however, that the assessments would not be re- calculated at that time. 12 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 13 Motion passed 5/0. The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 8. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR DISCUSSION METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION Brancel briefly reviewed the Council's previous discussions with the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) noting that the Council feels the City is being over- charged on sewer rates and asked the MWCC to verify its rates. She stated that 1992 sewer charges increased 42 per cent and for 1993 the increase is projected to be 48 per cent. Daugherty noted that the current increase will be approximately 25 per cent of the City's operating budget. Lou Clark, Chair; Gordon Voss, Administrator; Don Bluhm, Manager, Municipal Services; and Kyle Calvin, Staff Engineer, of the MWCC were present. Voss stated that considerable information has been gathered with the City's assistance to help verify the Commission's rates. Using visual charts beginning with data for 1986, Bluhm described how the cost has increased for the City. He stated that between 1990 -91 major increases in the flows leaving the City over what had been estimated created a deficit payment to be added to the account two years later (1993). He described the system using both metered and unmetered lines involving other area cities noting that a substantial number of the lines are metered. He stated that last March a system of 22 WEIRs was installed in the western part of the system to measure, record and calculate the flow and then was rotated to the eastern part of the system. The object of this was to isolate the MWCC's intercepter and to measure the flow into its system. That data has been analyzed and it appears that the western half averages about 270 gallons per household while the eastern half averages 570 gallons per household. Bluhm reported that recent televising of the Commission's lines did not locate any major infiltration problems or leaks in its system. Therefore, he stated, the MWCC has not yet been able to come up with all the answers to the questions. MWCC intends to review historical data to compare per household usage and try to isolate the areas in the eastern half to better determine where there may be problems. He described the Commission's technical processes and measuring procedures. He indicated that MWCC will come back to the City with further information when it's available. At this point, he stated the problem appears to be in the eastern part of the City where per household usage is very high compared to the western part of the City. Brancel asked if comparisons have been made regarding the east and west sections of the City. Dresel indicated the City's data show similar information as reported by the MWCC. Hurm noted that according to the building inspector there are no sump pump hookups in the east portion of the City. 13 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL 1✓BNUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 14 Brancel stated that the Council was disputing the interceptor system on the west end of the City. Bluhm indicated leaks in the MWCC's system have been repaired to date. Lewis asked for clarification on the rate increases over the past several years. He stated that the substantial increase between 1990 and 1991 could not be attributed to rainfall and the lake level. He disputed the correlation between the lake level and the increases. Gagne stated that the request made at the previous Council meeting was to prove to the Council why the City must sustain a 40 per cent increase. Voss indicated that Shorewood is not an unusual community around Lake Minnetonka and approximately 10 other communities have the same situation of greatly increased rates when the lake elevation went up. He reiterated the fact that on the east side of the City average per household usage is very high and after historical data on the west side is analyzed further information will be available. 4 Brancel stated it appears that none of the Cities rates are calculated on actual usage. Bluhm presented a chart showing the lake level and Shorewood's usage of the sewer system. It appears that up until 1990 -91 there was a correlation, however, it is difficult to determine all the factors that have produced the rate increases. The Council members expressed difficulty in understanding the correlation in that other cities are nearer to the Lake and have not experienced increases similar to Shorewood. Daugherty asked what the MWCC's cost of treating lake water vs sewer was. Bluhm stated the cost is the same because the waters are combined. Stover asked what the average household usage was per day across the Metropolitan area. Robbins stated it was approximately 250 gallons per day. Lewis asked what the problem was on the east side of Shorewood. Bluhm indicated that monitoring of the MWCC will continue and perhaps Shorewood's lines need to be checked. Brancel indicated the City has spent considerable sums of money to repair its lines yet the MWCC has not rebated any charges. Voss indicated improvements have been made on the west side of the City. However, Council members indicated that the system on the east side is new. Stover asked for clarification of MWCC metering of its interceptors. Gagne reiterated the Council's specific question: Why Shorewood is faced with a 40 percent increase and where is this coming from? He stated the Council will not accept 40 per cent increases over two years and asked the Attorney for options designed to prevent this. Clark stated that the MWCC is attempting to find out why the large increases are occurring and that it would like additional time to determine the underlying problem and agreed that 40 per cent increases are not normal unless there are extenuating circumstances. Gagne expressed the Council's frustration in trying to get answers to why these increases are occurring. Keane questioned the MWCC what it's next proposed steps are. Voss indicated MWCC will look at comparative historical data, isolate where the water is coming from and indicated that the Commission was prepared to financially assist Shorewood in its detection efforts. 14 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 15 Keane stated possible courses of action for the Council include: 1) do nothing at this time and pass the increased charges to the rate payers, 2) continue to work with the MWCC staff and wait for its data to substantiate the flows and attempt to negotiate a charge reduction, 3) continue to work with the MWCC staff, but direct the City's Engineer to conduct an independent extensive study of the verification of current flows, 4) pursue potential judicial remedies to: - enjoin implementation of the increase, - seek a declaratory judgment that the increase in charges without adequate substantiation is arbitrary, - require the MWCC to substantiate the increased charges, and - pursue due process and equal protection claims on the basis of unequal treatment of Shorewood vis -a -vis other similarly situated communities. In addition, Keane suggested a possible challenging to the statutory State policy that sets charges based on flows rather than actual household usage for Lake cities. Gagne asked for clarification of what happens if the City does not pay. Keane stated that the charges are certified to the tax rolls of the community. Gagne and Brancel indicated they would not agree to passing the increase on to the rate payers. Stover asked whether the Commission is aware of other problems that may exist. Clark reiterated what the MWCC has done to date and indicated it will continue to work to find the answers. Daugherty indicated he had difficulty grasping anything factual from the MWCC's presentation and asked where residents may contact the MWCC. Clark encouraged residents to write to MWCC staff at Mears Park Center, 230 East 5th Street, St. Paul MN 55101. Keane pointed out that in addition Dirk DeBries, representing the Metropolitan Council, can be reached at the same address. Daugherty stated that passing on a 40 per cent increase sounds like taxation without representation. Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded that the City pursue the judicial remedies outlined on page 2 of City Attorney Keane's letter to Mayor Brancel and Members of the City Council dated October 22, 1992, including challenging the basis of flow charges for Lake communities. Gagne suggested City staff should continue to work with the MWCC. Stover commented on the proposed change in the method of charging. Daugherty suggested that other lake communities be contacted for their interest and /or support in this challenge. Daugherty stated that he understands that prior to any increase - even a 40% increase - the charges to the City of Shorewood were probably 50 per cent higher than they should be in the first place and that, in his opinion, the City is dealing with an agency, due to the rate charges, is out of control in passing on such increases to the citizens. Stover suggested that the Lake area group be contacted to determine their interest. Stover asked if a different method of measurement was implemented other than by flow, would it still be fair to Shorewood. Daugherty agreed that the other cities be notified as to what steps Shorewood is taking independently to resolve this problem and determine their interest in joining Shorewood's actions. Gagne, however, stated that it was important that Shorewood institute its actions as soon as possible without having to wait for participation by other communities. 15 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 16 Motion passed 5/0. Brancel thanked the MWCC staff for its presentation. 9. CONSIDER ADOPTING A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 67 -91. DENYING SETBACK VARIANCES TO JOHN EINHORN Keane stated that the proposed resolution amends a previously adopted resolution denying setback variances to John Einhorn. He explained that the previous resolution mistakenly identified Howards Point Road as the front of the lot through a transposition and a technical oversight. Keane noted that this matter is currently in litigation and requested that discussion be limited. Stover moved, Gagne seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 109 -92 "A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 67 -91 Denying Setback Variances to John Einhorn." John Einhorn, 5580 Howards Point Road, using visuals and hand -outs, presented his views on the proposed resolution and described his position. Motion passed 4/1. Lewis abstained. The meeting recessed at 11:10 p.m. and reconvened at 11:15 p.m. 10. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Brancel called for matters from the floor. Mr. LeRoy Bishop, 24140 Smithtown Road, stated that his property adjoins the entire length of the new Public Works facility on the east side. He presented a petition signed by residents /citizens and near neighbors questioning the need for the exterior lighting of the building which is polluting their space and objecting to the daily irritating noise penetrating the area which emanates from one of the City's loading machines. In addition, Bishop stated that run -off pollution from grading the property is eroding and running off to his property. He expressed concern regarding the roadway and the run -off of water through a culvert which will result in spillage on to his property. He requested that an investigation be conducted to address these concerns and something be done to alleviate them. Brancel thanked Mr. Bishop for his comments. 11. STAFF REPORTS A. Attorney's Report - None. 16 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL &QNIJTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 17 B. Engineer's Report 1. 1992 Project Update Dresel reminded the Council of the Open House scheduled at the new Public Works Facility on Friday, October 30, from 4:30 -6:30 p.m. C. Planner's Report - None. D. Administrator's Report Hurm brought the Council's attention to a letter received from the Police Chief regarding surveillance conducted in Shorewood and indicated a copy of the letter will be available to • the Councilmembers. 12. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Brancel - None B. Councilmembers Daugherty reported he has received complaints from residents regarding transient door -to- door sales persons. He suggested staff review this matter and prepare a draft ordinance to regulate such sales. Gagne reported on activities of the Senior Center Board, noted neighborhood meetings scheduled and indicated that funds allocated for hiring a senior citizen housing consultant may need to be increased based on preliminary estimates of consultants' fees. Rolek stated the proposed 1993 budget allows for additional funds for that purpose. Stover inquired about the landscaping plans for the residential area near the southeast water tower. 13. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to adjourn the City Council meeting at 11:40 p.m., subject to the approval of. claims, and re- scheduled the Work Session to the Council's meeting on November 9, 1992. Motion passed 510. 17 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL NfD UTES OCTOBER 26, 1992 - PAGE 18 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services ATTEST BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR 0 JAMES C. HURM, CITY ADMINISTRATOR • 18 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CANVASSING BOARD THURSDAY,. NOVEMBER 5, 1992 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:00 p.m. The Shorewood City Council Canvassing Board convened at 6:00 p.m., on Thursday, November 5, 1992, to review the local election results from the General Election held November 3, 1992. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brancel, Councilmembers Gagne, Daugherty and Lewis. Absent: Councilmembers Stover and Daugherty. • Staff: City Administrator /Clerk James C. Hurm and City Present: Attorney Tim Keane. 2. CANVASS OF ELECTION RESOLUTION NO. 109 -92 The Council reviewed a "Resolution Accepting Local Election Results" for the local election held Tuesday, November 3, 1992, as presented by the Election Judges of all four Shorewood precincts. Gagne moved, seconded by Lewis, to adopt Resolution No. 109 -92 "a Resolution Accepting Local Election Results ". Motion carried 3 ayes - 0 nays by Roll Call Vote. 3. In the case of a requested recount the City Council must establish an amount necessary to cover the expenses of the • recount. In the case of discretionary recount in this local election, the requesting candidate is responsible for expenses. Gagne moved, seconded by Lewis, to set a bond, cash, or surety in the amount of $250 as a flat fee. This is the best estimate of direct costs for a discretionary recount. The motion passed unanimously. Gagne moved, seconded by Lewis, to adjourn the Canvassing Board for the 1992 Local Election at 6:10 p.m.,.Thursday, November 5, 1992. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor James C. Hurm City Administrator /Clerk CTTY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1992 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover; Attorney Keane and Finance Director Rolek. Absent: City Administrator Hurm and Planner Nielsen. B. REVIEW AGENDA Stover moved, Gagne seconded to approve the agenda for November 9, 1992. Motion passed 510. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None. 0 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for November 9, 1992. Gagne moved, Stover seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the Resolutions and Motions therein. A. RESOLUTION NO. 110-92 "A Resolution Authorizing Submittal of the 1993 Hennepin County Grant Application for Residential Recycling Funding." B. A Motion Authorizing a Response Dated November 10, 1992, to Bennett Family Park Request for Funds. C. RESOLUTION NO. 111 -92 "A Resolution Granting a CUP for the Construction of a Temporary Warming House - Manor Park. E. A Motion Approving Change Order No. 5 - Rochon Corporation for the Public Works Facility. 1 REGULAR CTTY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1992 - PAGE 2 F. RESOLUTION NO. 112 -92 "A Resolution Authorizing the Placement of a Stop Sign on Vine Street at its Intersection with Manor Road." G. A Motion Authorizing the Transformation of Freeman Field No. 2 from a Babe Ruth to a Multi- Purpose Field. H. A Motion Approving a Change to the Trail Plan Designation Along Old Market Road to include both an on- street bike trail and off - street pedestrian trail. I. RESOLUTION NO. 113 -92 "A Resolution Denying a Setback Variance to John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road." Motion passed 510. . 4. PARK A. Report on Park Commission Meeting of October 27, 1992. Lewis reported that the Park Commission discussed the changes to the Transportation Program, the Little League designation, and the Capital Improvement Program. 5. PLANNING A. Report on Planning Commission Meeting of October 27, 1992. Stover reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments to the Shoreland Management Regulations which are required under the State's Department of Natural Resources rules. • 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR John Chandler, 28200 Woodside Road: When the village put in the sewer system all property was measured for the purpose of making assessments based on buildable lots. It was determined I had two buildable lots so I received two sewer assessments. When I went to divide my property for the purpose of creating a separate building site on the rear portion of my lot, I was informed by Brad (Nielsen) that I needed a survey showing the actual square footage. The city said I had 84,942 square feet, but when I had it surveyed it came back that I actually have 73,500 square feet. I had the surveyor divide the property lines to show how I would have 40,000 on the rear lot and 33,500 on the front lot where my present house is. Brad told me to take it to the Planning Commission as a subdivision, but that I would need a complete survey showing distance from structures, roads and utilities with elevations and so on. This will cost me approximately $2,000. I realize it has to go through the Planning Commission, but I thought I would come to the Council before spending that money and would like to know whether it would be possible to divide the property. I can get an easement from my neighbor to come in from the cul -de -sac. PA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1992 - PAGE 3 Brancel stated the Council can not act on this now, but will take it under advisement and the staff will contact Mr. Chandler. LeRoy Bishop, 24140 Smithtown Road: Two weeks ago I presented a petition requesting relief from the lights and noises of the Public Works facility. Nothing has been done about it and the snow has increased the intensity of the lights. I also asked at that meeting that members of the Council come up to my driveway and observe the nuisance the lights have made. Many of you were at the grand opening of the facility and I am puzzled and somewhat hurt that I was not given the courtesy of anyone walking across the field to talk with me that evening. I was looking for someone from the Council to visit. Nielsen pointed out that you have an ordinance that calls for a maximum of four candles of light at the property line from any structure that has outdoor lighting. My meter registers well over that. Why were those lights turned on and left on before the requirements of the ordinance were checked. The lights are not necessary, there is no need for them. If they are for i security reasons, why can't a motion detector be installed. After the Council meeting, I received a letter from Mr. Hurm. (Bishop read the Hurm letter dated November 5, 1992 and commented on its contents). Brancel stated that the staff has been directed to investigate this matter and take action to alleviate the situation. She stated that diffusers are on order and will be installed as soon as possible. Brancel noted that the City had offered to build a berm designed to avoid the lighting from encroaching on Mr. Bishop's property, but that Bishop had denied the City's proposed plans. Brancel stated she will meet privately with Mr. Bishop to resolve this matter. 7. STAFF REPORTS A. Attorney's Report MWCC Update Keane reported that since the Council's meeting on October 26, a meeting was held with the MWCC at the Tonka Bay city hall with representatives from Tonka Bay, Minnitrista, Spring Park, Orono and Shorewood. The respective cities gave comments regarding the increase in the waste control charges. Keane noted that of the six communities receiving the highest adjustments, five were Lake Minnetonka communities. He stated that much of the MWCC's presentation at that meeting was material covered by them at previous meetings. Keane stated that it appeared that the MWCC was not inclined to address the Cities' concerns; however they did note that $200,000 has been allocated for communities to use for I/I programs throughout the 7- county area. Keane reported on a subsequent meeting held with Dirk DeBries, the Metropolitan Council liaison, and Gloria Vierling, the regional MWCC representative, Mayor Brancel and Al Rolek. Keane stated he came away from that meeting with the impression that MWCC acknowledged that we have a problem, but expressed an attitude of indifference. Keane indicated that he will call an Executive Session REGULAR CTFY COUNCIL MQNUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1992 - PAGE 4 of the Council to discuss his recommendations for further action. Council members reiterated their concerns regarding the increases and their support for initiating legal action. B. Engineer's Report - None. C. Planner's Report - None. D. Administrator's Report Canvassing Board Report Keane noted that the Canvassing Board's report of election results has been certified to the County. He informed the Council that a re- count, open to the public, in the Mayoral election will take place in the Council Chambers on Thursday, November 12 at 10 a.m. The i re -count result will be re- certified to the County. 8. COUNCIL REPORTS A. Mayor Brancel - None. B. Councilmembers - None. 9. ADJOURNMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF CLAIM S Gagne moved, Stover seconded to adjourn the City Council Meeting at 7:50 p.m, subject to the approval of claims. Motion passed 510. • The Council re- convened in a Work Session at 8:00 p.m. to consider the 1993 Operating Budget and Five Year Capital Improvement Program. The Work Session adjourned at 10:10 P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services ATTEST BARBARA J. BRANCEL, MAYOR JAMES C. HURM, CTFY ADMINISTRATOR 4 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION NOVEMBER 9, 1992 MINUTES COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 8:00 P.M. The work session was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 8 p.m. Present were: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Gagne, Lewis and Stover and Finance Director Rolek. Administrator Hurm was absent. 1. CONSIDER THE 1992 OPERATING BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Rolek stated that at the August 1992 work session, the Council asked the staff to make suggested reductions in the 1993 Budget to result in a 0 percent levy increase over 1992. Rolek noted that a list of modifications has been prepared and discussed individually with i each Council member. Rolek reviewed the enhanced budget format which includes each Department's mission statement, revenue, expenses, service indicators, cost indicators and staffing requirements. Rolek reviewed and discussed with the Council each category of the 1993 General Fund Budget and responded to questions from the Councilmembers. Rolek explained the sewer budget increase which is mainly due to the MWCC shifting maintenance expense. Consensus of Council is to inform residents of the increase. It was suggested that a method of information could be a sample bill/notice of what to expect, and list the name, address and phone number of the people at MWCC to contact with queries. Council asked Rolek to provide a draft for review and comment by Council at the next meeting. Rolek further asked the Council for direction on the how to handle the rate increase for sewage treatment by MWCC. The concensus was to increase sewer rates sufficient to cover the MWCC increase. Rolek provided information to the Council on the two proposals for sewer and water maintenance through Munitech and City of Excelsior. He stated that the Excelsior proposal included cleaning of sewer lines according to a schedule, but the cost was about $45,000 higher than Munitech. The line item for recycling was one of the areas that could be reduced if needed but should consider if our service agent increases this would cover the needed funds. Rolek outlined a proposed slight increase in water service of 5 cents per 1,000 gallons over the minimum 10,000, which is about 3% increase. The average increase per customer is approximately 75 cents per quarter. 1 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ^C - PAGE 2 The Council generally accepted the Budget, which totals $2,356,503 and represents a 3.7 percent increase in levy over 1992, as presented. They noted that formal action will be taken by the Council following the public hearing on the Budget which is scheduled for Monday, November 30, 1992. 2. ADJOURN WORK SESSION Gagne moved, Stover seconded to adjourn the work session at 10:10 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services • 2 CITY OF SHOREWOOD CANVASSING BOARD THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1992 MINUTES 1. CALL TO ORDER COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 6:00 p.m. The Shorewood City Council Canvassing Board convened at 6:07 p.m., on Thursday, November 12, 1992, to review the local election summary of recount results for the position of Mayor from the General Election held November 3, 1992. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brancel, Councilmembers Stover, Gagne, and Lewis. Absent: Councilmember Daugherty. Staff: City Administrator /Clerk James C. Hurm 2. CANVASS OF ELECTION RESOLUTION NO. 114 -92 The Council reviewed a "Resolution Accepting Local Election Recount Results Office For Mayor" for the local election held Tuesday, November 3, 1992, as presented by the Election Judges of all four Shorewood precincts. There were six additional votes for candidate Brecke and one additional vote for Brancel identified in the recount process. Hurm explained that in these instances the voter did not follow ballot direction. Therefore, the machine did not identify it as a vote, but the judges unanimously determined the clear intent of the voter. He further commented that several candidate representatives, who witnessed the recount, complimented the City on the recounting process. • Gagne moved, seconded by Lewis, to adopt Resolution No.114 -92 "Accepting Local Election Recount Results Office For Mayor ". Motion carried 4 ayes - 0 nays by Roll Call Vote. Gagne moved, seconded by Lewis, to adjourn the Canvassing Board for the 1992 Local Election Recount at 6:10 p.m., Thursday, November 12, 1992. Motion carried unanimously. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor James C. Hurm City Administrator /Clerk m O rT Schelen 02SNI Mayer0 & Associates, Inc. November 18, 1992 300 Park Place center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612- 595 -5775 1- 800 - 753 -5775 Shorewood Mayor and Council Members FAX 595 -5773 Engineers 5755 Country Club Road Architects Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 SurveyY ors Re: Final Payment and Acceptance Salt /Sand Storage Building City Project No. 91 -61 OSM Project No. 4590.26 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed please find the Final Pay Voucher, Change Order #2, and draft Resolution for final acceptance of the referenced project. We have previously recommended payment of $16,102.50 of the $21,322.50 requested with a request of further documentation for payment of the $5220.00 difference. The documentation for the additional amount requested is as follows: 1) Coating exposed truss steel for corrosion protection. $1879.00 2) Re- trenching footings after finding buried organic soils; excavation of poor soils, and sand compaction. $2135.00 3) Form rental due to delay caused from finding buried organic soils. $1206.00 Total $5220.00 Item #1 was deemed necessary by public works and engineering due to the corrosive nature of salt; the time, effort, and materials seem reasonable for this item. Item #2 is in our opinion, a reasonable claim for extra work performed due to poor soils encountered. Item #3 was also due to the poor soils encountered, however we have not yet been able to verify the actual rental cost. Both items #2 and #3 were due to conditions beyond Ebert's control, and appear to be reasonable. We recommend payment in the amount of $5,220.00 to Ebert Construction, subject to the conditions in the draft Resolution and subject to the City receiving a copy of the receipt for form rental (item #3) for verification purposes. Equal Opportunity Employer 3A Because items #2 and #3 are directly attributable to the workmanship of the fill placed by Northwest Asphalt, we are recommending that $3341.00 be deducted by change order from their pay request. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. o Z LS City Engineer 0 dad • G Z O y U U c C ;n ci �I V c O U V U Z W O wm W Q L1.. W V z Q z O -J —1 me o U O C W < N Z u Z : O Q O o ❑: r ..i q � Q QJ 00 -4 O O li JJ F- c U U U L u C O < Cd C > N %.O \ C14 C% N O \ 0 u� r p ON U C_ cU z O Np O p y y V u ~ Z r r C u ^J 7 U C O ~ u H c u 0 u0 z O Z c G < al. 0000 r ..i q � Q QJ 00 -4 O O li JJ F- c U U U L u C O < Cd C > C U :1 • 3 C c O v C u L 3M o° L y V c U E O c Q L .0 an b4 ., o 7 ti iJ C G o. (U � o +i CL Z O U L vs c Q L V N O u L Nc O_ U<< E N O < � M U M r O W F LL = G. N Q C c O U V C` d u _ + _ _ Zu�w o E Z-- O Q J U U . (,J Q 'U F „ } W J U N C C .. C C r z O Z c O J CL V O C V O C 7 r C < �J W ::E F - W M, < c-ZV c ~ N D J C v Q O w v 0 O w < O Z U t- d' r ( F- J U C r- N M C N v^ i-z^T, v W C. Q C) z O Q J CL 0 Q z O N 3 M � M c O u� r ca U C_ cU a� O O b y y u ci • r r C u ^J 7 3 U u O �n : Z c 0 p z 0000 00 � QJ 00 :1 0 4-3 Lr O1 O ri -t u1 O V p .-i t- kjo 00 (n M c u Lr) ooco co 4 - 3 V) o c U � cn c C �CJ J < L = f O OU Z N N N < w C U Q F- < C! O ° Z O p 0 O C U C U :1 • 3 C c O v C u L 3M o° L y V c U E O c Q L .0 an b4 ., o 7 ti iJ C G o. (U � o +i CL Z O U L vs c Q L V N O u L Nc O_ U<< E N O < � M U M r O W F LL = G. N Q C c O U V C` d u _ + _ _ Zu�w o E Z-- O Q J U U . (,J Q 'U F „ } W J U N C C .. C C r z O Z c O J CL V O C V O C 7 r C < �J W ::E F - W M, < c-ZV c ~ N D J C v Q O w v 0 O w < O Z U t- d' r ( F- J U C r- N M C N v^ i-z^T, v W C. Q C) z O Q J CL 0 Q z O O T 03 `0 � n u J' o - CJ — O O O nA � � c y O V i C J y r U 0 O >� N cn Z r- Ln r Ln Ln i y O i O N C e cl 6 P4 H 7 O CPX i-1 C C v c J 5 r _ ^ >- m mQ y txj� V m n L c = ( j c w w o EE Poo o � s J �ou`oE U O 0 - 0 73 u _ r C o p �� c 0 p J r c C n U C C O C N 3 � � Z c O � r U C_ cU O � H y y u ci • r r C u ^J 7 0 U u O �n : Z c z 0000 00 O 0000 00 < Ev Lr O1 O ri -t u1 p .-i t- kjo 00 (n M c u p ooco Oo C �CJ J < v = N J < � O _ N N N O w C U Q F- < c O �. x U ° m O • v rn�ON <<< �I=UC- 0 0 C_ C -C 00 0 .t.•1 1.1 1J c r 0. CZ v r r•i N dJ N U p ,-tcn cn cn O O E t �, O c z 0 L U S L c c Z 0000 Z U U O_ < O T 03 `0 � n u J' o - CJ — O O O nA � � c y O V i C J y r U 0 O >� N cn Z r- Ln r Ln Ln i y O i O N C e cl 6 P4 H 7 O CPX i-1 C C v c J 5 r _ ^ >- m mQ y txj� V m n L c = ( j c w w o EE Poo o � s J �ou`oE U O 0 - 0 73 u _ r C o p �� c 0 p J r c C n U C C O C :J J f U L r r C y r y r r v: L Ci z . C ` � O a C- ` 3 j j u0 r Q c 3 L_ U C _ C N C .J U u U 0 C U r z � uri LL —0 D IJ � O W r C � M u C � < E u LL v �°C_E � 0' c •` ^- E cd r Y e n O O' W � V � C, 0 C r 3 U >c -° CI� O ULs'�n� cu .0 V O V V1 Q V C' . �. 000�o cro u u U r G :� Q C r L 3 � � c L � r C_ cU O � H y y u ci • r r C u ^J 7 ` : U u O r E'-a u : Z c Z) r < Ev • 'C G r ~ c u J 3 IO C �CJ • r • v = L _ T w C U Q F- r r v C �. x U O • v <<< �I=UC- :J J f U L r r C y r y r r v: L Ci z . C ` � O a C- ` 3 j j u0 r Q c 3 L_ U C _ C N C .J U u U 0 C U r z � uri LL —0 D IJ � O W r C � M u C � < E u LL v �°C_E � 0' c •` ^- E cd r Y e n O O' W � V � C, 0 C r 3 U >c -° CI� O ULs'�n� cu .0 V O V V1 Q V C' . �. 000�o cro u u U r G :� Q C r L • • N Ci n O J :J V v: U J C O c 0 V i c O U L U O W W Z 0 Q Z p Z 0 U N N �\ N Na% O%Lr) 0 00 �t < z Z O U ZOR -- Z 1= 0 Q U C- � N U C- U J Z U � 3 Q O L V rs c 0 o i <v rz c O o o U U r CJ o C� N C C 0 E u a u O p : � U < c -rs' cu <V � u 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 r J u U- 1 < `U "" p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 O 1 �� I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 U U GG 0 0 ° �u O O p 0 0 0 0 n O y 00 O t- O Ln Ln (O O u'1 M U � r � U ,o N O O U n r-I w t� M �D Co % Ill M M M r- O N ri r-4 ` NZN�� O Q Z.. 2= G o ° 0 0 0 ° 0 0 0 ° o °. G= w 0 0 Ln o 1 ON 00 o Q0 r� 00 ° ON 00 N N O 00 -11 N rl %.0 rl e I :r v; c Y C) p O O G `' 3 > + O p 0 p 0 p 0 p u I ° p p o O O CD Ln 1 O 1 O 1 O `D a0 cQ- 0 Ln - M M N N M G p G O p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° U J '= j co O O ul Lf C� O r 1 1f�1 M U %.0 r � �n %-0 N O O trl r- r-4 00 r- w 00 M m n M ( � p Ir) r-4 .- -I r-I Lr1 N rI Y Ctf 3 � r1 M � u1 O O O O O O G 0 0 0 0 Y V J) 4-1 > U Co w 0 cq op W W b�D b�D W d�D G x 0 E, H U U V < � 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::1 Change Order No. 2 Project: Salt /Sand Building Project No. 91 -61 Owners: City of Shorewood Date of Issuance: November 30, 1992 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Contractor. Ebert Construction Engineer. Orr - Schelen - Mayeron 9350 County Road 19 & Associates, Inc. Loretto, Minnesota 55357 Contract For: Building Construction OSM Comm. No. 4590.26 You are directed to make the following changes in the Contract Documents: Description:Addition for site conditions and additional construction. Purpose of Change Order: Attachments (list documents supporting change): Itemized List CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Price $47,500.00 IL Original Contract Time Previous Change Orders No. 1 to No. 1 Net Change from Previous Change Orders $815.00 Contract Price Prior to this Change Order Contract Time Prior to this Change Order $48315.00 Net Increase (decrease) of this Change Order Net Increase (decrease) of Change Order $5220.00 Contract Price with all Approved Change Orders Contract Time with Approved Change Orders $53535.00 Reco a Approved By: By: ngineer Contractor Approved Approved Date of Council Action B B November 30 1992 City Engineer City Manager RESOLUTION NO. -92 A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALT /SAND STORAGE BLDG. CITY PROJECT NO. 91-61 WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood has- entered into a contract with Ebert Construction for the construction of the salt /sand building; and • WHEREAS, the Contractor has petitioned for final acceptance of the project based on work performed to date; and WHEREAS, a final inspection has been made by the City Engineer pursuant to paragraph 43 of the General Conditions of said contract. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: The City hereby does accepts the work completed pursuant to said contract and the one year guarantee provided for in paragraph 57 of the General Conditions shall commence as of the date of this resolution, subject to the following items: 1. The Contractor must make satisfactory showing that he has compiled with the provisions of Minnesota Statues 290.92 requiring withholding State Income tax; and 2. Evidence in the Form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of the City of Shorewood this 30th day of November, 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator Orr Schelen Mayeron & Associates, Inc. November 18, 1992 Shorewood Mayor and City Council 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Change Order and Pay Request Salt /Sand Bldg. Site Grading City Project No. 91 -51 OSM Project No. 4590.15 Dear Mayor and City Council: ntt L 300 Park Place Center 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 -1228 612 -595 -5775 1- 800 - 753 -5775 FAX 595 -5773 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors . Enclosed please find pay voucher #2 and Change Order #1 for the referenced site. As you may recall, the scope of work for this grading contractor changed somewhat due to the addition of the public works building and watershed requirements. Change Order No. 1 details these changes and the pay voucher will bring the City current with the Contractor. Item 1 in the Change Order is for storm sewer and roof drain necessary for the paving around the public works buildings. Item 2 is a deduct for charges made by the building contractor (Ebert Construction) due to unsuitable soils found in the earthwork performed by Northwest. Item 3 was the time and material charged for building the berm along Mr. Cross' property per Council directive. These items were anticipated and budgeted for. We recommend approval of the Change Order and payment to Northwest Asphalt in the amount of $54,628.66. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Joel Dresel, P.E., L.S. dad Equal Opportunity Employer r► CONSTRUCTION PAY VOUCHER Estimate Voucher Number: 2 Date: November 20, 1992 OSM Project Number: 4590.15 Period Ending: November 19, 1992 Project: SALT /SAND FACILITY SITE GRADING SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA CITY OF SHOREWOOD 91 -51 Contractor: NW ASPHALT, INC. 1451 COUNTY ROAD SHAKOPEE 18 MN 55379 Contract Date: November 1, 1992 Work Started: Completion Date: Work Completed: .Original Contract Amount 81,064.50 Total Additions 23,000.00 Total Deductions. - 3,341.00 Total Funds Encumbered 100,723.50 Work Certified to Date 89,813.85 • Total Less Retained Percentage 5.00% 4,490.69 Less Previous Payments 30,694.50 Total Payments Incl This Voucher 85,323.16 Balance Carried Forward 15,400.34 APPROVED FOR PAYMENT, THIS VOUCHER 54,628.66 APPROVALS r� ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Pursuant to our field observation, as performed in accordance with our contract, and based on our professional opinion, materials are satisfactory and the work properly performed in accordance with the plans and specifications and that the total work is: 91% completed as of November 19, 1992. We herby recommend payment of this voucher. Signed: Construction Observer P ect Manager /Engineer NW ASPHALT, INC. This is to certify that to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, the quantities and values of work certified herein is a fair approximate estimate for the period covered by this voucher. Contractor: Date: Signed By Title CITY OF SHOREWOOD Checked By: Approved for payment: Authorized Representative Date: Date: PAGE 1 N $. V • U / O O O O O pppp M to 0 0 0 0 0 0 • O O O O O •O M m 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • In O 0 N U , a p • L � • 0 0 0 0 aQ O M_ • L 1 O = • O O Q� N O .,a .p o• •o In uu v V1 • h O a / o , �f r N D O V1 C •O N V\ D• M , N d _ ' N N W �- N O N N pn •O O• , O r+ W 4.1 N • m u • 11 1 I N r r m Z O p0.. • , U O r W f' r • 1 O MI M O M 'T O N 0 0 0 0 C 411 4 p _ co N M • •O If In _a 1.- In u4 I V O 41 � W O r M I C W • N M N r C p i N If r- i • 11 C , W , • , a c o 1 • • N J Z O Cie J C7 V1 .-. W s ti a r •• W O D J.. U 7 C C a W O O S In S W N 3 0 Z U \ _ O I'- Z > O N N 3 .. W ° W r CC • .` r x a v rn r N CI P In ` v 3 0! t Z W > u S d N 41 O W W L. O E a )I- 41 Z L. r W 0 `- U t • O O O O Cl OD M In 0 0 0 0 0 0 • In O W • O O 99 O O� M O 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O • O O 0 co O O ..pp O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z r O IA L i r A Pew •O O. 1 1� L • M r • • M 1 � y In O O O— M IT 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 i • . V% 1� CO IA p , O Co N O• C • , U W • 1- N tel 3 , 0 1 • a+ d • 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • O U U • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 VI O O O V1 L . - L. • O O O In P O O O O O N O C, 40 1 33 �+ C • O O •O O •O O •O 't In N O O m ; O CO .... I M O V1 00 O �O It 1� If M P O O 1. U W• N O N I� ti d N ' ♦+ • N • CO O • , M r • , ♦+ N • O O O O N O O IA O O V1 O O O ' U U • O O O O N O V1 N O 0 0• O •C O L ( o (D ao ti s 'r 1n ao 40 - o a+ C • O O O In N N N CD C ' In C ' M O N 00 u - , N M C • I • • N W • N V • S C W W Y d S S W C 1 6 m 0 0 0 0 0 6 < U • W J 6 6 U r r r J W J W J 4 r M M IO 10 10 N .O N an N In CD M • M M M �t M In �� c , W • 0 W Z W • W U X C. Z • O , • Z X 1 r ' M y z J N W Lu W C7 N 0. . O W Z N C W W O C U O a a 6 6 J O O ♦+ , W 6 C7 tJ W r m to 0. Z J Z U O 4 .f MI S S` 0 0 2 L • r J OC m L U U S .U+ U 1 < m Z GL W W U S O W p • 1, Z U ID u 6 r r •O > W N 1 N — •O — DO 00 V1 1� M O • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e- 0 0 Z ' •O V1 V1 V1 V1 VI V1 V\ V1 M to N, VI N O O M In • V\ O r' r' N M M In In In In In VI N 1 O N N N N N N N N N N N N N E , N M .T In •O 1 00 O• O- N M Ir J 6 O I. a+ W • O 0 0 O • �f 1 1 r t , N r � O • J.• 1 C 1 U 7 � a ' U U • O L C• y p • O C O • U W • r a+ • N O 1 r • y, y • O U u , O 1 L 0 . • O ♦, a , 0 1 O a✓ ' U , , N i • 1 1 • N y , yI 1 , C � � J � • r 1 V • C 1 W • o 7EQ N J . j r r "a 0 0 � 0 a p • O• 1 N M_ • 6 = M • � •O h O M r N D i N 11 N • .. II 1 • N 4 N a • m u • 11 1 I 11 II a a = U O O • • O a 11 O C p _ 6 U N M • •O If In _a V • 1 Z 11 V1 N It N p i N If m i • 11 • , II II • II O O O II in O • P 11 M M ! P II O II° • II O O O ° II • 11 M .O 7EQ N J . j r r • O ' Z ' 1 L1 1 , N 1 • •O H r r r O Z LU W O IM O W t.J 2 J U O t r r i O � C7 N O N a • 6 = , U � 2 6 .. J • , N 4 W � • m a u = U i r U C p _ 6 U N N = OU _a V L. • Z O p i N m m m • O ' Z ' 1 L1 1 , N 1 • •O H r r r O Z LU W O IM O W t.J 2 J U O t r r i O � C7 N O N RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR SEASONS P.U.D. WHEREAS, Pete Boyer Construction, Inc. (Applicant) is the owner of real property located in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for approval of a Concept Plan for the construction of a residential planned unit development known as Seasons (Seasons P.U.D.) containing twenty -four (24) twin -home units on approximately 4.2 acres of land; and WHEREAS, the project is proposed as elderly housing, pursuant to the requirements of 1201.03 Subd. 20 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 7 October 1992, which memorandum is on file at City Hall, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at its regular meeting of 13 October 1992 recommended approval of a Concept Plan for the 24 -unit Seasons P.U.D.; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting of 26 October 1992 at which time the City Planner's memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments were heard by the City Council from the Applicant and City staff. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as • follows: 1. The Applicant's request for approval of a Concept Plan for Seasons P.U.D. is subject to the following conditions of approval as set out in the Planning Staff Report dated 7 October 1992: (a) As part of his development stage plans the developer should submit a draft of proposed protective covenants which would limit occupancy to people 62 years of age or older. (b) The development stage plan must demonstrate that all units have room for future decks or patios, complying with setback requirements. (c) The site plan must be adjusted to comply with building separation requirements. (d) The site plan must provide for 24 -foot driveways plus 20 feet of space in front of each garage. Circulation must be approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. 3c. (e) The developer should submit a more detailed landscape plan as part of his development stage submittals. (f) Prior to submitting development stage plans, the developer must obtain approval from MNDOT for use of the current service road right -of- way. (g) The developer must address existing and proposed site drainage to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. City Council approval of the Concept Plan is subject to all applicable standards, regulations, and requirements of the Shorewood City Code, including, but not limited to the following: • (a) Section 1201.04 Subd. 1. regarding the procedures for review and approval of conditional use permits; (b) Section 1201.06, Subd. 3. regarding special procedures for the establishment of a P.U.D. by conditional use permit; (c) Section 1201.03 Subd. 20. regarding the special requirements for elderly housing projects; (d) Section 1201.25 Subd. 6.(b)(1) regarding the purpose of concept plan approval. 3. Approval of the Concept Plan is not intended, nor does it act to grant approval of a Development Stage Plan or Final Stage Plan which are required pursuant to Section 1201.25, Subd. 6.(c) and (d). CONCLUSION 1. The application of Pete Boyer Construction, Inc. for approval of the Concept Plan for the Seasons P.U.D. as set forth above is hereby approved. 2. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 30th day of November 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk "All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota according to the Government Survey thereof, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the North line of the right -of -way conveyed to the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway Company, which point is 411.68 feet in a straight line from a point on the said North right -of -way line where the same intersects the West line of the above mentioned tract at a point 41 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence Easterly along said right -of -way curving to the right along the circumference of a circle, the radius of which is 673 feet to the South line of said tract at a point on same 508 feet from the Southwest corner thereof; thence East along said South line 63.5 feet to a point 88.64 feet West of the Southeast corner of said tract; thence Northeasterly parallel with and 56 feet Northwesterly from the centerline between the tracts of the Suburban Railroad 98.29 feet to the East line of said tract and at a point 42.47 feet North of the Southeast corner of same; thence North 617.1 feet to the Northeast corner of said tract; thence West 284.5 feet, more or less, to a point 374.4 feet East of the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter said Section, Township and Range; thence Southerly 619.2 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to reservations, easements and restrictions of record, if any, also subject to existing building, zone, and other ordinances, if any. AND That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 7 rods to the centerline of Glencoe road; thence Southwesterly along said centerline to the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence east along said south line to the point of beginning. Subject to Public Road easement. P.I.N. 25- 117 -23 -31 -0001 and 25- 117 -23 -34 -0001 Exhibit A BID FORM CITY OF SHOREWOOD Purchase and Removal of Public Works Building 5735 Country Club Road Coo Sealed bids will be received at the Shorewood City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road, until 11:00 AM on Monday, Novembez 23, 1992, at which time they will be publicly opened. Removal Specifications: • Building to be removed completely except concrete floor. • Poles must be removed or cut flush with concrete floor. • All debris will be removed from site by successful bidder. • Successful bidder will provide evidence of general liability insurance coverage in the amount of $300,000 /600,000. • City will disconnect utilities to building. • Fixtures included in building: 4 unit heaters 1 hot water heater 1 stool 2 sinks All lights, doors and openers All work is to be completed and site cleaned by Tuesday, February 23, 1993. The undersigned agrees to perform all work described above and will pay in advance, to the City of Shorewood the sum of $ 0 22 1 as full payment for the purchase of said Public Works Building. In addition the undersigned will pay a $1,000 deposit to be returned upon final site inspection and acceptance of the work by the Public Works Director. Legal name of person, firm or og)orati n: Name ��, Id ('_ `rs A� Y Address �� B Title Date // 1 - 2 Phone number 0 -Z? V The City reserves the right to reject any or all bids. C ")qy5- -4 / 2EJ 7--1VC Ev E� i �/C� o�' 12 - r `7 �^ 2 �rw wi W et /u <S S L J ^/ ?�2 oa '2 �t c s %� s (/0 9:2 s v �2 � S �'�► �5 L l�. � � �u � it sir, G '� g- ; - I <7' -r �r-- l C ")qy5- -4 / 2EJ SO UTH LAKE AEN ETONKA PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTAMM 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RICHARD A YOUNG Chief of Police M A M P R A M P H N To: James C. Hurm, City Administrator �. tt Fromm Richard A. Young, Police Chiefl Date: November 24, 1992 Subjects Parking Restriction Waiver (612) 474.3261 W is department recommends to the Shorewood City Council, the approval �f the request of Fremont and Anne Gruss for parking on the west side of Christmas Lake Road as outlined in their request of November 23, 1992. Please notify this department if the request is granted - at the City Council meeting of November 30, 1992. • Serving South Labe Mirmaon a Coinmw (ua of Eredlsior, Grecq%W4 Shorewood and TO?" Boys RESOLUTION NO. -92 A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 1993 GENERAL; WATER SEWER AND RECYCLING FUND BUDGETS AND APPROVING THE 1992 PROPERTY TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 1993 WHEREAS, the 1993 General, Water, Sewer and Recycling. Fund Budgets, including 1992 property tax levies collectible in 1993, for the City of Shorewood was submitted and made available for public review at City Hall on November 23, 1992; and, WHEREAS, a Public Hearing, upon notice duly given, was held on November 30, 1992, for the purpose of receiving comments from the public regarding the adoption of such budgets and property tax levies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the following budgets are adopted for 1993: General Fund $2,356,503.00 Water Fund 166,321.00 Sewer Fund 777,606.00 Recycling Fund 63,122.00 2. That the following sums be levied for 1992, collectible in 1993, upon taxable property in the City of Shorewood for the following purposes: General Fund $1,909,253.00 General Obligation Water Revenue Bonds 14,675.00 Storm Sewer District No. 2 8,526.00 Total Levy $1,932,454.00 3. That the City Administrator /Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 30th day of November, 1992. Barbara Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk r RESOLUTION NO. -92 A RESOLUTION REVISING THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD'S WAGE AND SALARY RANGE CHART FOR THE YEAR 1993 WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 126 -91 the City of Shorewood established a Comparable Worth /Pay Equity Plan; and WHEREAS, in compliance with State Statute that plan established wage and salary ranges for all City employees; and WHEREAS, said ranges were established using internal pay equity points and external pay comparables for similar positions; and WHEREAS, said ranges may be revised within the parameters of State Statute by resolution of the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Shorewood Wage and Salary Range Chart is revised for the year 1993 as listed in Exhibit A, attached to and hereby made a part of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood this 30th day of November, 1992. • Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator 4(!-, 1 m W .0 W 0. C7 „ m'O z r. r No0 0 4 tPm o 004 44; C t3Nm O H P W ..4 z 0 t m O CPro a 0-14 t w rn 044J C a) O 94 ON $4•1 H > 4\ CO S4 4J 4.) Hz �a id w 44 -�1 w Cd 04 >4 .H 0000 140 a O•n N I M4J«4 0 I M 01 l� d' ri N M O t` r4 N L[I N N N Ln 1 I I I 1 GO M t1'L 00 LL7 O O t0 � d' O ei Ln Ot Ln f C% N d M m tD tD ri Ln o d' L- r co Ln I H M co •-4 tD M %D O Ln Ce M M N r4 L- 1 1 1 I W I O N d' w O L- d' Ce O L- H w H ri r Ln I tD n N 0 00 ri ri N O tD d Ot M Z M 1 FC I O O H N tD r1 N ON %D M N O M N M (yi ( M N N d' N d' M N N N v r M N r'1 N ri 01 rI O L. d' %D m N tD r4 O d' N M N O M d' O) d' 01 rI r� M Ln W tD W d' O 00 r4 d' M r- I- O Ln tD W tD 01 Ln tD N 0) 1- O O d' 03 ri r d' I` 01 Ln 41 14 M N N N d' N M M N N N M d' M N 1-1 d Ln o r4 01 d d O tD Ln tD O t0 O t0 r-1 Ln N O N Ln r m N O M N r- M d' r- Ln cA co M tD 01 Ln M tD r M 01 O N N N ri M N M N N N N M d' N N ri H I z a4 1 a H i M M M Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln a� I U cr Ln Ln Ln Ln 1 U X $4 (0 Q) N c O S4 a cd 1 4.) a N H t4 4.S 04 CP U S4 1 c $4 \ M S4 o C o C N N m I 04 42! U w C O 41 ro •.4 W ra C 4.) I N N 0 - 4J U 1.L 4J x - r1 U O C 14a 3 cn 41 41 U N m C S4 A \ •,4 cd 1\ LL \ U C N 04 `4 N O $4 4.) 4J 1 \ 4J N 7 $4 m m E 3 m O cd m-X 1 >, t4 m S4 O •4 c m 04 9 +L w -•4 S4 14.) S4 -.4 -.4 U IM H 44; "4 m S4 cd N m N 1 U N C a U 7 .x O 44 04 m r Z I N ra O tP ON is o 3 3 41 O 4 U 01 In U -r1 N C C C W m H 1 4J U 14 •r1 -4 •.4 U U •d S4 $4 $4 H I • 04 C O C '0 c 4.) ••4 «4 c O 0 0 H I U 4.) N (d -A c .-I c = ri 1-4 •11 0 O O to 1 N m U c C cd •.4 4d m .0 .0 E tr tr v O 1 x m N -.4 N r4 O r4 -A O c 'o r+ -4 -.4 a 1 w 4s a k4 m a ara a 4 a a a� 4a a 4a m .0 0. „ m'O r. r No0 tPm o C t3Nm O 4J $4 ..4 $4 >, m O CPro 0-14 N -r1 m 044J C a) $4•1 N cd.c +c CO S4 4J 4.) id w 44 -�1 w Cd .H 0000 140 O•n N I M4J«4 0 44 .0 $4 4.) -r4 mC 04N11cd Pe 0 cdCS 41 N�04L a $43:$4K S44 0 o a O N 0 (dd (dd E-4 D4 &1 C 45.E I 0 U CON E-1 a) 0(ddcdC Or N.C4 Nd'4 Z3 O dNE U mQ)0V440 cd N M w O 3:..4 4J -,4 O 04 C o m 4 4j dP L c) -44 0 ue .-1 td E 1 0 01 Q) 44 C I H 44 rO VIn OC A O 04-4 M O 4d I4 M N7 0404 30 NC0 '0 -- $44.) 0114 NN •.44.4(0 E N a OW 3 W 4.)4-) •4444 $4 $4 c W t/1 C O 44 E C E 4-I N c(n U N OcdN 0 (0 DO $ 4 �+ C 4.) 41 � 4.) 04 •0 0 4-+ 41 m 04 4-) 'a Umw0,00)0 0m0rn -I U C30C NO =C m 0 $4 -44 -1 O CO4�L N C�c0 a�ro� 4 1 O bO mNNN 'OMM3:X .-I 04o.c N >,>4 N ri O N a cd 3 +> >, O 0 m'0 ro ri m w corlr4 ON mw N 4d N O ro Ct4 C4A O m r4 .-I N E S]+8 E 044 N 44 N ro -.4 NN W •.4 0 W .0 E E o to N 04-10 o Ln 4.L 14 .4 -4 C cd �O O C .0 N O - ` 4J 4J > 1.L 44 E .C.44 04JW $44$44 N N cd 1 4 m C 4 (L) (1 a) .--4 > mm o >,>,>, "c "4 N >, $4 4 N E U $4 - 114 -4 N M C k' Ln 41 ri C m 4j m N >, •r4 ro $4 W $4 $4. cd-.4 N W G4UENNNN rI 41 w 0 ro N S4 4J 4J 4J V PAC U >,4 r 41 m to W O a z RC 44; 4a; m S4 r N W E - 4 -r4 $4 41 04-4 .0 N 41 E .0 z .1 N rn d Ln t0 H 04 ro W 4d 1 1 rn q:r ri M O r4 tD O %D -i to M rr O n 1 N t,p M O0 t� N ri OD �D M to . to M to to 1 . I M ri M t- w to w N 00 N w M w to to 1 1 1 10 ri I� rn to --I m w V' rn .-1 -i -i O w 1 M M N d' N V M M N M d' to M (V --I 1 1 1 1 %D co 00 U1 M rn v N rn co O N %D d -� W I to 0o M to t` t` co to r- r- .-I M to O .1 Z M 1 M to In an O co %D O ON N w T N co 0, FC 1 0 co r4 N %O O N ON to 01 ri co Cl) N M p; I M N N d' N d' M N N N V d' M N ri 1 1 1 1 rn .-1 e-I to CO rn CO tD ri t- -i 00 r 00 1 r- ON C rn N O %D M M to 00 d O M M I %D rn M ri %D %D CO V to W V 1` C to .-1 N 1 . I O %D O O v W O r- d r ON to 14 ri M 1 N N N d' N M M N N N M v M N --1 1 I M ri In t0 �0 l� M d' M to d' O ri O t0 1 � r♦ d' N t� M In N rn N �0 to t0 [� t0 I %D to ON t. M %D rn to M %0 n M ON O N 1 N N ri M N M N N N N M C N N rl 1 I E z ut 1 W W I Cl) M M to to to to to V t('1 to to In M of U I 1 U C 1 34 rn $4 E � $ U x$4 ro w m o IJ e ro >, m 41 Ia � W w 4-) X ro 1 04.1 a4 W E LI +) 04 O U W 1 7 W O $4 O C O C N N M 1 LL to U t1 C o .N it ••4 W -a C 4-) 1 W N O • - I 4.) U +.) 4-) x -A U O C I D 3 O 41 11 U N m C w A --% --1 td I 04 -- U C W 04 -•1 N o $4 4-) + .I >r X m $4 O +1 C m W 9 4J 14J $4 -4 -4 U A H 4 •.4 m W CO W m W I U N C Q U O .x O W 04 m ra Z 1 W -4 O 4 a+ 041 IT at 3 3 4J O 4 U O 1 v] U -4 N C C C W m H 1 1- U $4 •-t •-1 «4 U U -A $4 > 1 fa E 1 0 C O a'0 C 4 J •4 •-+ C O o 0 H I U 4 W cd - C --4 C C -4 r♦ -A O V C W I N m U C C td -.-I td a) A ,C E a' CJ' at N + W O 1 x m 1 --1 O .-I •.4 O C 'a --1 •a 4 a I W a W V1 w t4 w a 04 w 4 a a 0 4c .1c 4c N W o• c7 � m z 9 N NOa 04 o+m O CL FC 3 C , O E Z +1 • z O m d.) m W N N 4J -a C --1 E -4 O m O x O M O--1 U warn P44.) H O wl P4 fat Q) -C 14 •-t E >t� CtJ $4 4 W CO Hz - . - I M N It C Ua EN 4.1W 0 C .1'0 W rowW a E r. r_ 4 $40 a Or+ N m4j-a 1 1 rn q:r ri M O r4 tD O %D -i to M rr O n 1 N t,p M O0 t� N ri OD �D M to . to M to to 1 . I M ri M t- w to w N 00 N w M w to to 1 1 1 10 ri I� rn to --I m w V' rn .-1 -i -i O w 1 M M N d' N V M M N M d' to M (V --I 1 1 1 1 %D co 00 U1 M rn v N rn co O N %D d -� W I to 0o M to t` t` co to r- r- .-I M to O .1 Z M 1 M to In an O co %D O ON N w T N co 0, FC 1 0 co r4 N %O O N ON to 01 ri co Cl) N M p; I M N N d' N d' M N N N V d' M N ri 1 1 1 1 rn .-1 e-I to CO rn CO tD ri t- -i 00 r 00 1 r- ON C rn N O %D M M to 00 d O M M I %D rn M ri %D %D CO V to W V 1` C to .-1 N 1 . I O %D O O v W O r- d r ON to 14 ri M 1 N N N d' N M M N N N M v M N --1 1 I M ri In t0 �0 l� M d' M to d' O ri O t0 1 � r♦ d' N t� M In N rn N �0 to t0 [� t0 I %D to ON t. M %D rn to M %0 n M ON O N 1 N N ri M N M N N N N M C N N rl 1 I E z ut 1 W W I Cl) M M to to to to to V t('1 to to In M of U I 1 U C 1 34 rn $4 E � $ U x$4 ro w m o IJ e ro >, m 41 Ia � W w 4-) X ro 1 04.1 a4 W E LI +) 04 O U W 1 7 W O $4 O C O C N N M 1 LL to U t1 C o .N it ••4 W -a C 4-) 1 W N O • - I 4.) U +.) 4-) x -A U O C I D 3 O 41 11 U N m C w A --% --1 td I 04 -- U C W 04 -•1 N o $4 4-) + .I >r X m $4 O +1 C m W 9 4J 14J $4 -4 -4 U A H 4 •.4 m W CO W m W I U N C Q U O .x O W 04 m ra Z 1 W -4 O 4 a+ 041 IT at 3 3 4J O 4 U O 1 v] U -4 N C C C W m H 1 1- U $4 •-t •-1 «4 U U -A $4 > 1 fa E 1 0 C O a'0 C 4 J •4 •-+ C O o 0 H I U 4 W cd - C --4 C C -4 r♦ -A O V C W I N m U C C td -.-I td a) A ,C E a' CJ' at N + W O 1 x m 1 --1 O .-I •.4 O C 'a --1 •a 4 a I W a W V1 w t4 w a 04 w 4 a a 0 4c .1c 4c N o• � m a --t NOa o+m O C , O 4J $4 +1 • $4 �+ d.) m W N N 4J -a C --1 E -4 m O a) td U O--1 N •-1 m P44.) .0 N P4 fat Q) -C 14 •-t N N 1� CtJ $4 4 W CO - . - I M N It C EN 4.1W 0 C .1'0 W rowW E r. r_ $40 Or+ N m4j-a m C R+N.Q td O tdC fLN tdC U 4)(1) 04 $4 N11wto •w 4 CV4J N e t -4 04o 1 U CON E Ot O^t�N (D.C4J G)v4j 'a a NWE b u ed W O W O 3 •4 +) •4 -4 C a) M r-I 000 4-) dP U) C ) w 0 - 0 0 0) 1-1 td X +) N E 1 O W W C H x '0 1 44 d' to 00 -Q 0 or--I M 0 Id $4 MC • W 0 0404 30 WCtd 'a $4 4J O 04N N -444 0 S N a4W 3N 4 1 + 1 ►4444 I4 $4 C 04 ++ m V3 4J-4 O o •-1 � E0(d(1)�'00 MMO.CW V 0mw040 0 ma O• -1 Uro a30c N a) vV to -C-- O i �NC4�7 0W-4 3 (0 .0 N C O O • 0 -4 1) 1.) •,4 3 3 N a >�. O'a ► 3 :) >, O m0 0m NNd 'omm3x r 0404 W >+>t W -i O N fat m 34-) >40 O WO td m $4 C 0 - I' - 1 O N m w W to N 014 04 04 far-1 v O m r4- 4 NE04EE 04+ -• 4-4 W td --I >. E W N $4. 4 :1 $4 .0 E E 0 W Po 0 0 to 4J $4"4 -a — C C td C E c0 m o G 'NN .C N0 ►► 4J +) >4-) W N 4.) .4 . m m >d O cn 4 -- 1C 4) Ia$4W W E N V3:mmm x -10+•>rN C to m >+>�>+ H .0 d -A N >IW E U It --t r-4 04--1 N M ► c x to 41 r1 C m v m W >t --t td W a $4 $4 ro •-1 W $4 Q,UE WWW0 1-1 4J 0 0 cd W )4 V y1 1.) b 04C U >+4J rd W W --1 z 4 4 4 4 m m W-4 W to E «4 Id 1.1 Or • 4N+1E.0 z ri N M d to %D E fat cd W N 49 RESOLUTION NO. -92 ESTABLISHING A RATE OF THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARD THE MONTHLY INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR CITY EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the cost of health and other insurances for City employees has been increasing significantly over the past years; and WHEREAS, health insurance premiums are increasing approximately 11% for 1993. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City employees not covered by Employment Agreements, Section 13 Employee Insurance, Subd.l, Benefits, of the Employee Relationship Policy, is hereby amended to read as follows: "If the employee so desires, the City will pay the monthly premium for regular and probationary full -time employees and their dependants for up to a maximum of $290 of insurance at the level of benefits currently provided..." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution shall take effect January 1, 1993. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, of the City of Shorewood this 30th day of November , 1992. C] Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator 4D MAYOR Bart) Brancei COUNCI L Knsti Stover Bob Gagne Rob Oaugnerty Oamel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 4743236 MEMORANDUM TO: • N _DATE: RE: Park Commission Brad Nielsen 23 October 1992 Elderly Housing - Park Dedication Fees FILE NO.: - 405 (Subdivision Code) As you inay be aware, the Planning Commission and City Council have set a high priority on providing affordable housing alternatives for senior citizens. In this regard the City has amended its zoning regulations to allow higher residential densities to projects which are limited to the elderly. In addition, the City has established a Senior Housing and Services Task Force to recommend policies relative to senior housing and to review and comment on proposed elderly housing projects. This office has suggested that the City consider creating incentives to encourage the development of senior housing projects and possibly reduce the cost of such development. One such incentive is to waive or reduce City- imposed impact fees such as sewer access charges and park dedication fees. The effect of these fees on a currently proposed 24 -unit project, for example, is $42,000. The Senior Housing Task Force favors this idea as does the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission suggests that fees not be waived but rather a reduction may be in order. What was suggested is that these fees should be charged on the basis of the current zoning of the property without the density "bonus ". For example, the project under consideration could develop at three units per acre for a total of 12 units. Therefore the remaining twelve units would not be charged park or sewer access fees. The City receives what it would have under current zoning, but the cost of the project is reduced by $21,000. Staff would appreciate your comments on this proposal. If you have any questions relative to these suggestions, please contact me Tuesday, prior to your meeting on Tuesday night. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Mayor and City Council Joel Dresel Planning Commission Senior Housing and Services Task Force A Residential Community mmuni on Lake lWinnetonka's South Shore CITY OF SHOREWOOD PARK COMMISSION MINUTES TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1992 - Page four BREAK ....... 7:50PM - 8:15 PM 3. REVIEW OF PARK DEDICATION FEES FOR _ ELDERLY HOUSING PROJECTS The Planner's memorandum of October 23, 1992 was reviewed and discussed by the Park Commission. The Planning Commission'suggestion was that the fees not be waived, but rather reduced, that the fees should be charged on the basis of the current zoning of the property without the density "bonus ". Administrator Hurm explained how the reduction of fees works. The Commission felt that each case has to be looked at separately, the degree of waiving fees might depend on type of housing.... assisted, ambulatory, apartment, or step -down housing not necessarily for seniors. Following discussion, Dzurak moved, seconded by McCarty, to recommend to the City Council that Park Dedication Fees should not be reduced below the amount we would receive under the current zoning; and that furthermore, the City Council should waive fees only to the extent determined necessary by the City Council to meet its objectives with respect to attracting senior housing projects. Motion passed unanimously. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 13, 1992 - PAGE 5 and for safety for the residents. She supported the negotiation of reductions in the park dedication and sewer fees. The Commissioners discussed the various traffic concerns and generally agreed that this is a problem to be separated from the developer's proposal. They supported striping of appropriate sections of Excelsior Boulevard and St. Albans Road in the interests of safety and asked the staff to study the matter and take appropriate action as soon as possible. The Commissioners discussed the possible negotiation of park and sewer access charges. Nielsen described the current regulations and calculations of those charges and indicated there is room for consideration of negotiation of reductions in the fees. In general, the Commissioners agreed that negotiation to reduce park dedication and sewer access fees was appropriate to provide an incentive for the developer. Specific details of the project will be considered by the Commission in the developer's developmental stage /preliminary plat of the Season's plan. Rosenberger moved, Leslie seconded to recommend to the City Council that it approve the concept stage plan of the Season's P.U.D. subject to the recommendations of the staff. Motion passed 7/0. Borkon moved, Rosenberger seconded to direct the staff to prepare an amendment to the City Code to allow occupancy of care - givers under age 62 in Shorewood's senior housing. Motion passed 7/0. MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis 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: 12 November 1992 RE: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment Revising the Boat Slip to Lot Area Ratio in the L -R District FILE NO.: 405 (Zoning - Chapter 1201.24) BACKGROUND At the October Planning Commission meeting, staff was asked to prepare a zoning text amendment revising the boat slip to lot area ratio in the L -R District. A draft amendment to that effect is attached as Exhibit A. Having a vested interest in the outcome of the proposed amendment, the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club has submitted information (Exhibit B) pointing out how sailing yacht clubs differ from other multiple dock facilities. Also attached, as Exhibit C, are excerpts from the Yacht Club's 1992 brochure. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Tuesday night's meeting. BJN: ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Skip Jewett A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 8 - DRAFT- ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1201 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1: Section 1201.24, Subd. 5.c.(2)(b) of the Shorewood City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "(b) At maximum one slip per one thousand nine hundred (1900) square feet of lot i area of the site for sailing yacht clubs. For all other facilities one slipper two thousand five hundred (2500) square feet of lot area of the site." Section 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, this day of 1 1992. . Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk NOTE: Additions have been highlighted with italics. Exhibit A DRAFT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT L -R District - Boat Slip to Lot Area Ratio Mitt UPPER - LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB P.O. BOX 358 EXCELSIOR, MN. 55331 Bradley J. Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Number of slips at UMYC property • Dear Brad, November 12, 1992 The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club is a sanctioned yacht racing entity, operating under rules of the Inland Lakes Yachting Association. All yachts are sailboats only, except for one power boat, which is used for officiating races. The club, yearly, presents its' racing schedule to the LMCD and Water Patrol for their approval. This schedule allows for racing only as follows: 1. The end of May through the end of September 2. Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings 3. Seven Wednesday evenings This use is significantly different from marinas, where boat use and times are determined by the owners throughout a 24 hour day. UMYC has rules regarding property, moorings, and use, which have been drafted to eliminate neighborhood complaints and problems. • (Please see "Regulations" in enclosed annual book.) Additional points to consider that differentiate UMYC from a public marina as permitted under "Lakeshore Recreational District" are: 1. No boat dock canopies 2. No ramp for boat launching 3. No commercial sales 4. No gasoline dispensing 5. No fishing boats for rent 6. No storage of boats or trailers With the greatly reduced use of our docking area, it is our belief that we should be allowed a minimum of 25 slips. Brad, if you have any questions regarding the above subject, please contact me. Sincerely, Skip Jewett, Commodore - 471 -7964 Exhibit B LETTER FROM U.L.M.Y.C. Dated 12 November 1992 Ll • t <. r • u ?, ' u tz w U V CJ y U> Vf yj ^3 G'.n U C. V t'3 y rd O � O R u y V O O C) L1. �' n 7 C a V; X In V c '� f9 G! f4 f9 'C tlf p O u V U l z O O L eO .9 O •3 C O QJ = y 0 to in tz cj as y�Lco R v o �' >. >, , y ° c� c3 d L e6 O 60 L C •^ .E �Qj, = O L' 79 .O _O as O es .y () •_ .L y y "' v w O e4 CO "" C �j CJ t�, G Q = m L r- E u c to ,O., u 7 >, p � C CLi H !:. U) � a 72 E � _ � h � V G ,O } O E p O> a c y Q c A u CO (z is = y i. R Y 'C3 y ..'.J O O 03 a 'LS LL io m A 1�„ • y y f3 C'. � CA O Cl U _ c [� _ _ _ a+ o p L O y ^_ •p O �.. y •"" R CJ R .".. 'CS E L . E y CL) _� v O O CO ' 0 u '� O C .� O 6. E E 0 = L Cj F :E y C1. Cyj .0 y n L .... _ u 3 O. 3 O 'C A ee O e4 O E u u Ou E O O L x E �' ._ V O V CO O O O x r — O O V = 0 cj tz C c c� U r G. C ¢ =. x C7 'j 52 u O O. O ' w " ' B - C'i cri c u-i = y O R CO L C CD CD +• C! y O O u O In O .X C O ER ff} Ef3 y C �L E CD a. L L y m R O u u 2 E n a C) c u otnino 000tnCD "a x c c to r, to to to to Ul r*l U E y ti G E u v �� sr 9i E O ... L v o L a C 'LS .O L. C v v I.. C L1. aG O ..0. CJ U) 00 .� y ..-. O �_ L ' O C L R 7 V OO •u O L. L L y u y R y U . CY') 6J ''{^ O3 L • U CO _w C L 'B O ' R v00 y _ p (h O E i.. r 'p v c �' w u es 'B r O w e4 i> y En r` CC :E C 0 t4 V R v y }; a O O O y p Ll. u wu_ �, u� `� �° O W U X U W V N >> L cu ej cm u L ` r t/1 O &- O O y H y N Lv R �, > O E >> (� 67 w .O y C-0 y y W V CJ ^ u • C m ec es cn eC w a.N p fy O L ea L .0 ✓ cc U U O V u o ^ 00, ¢ p G=1 Ll Z C c 1 O u u Ou `v o� E Exhibit C EXCERPTS - U.L.M.Y.C. 1992 Brochure v p G O O O O O aJ 3 m C ca CU cc G y o FHHH F. E— G E. in m rA too R y '" .� u to • G O G V v �n 'C v ' Ci Q N O, N a, N y Q C1 x cl N ¢, to 'C o a a a O O 7 p 5 'Q B Qj m to LL �, O LA tt�� N N > G G aJ ai 'C ,� y C) C! W C) v v C G v .7 V G "o EA .� .� . ti C O y �-• d4 i. ~ $ ~ v" es t' =emu Z _ _ GO LO &. O r. Oo G G � R aJ O v O U •� aJ > > O v L1. Vf F > p .a G C� a) N o v to v '� a $ v o •� Z5 R .. .� O G ca Lo Q C �' v v r7 E"' of c R a � :: •~i v � r1L U �o �o n rl .r V C, O f6 0 a w O w I 3 cu I 1' cl) Ln M m ~ W � Q) W p M Et+) Opp N O O p 0 N L, 3 O a� 3 C4 �� o.� �o o��N c� �i > z r n ,� v FC C c P44 0 o v $ ( . Cq O CA E 'Cf O ►—. * v �'„ w O G v .� v ate, 'C ri CU y 0 G m ai 'Opp^. O v o m 3 Q 0 'CS eo u - ; U au 0 e0 co ... ; V � O .. o e0 Q V , 0o V pp v O a Ln O o V Q , � _V � � r � O 00 W C P m c � z M ii: 1 Nr LO C-4 C-4 00 LO n N �O ` N ~ Cl. 00 �+ v y ?, O >, �, >% CD ea O O O ¢ Q G�) cn c� w cn cn w cn cn cn R o W p 0 O Qr .0 2 � � C O p m •� LL O O ' ,. in . v >°, t o c o U 0 0 C w '� v v • a a o tu .o to ¢ a a� v � W w O % 2 tu w L. M O V �. v ' $v 'a tu f1. O c4 y >+�• tC CJ O O (u 0 O X w o to � y W a� ca aj y a O y� of m � � � >, o w a CU is to A > O o 7; U i0 U O v O v E .- eC 3 cu I 1' cl) Ln M m ~ W � Q) W p M Et+) Opp N O O p 0 N L, 3 O a� 3 C4 �� o.� �o o��N c� �i > z r n ,� v FC C c P44 0 o v $ ( . Cq O CA E 'Cf O ►—. * v �'„ w O G v .� v ate, 'C ri CU y 0 G m ai 'Opp^. O v o m 3 Q 0 'CS eo u - ; U au 0 e0 co ... ; V � O .. o e0 Q V , 0o V pp v O a Ln O o V Q , � _V � � r � O 00 W C P m c � z M ii: 1 Nr LO C-4 C-4 00 LO n N �O ` N ~ Cl. 00 �+ v y ?, O >, �, >% CD ea O O O ¢ Q G�) cn c� w cn cn w cn cn cn R 0 m O 0 Q t V O O O a _ V v U U a� cu U o 7; U i0 U O v O v O Q) x _)c i x o o ai ,� o CD _X ao, . cc cc .°x r. p c p i w ^ x y ^ � R a y � to eo X ^ f j x U `C " aj CO cc v� .�10 d� r a ° o v W a, v v w ¢ ¢ x x ° z Ax cJ� N . bo . . � N N bo Qi N .--i O N ai o� O O Cn 00 O N d' N r: M 00 n O e-� >% >, ba bo _ t� . Q Q Cn Cn 0 m O 0 Q t or MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis - 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: 13 November 1992 RE: Gideon's Woods P.U.D. FILE NO.: 405 (92.26) BACKGROUND Katter Development Corp. has submitted plans for an 18 unit, twinhome development called Gideon's Woods. The project is proposed for the 4.5 -acre site located at 24590 Glen Road (see Site Location map -- Exhibit A, attached). Since the homes are clustered on a private road system, the developer has requested a conditional use permit for a planned unit development. The subject property is currently zoned R -C, Residential/Commercial and is occupied by a single- family residence which has been used (by conditional use permit) since the early 1980's as office space. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: North: Hennepin County Regional Railway R.O.W., then park (in Tonka Bay); zoned residential East: NSP; zoned C -3 South: multiple - family residential (18 units); zoned P.U.D. West: single - family residential; zoned R -1C Exhibit B shows the proposed layout of the nine, two - family dwellings. A typical unit floor plan is shown on Exhibit C. The unit shown contains 1395 square feet plus a walkout lower level and a two -car garage. Building elevations are shown on Exhibits D and E. A grading plan is attached as Exhibit F. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore LI Re: Gideon's Woods P.U.D. 13 November 1992 ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed P.U.D. is consistent with Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan which recommends townhouse or quadraminiums for the area in question, at at density of 3 - 6 units per 40,000 square feet of area. Gideon's Woods is at the low end of that range with 3.5 units per 40,000 square feet. B. Zoning. Although the developer has requested concept and development stage approval for his P.U.D., plans submitted to -date are insufficient for development stage approval. Additional information is needed on landscaping and drainage. Following is how the project complies with Shorewood zoning requirements: • 1. Two- faimily dwellings are permitted uses in the R -C District. The clustering of the units and the private road necessitate a conditional use permit. 2. An existing billboard in the northeast corner of the site is a nonconforming use of the property. Any approval of the development must include provisions for the removal of the sign. 3. Proposed buildings comply with setback requirements at the periphery of the site. There does not appear, however, to be adequate room within the unit lots to accommodate decks, patios and screen porches. It is recommended that the unit lots be platted 10 feet deeper so that these features do not encroach into the common area. It is further recommended that a minimum setback of 40 feet be maintained along the west side of the property. i 4. Separation between buildings complies with the Zoning Code. The buildings are approximately 22 feet high on the walkout elevation. The minimum distance between any of the buildings on the site plan is 25 feet. C. Grading, Drdnage and Utilities. These items are addressed under separate cover by the City Engineer. In addition to the Engineer's comments the following should be considered: 1. The developer's grading plan (Exhibit F) proposes significant site alteration which will result in the removal of many trees from the property. Consideration should be given to reducing the amount of grading, particularly in the northwest corner of the site, possibly by changing building types on units 5 - 8 from walkouts to full basements. -2- Re: Gideon's Woods P.U.D. 13 November 1992 • U E. 2. One of the most critical issues to area residents is how site drainage will be handled. As mentioned by the City Engineer, most of the drainage is conducted to a ponding area which will be constructed in the northeast corner of the site. Detailed stormwater runoff calculations are necessary to ensure that the pond is adequately sized. 3. The developer has asked that City water be extended to his property. The first step of this process is for the City Engineer to prepare a feasibility report. The developer should be required to escrow the estimated cost of the study in the event the project is not done. It is worth noting that _this extension will necessitate assessing the properties. on the west side of County Road 19, between Smithtown Road and Glen Road. 4. Since the road is proposed to be privately,owned and maintained, the utilities within the project should also be privately owned and maintained. Landscaping. The - developer has not yet submitted a landscape plan for the property. Given the amount of site alteration shown on the developer's grading plan, it is recommended that a detailed tree inventory be prepared, from which it can be determined which trees can be preserved. The landscape plan should then concentrate on providing an effective buffer between the proposed development and the existing development to the west. Parking and Circulation. The project is served by a private road. Although a 60 -foot diameter turn- around is provided in the center of the project, circulation at the north end of the project is considered tight. It does not appear that cars can back out of units 7 and 8 without backing into the driveways of units 9 and 10, and vice versa. It is suggested that these buildings be separated as far as setbacks will allow to create additional space for cars to back out. It is further suggested that the additional space be used to create a pedestrian walkway for Gideon's Woods residents to access the trail system on the north side of the property. The circulation pattern will be reviewed by the Fire Marshall to ensure that adequate space exists for emergency vehicles to maneuver. Since no extra parking is provided in the project, it is recommended that space for at least two cars be maintained in front of each garage. RECOMMENDAT][ON Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that any approval granted at this time should be limited to the concept plan. Concept stage approval should be subject to the developer addressing the issues raised herein. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Fred Katter -3- , ., � . 3. (29) Y :, ,y »>f ..zs $ (to - --- � ° --- -- -- -0 � -- • --- v-GJ!// Mac • 3• (� I2'I x Aa' _v- L• (5!) tAL (49)0 ' (2e1 _ T011KArYA7 z 1 1) or yutLC9 r dfiaR fmil , •' J N � ^s'�r•z , (511• i� (60) 3(. , I < I(661 � 9 F t n'• •: o '•, n la (22) - it s ::U >';�17) {aa)';(67):• ..)..n -r r (0) • (21) • m •o y I HICHLAHD } 'e11 \ ,\ HOODLAWN AVE Q� 'A.n.•• wy � (62) _ (S) .`/ ' g V[LI� - ' (20) I ` �f (191 A �(16)" xl-S1� (W)- s -.. . i� r: �YWI} ^y,°'f1�' .I ,6 rts' / � S I �� » (631 q. - • (61,• /N •_ ;\ a 1 � ,,, / �j s nary � / ('1a r z / j r f a — / �� V.3 • ; wy. as•x•r[ % /.. ^ '• r , zml e /�/ I ' j (29) +e.- T 7l - _ ;[.� I '•- (le) � (71 � � / n (771 � / ; (2) . + Y>e (19� usr tal /• •m f72) (tii / (301 s e �__.._ -t__ ^•• a. �`•S cr \ ( � a �i� R '_ yL•yy �� . ay, • } ".�. ° 131 / z ( n ) • �,b�N� /. e - (2e) R (M) .,,�• SM • ; a + Sts y . %// • a q - 61 AIT�Ur I (ze) a ; .., , c I = O s i , 3 zm. i .• - zl a ;%/ •.e rnF[ nasa /iyir. ` r �� ..+'� � s VVV (nr+ •t •�s �/ //, i i / �� / % / s ':/ ♦ 4 R t � _, fwl ! ly) '3. • r � r //; / i// . L i :1. i Y � �� (•T) 7G • 3' y! - I ��•� • ,,"ly III i� � :n�i. • /ir% '^ �r / r �'Yy�� n o .. 3 - . _ r � L _ 3- s>�L : z /' A (121F .��\.. ,� •5 1 � A� »/ � � <� K 3 " (a)I(7) (a) •�3•.�(,:31 I A..r ( SrL, royF ,} t h x(17. It 11) la 9 •, f.19 $ ..� w ( �• , I Ie•�._ Sa0 +0(C!31 LIy. 3 ` (\ } 'R��i 1 ' Lfl' J w - M - Z '• r (9 C r . `+' �..°':!':i�(M1ra w 'nl•pu '" , ` !w 9 L y 93L t . LAJ AOA,41 I .2) ° T l9h ^� 1504 ` (m) - a ntv rc rrr.s o . - a 9•r(ia r•s[si i 1r1 •� __ 9 r R)0 r ,r 1 •(6) 's - �•.. Cur SICILEe000 A. L- __ - -st - .. ro'� I�t - flu >: � T a. - a __ .. .. < —�_ _ r y e7t a t3RENTWOOD .[ w r - AVE 9 -�'- w . _ ��- RA u.rrie 4 S , r•.o ' '-: n z , ' • p I,aa us ..as .r , y ua '._ -� (2) �� YyY t r � (It �nzl� •. ' /., Fr l•a C - ,• _ J amaLL gy'191 \ wt. 11 y, .. - :�w x• *v. 191 a: ' tq) t t) I11) (101 m �t17] - V I..•" _ \�fli ... (IS) a ny ��. - (1e1 i i 16) n � , _ yR .......�� - I .,•2 ". (� jay c% 1( _ 'Y7j, =3q _ a,f' - ° -� 1� l '-•t: - - n AREE RD a �Q /.. - J , _ � O Ir c � S T : , ,�r 1, 4•r. 7LCr.•1�.� �� .ASS t•JT•l tet S7t�(a) - :I91 t °)lai) _ uzl e n61 s� J (13)' V - Q _ fi' � ��> � z. A. ° ilaa Iw ua nas Ila�s _Ila uas • alas ' - npp 2g ( iei�- _ to d ry tl) _ Jtlot _ _(a1 =IE, !(i> L /C= S17o1 -`. b7lW® d1lWM® GLEN - -_ +LS _. / '• ,}� !• ( � 1 _ -_ R �- -- (67) ' 1 • M �® I _ i_:' I(]�I Its �:• ` (r9) A y ' (20) Ir 1s �. n 1e n x $1 - (291 • \ P1�,s \ $ • (2al 29) (b) o (23) "- 355!•"" ( $ = r y :. _ - -.v .c. •Oa• IN) (25) (28) (27) (2d) ,.. L .. ,� � ... as xr —.. _zNa -.._._ } r � -� - •f " IL �.., ABDg ci.)- `.s,r cza) ` (f'. ,e - ' '.' a -.� LL 1 `o (Z?l •, (Ip - ®(221 _ I - / %.: (•01 - :a a , • @ 1 (7i $ ( 10) (7) e<TAR •CIR -: �, (61 1 I ^ f2z1 -• �' (MI n I . _ - t m _ �Q - 1 � y - °L 7C r.l I s (191 (le) (3) z• aTSM,' (a) ' Ae - �_ L.� , c •` '� ( y r � (27Y ^,'L_ x .. � ,_. - U) ( ' y + �; 2 L f4�: 33l t •s.r` •• . /y� � r" I ),� - < (NI_�; .' pn� I , • _ — •/, - . r/` (2tI :.n. C` �n _ F •Z9)�'1�; ? .( /. - ( n - (32) a (19) - y A i >,1) a (al - •�. `. < 121 [ '(231 r.n olt Lwn - l �- .• +nuul�" j _.7.. f5) L �'•� \ y •yc. (e( r l �.I (IO) . -- `. ¢ ,y.��5�'FttTV' ^• CCII' `7• 1 °.. - � w;r` \ v � C��: ''I ��1? �[�� _ s_._ ,� •' u' ,a y' � T,� /_. (l ' sri`� L `�d �` (211 ; . ECHO ` p LLS • - �rC� .! /:_ r3 ® (lr '• .•' ! 7ir. '7� t aza..vL !� `r ;LOr x(91 tal Law ' (te); .r __ ---'-i i9� G�u VA(l w3 - - - - - - - Exhibit A (to, • d , y , , -7 _ '� ; I Il � «> " SITE LOCATION Gideon's Woods P.U.D. (•) • •.i P201 ' 1 1 91 • 0a) (li7 .?� _•� Ja ; ✓r�'��mllo, ,e 19 ------------------------------ - - - - -\ \ T R A I L R/ W \ 12 GRAVELTBALL - - - - - - - - - - \ \ ...._ ............ ._............. .............................,: N 89 -' 60" 's i :' \\ \\ 942,0 MH 2 ' - � 'NE - -� \\ \ gyp: 1ST SAN us ............ ......._............ \ .......... . .� ............... q EXISf BnJ30MD \ = 9 930 : 1 A \ - -- - - - - 30 -7 I qry ....... 9H...'�F._ l0 - \a S � I 7_ BLDG SETBACK UNE — - _ / O UTLOT. A...._ ... ....... . \ � / - COMMON AREA •9 ............... \ - s p 7 5 0 ........ _ _ ..... .......... 1 .... 69 a ........ 8 q g6 \ s i i .. X157 HOUSE \ \\ �\ \ \ F. I 9 -0 0 \. \ ^ \ 1 12 \ \ \ \ ✓ \ \V ci EXIST Hpjs_ ZD 3 I / E ' 96.00 \ _ \`� 1 \ b n \• \\ 67.97 96.0 < .- — — — \.... :. 96.00 IGA 18 ° / > / 57 j 2 EXIST SAN MH t5 I 5 / a� rt= 948.7 INV- 939.7 E XIST HOUS y 6 / I I 0 0 1 9 \. A � � 'EXIST SAN MH 3!-12 / �/ �� INV- 940.0 -- — g5 : / SITE DATA � 9 � � LOT AREA AREA - 202. 976 S.F. BUILDING 31,050 S.F _ _ - - - -- = `_ I EXIST MH 35 -7 BITUMINOUS SURFACE = 22.780 S.F. *4= 955.80 —_— INV-945.4 Q TOTAL HARD SURFACE = 53.830 S-F. 4 :�*w O N — l !`� ' \ - -151.80 - -_— %OFCOVERAGE =26.5% S 89.59' 60^ E (DOES NOT INCLUDE PATIOSISIDEWALKS) Exhibit B PROPOSED SITE PLAN/ PRELIMINARY PLAT - I _ I I I I I ' I l i- I ,j Ga rzac,� ; l 4 f o ! of f IN f V % Kit t Iwu ! i �• i j i I v.wcw � I V � ( I7EGY Pp PL:+ I I Exhibit C PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN FIRST F1.6611. • Exhibit E BUILDING ELEVATIONS - SID E TRAIL R \\ 12 CRAVEL T&UL — — — — — — — — — \\ \ ...... �xEi Lr1N0 / ..: ... - .- ...... -..\ ``\ � 942.0 MN N ZS - ~ 9 70 / - - - - - ........ .................... i i ... ,. .................. ...... ti i, \\ _ ................. q E10ST BK1.B0Nt0 \ P' �� ' IST .UH :1 .............. ............ ...... ................... --- —\ \— — — — � —'=( , 35 s 30 / w i O SIO sizo ............ ................ �.... fhb w0 � ...........946 5 'O i B T! N A 30 \ \ \\ \ SED/MENT,4 O \ \ � \\ � POIVO ��. w� BAFFLED OUTLET. e / ♦, �f EXIST HOUSE ..... o r ea \ . 1. 1 7 1 I \ j 5 \ 1 \ \\ Q E.`!i5T r!OJS =` 9, ate• -.e ♦ T n,�. q \ A 96.00 Lio i, 95 \ D \ 3♦ O. IN 1 O A 96 ♦ Q \ I \ . / � J \ �-. 1 .. I \ G Q � / I t '� T � \ ii. � ♦ � a�E b II. / .� � � . � N v \ I a1 � \ \ �\ \\ _ T ,T : _ .� , \ w 0 \ \ I .. .....a . ...... ...... . .. / T 7915 _r d • .- - .� \ '�. I : \ ' S ST �Rl�, G 5 8p• g o L P / ,.... 1 I I ' A C S 7 \ �: /�' 7 \ IG cGb\T.O � �'�' wRi \ y / P e V'k / �0�'� ' CONNECT TO @ / ` a� • Gam,.- % EXIS SAN MH TR- 9 48.: .. "F,O�� i IW- 939.74 � O EXIST HOUS EXIST SAN MH 35 -12 INV \\ TR- 944.3 .......... / ' G EXIST MH 35 -13 TRa 959.80 INV =945.4 151.80 S 89 59'60" E Exhibit F PROPOSED GRADING PLAN NOV 13 92 16:32 OSM MPLS, MN P.4 Orr Schelen N&Ymn& November 13, 1992 OMS Assomtes,inc. 300 Park Place c:erter 5775 Wayzata Boulevard N inncapoUs. iM.\ 55416 -1228 Mr. Brad Nielsen 612 -595 -5775 1- 800 - 753 -5775 City Planner FAX S95-5773 City of Shorewood Architects s 5755 Country Club Road Planners Surveyors Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Re: Preliminary Grading & Utility Plan Review Gideon's Woods OSM Project No. 4590.00 Dear Mr. Nielsen We have reviewed a preliminary grading and utility plan prepared by Ron Krueger and Associates dated October 1992 for the referenced project. Our comments are as follows: The proposed sanitary layout appears acceptable. We will require a core and rubber boot at the connection to the existing sanitary sewer, It should be clarified in the development agreement as to whom the owner of the utility lines within the plat will be; are they to be maintained and operated by the association or by the City of Shorewood? Water The proposed plan shows an existing 12" watermain running along the easterly side of County Road 19. This line is the property of Tonka Bay, and a permit will likely be required by them for connection. If no City water is ultimately available, either individual wells or a community well system will have to be developed. Again, the ownership of the watermain internal to the plat should be determined in the developers agreement. Storm Son and Drainagc The proposed drainage is primarily routed to the perimeter of the site and through the sedimentation pond at the northeast corner of the property. There is a small area of direct runoff along the westerly edge of the plat to the wetland off the northwest comer of the property. We recommend that storm water calculations be provided to show that the proposed runoff rates to the wetland will be no greater than existing. Also, some method of directing water to the catch basin shown should be provided. Currently, the bituminous curb ends at the turn - around and it is unclear as to how the water will be directed to the catch basin. Equal Oppor:urky Empinycr NOV 13 '92 16 :33 OSM MPLS, MN P.5 Finally, a'Watershed permit will likely be required for this project rsagnt The developer is showing a 24 foot wide entrance road from Glen Road with no outlet There is a 60 foot diameter turnaround shown on the preliminary plat, which we assume will be paved. The Fire MarshaII should be contacted to determine if this provides adequate access to the site for emergency vehicles. If you have any questions please call me at 595.5695. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. r , noel Dresel, P.E., LS. City Engineer ... • r MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: • FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: BACKGROUND Ll Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 14 November 1992 Kesler /Smith Variance for Two Docks on One Property 405 (92.28) Mr. James Kesler has applied, on behalf of his mother -in -law, Dorothy Smith, for a variance to allow a second dock on the property located at 27940 Smithtown Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). Ms. Smith owns the lot to the east of it and has a twenty -foot easement down to the lake (see Exhibit B). The applicant's letter, dated 1 October 1992, is attached as Exhibit C. His primary argument is that the nonriparian property is less valuable without dock rights than with them. The property is zoned R -lA, Single - Family Residential and is also subject to S, Shoreland District requirements. As shown on Exhibit B, both lots are occupied by homes. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION Easements between property owners are private matters which are not regulated by the City. The number and location of structures and the use of property, however, are regulated through the Zoning Code. Section 1201.03 Subd. 14 of the Code provides restrictions relative to docks which limit the number of docks per parcel to one. Further, the Code states that the dock may only be used by the residents of the property on which the dock is located. Although the Code provides for exceptions by four - fifths vote of the City Council, the City's policy in recent years has been to deny such requests. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: Kesler /Smith Variance to Two Docks 14 November 1992 This policy toward dock rights for nonriparian property has been consistently upheld. So much so that in its review of the new shoreland management regulations (amendments to the S District), the Planning Commission has recommended that the four- fifths exception be eliminated from the Code. Section 1201.05 Subd. 2.b. provides criteria for the granting of variances. Variances should be granted only when all of these criteria have been met. This request fails to meet any of the criteria: - 1) The inability for a nonriparian lot to have dock rights is not unique to the subject property. Most nonriparian lots in Shorewood do not have dock rights. The applicant's request is primarily financial in nature - the lot is worth more with a dock than without. It is safe to speculate that any nonriparian lot in Shorewood would be worth more if dock rights were included. 2) Dock rights are not commonly available to nonriparian properties in Shorewood. 3) The property owner previously controlled both of the subject properties, but chose to give up the parcel on the lake. While it is unfortunate that they may have relied on the possibility of having a dock in the future, the situation can be considered to be self - imposed. In hindsight they should have secured their dock rights in 1976 prior to selling the parcel on the lake. 4) Granting the variance would confer a special privilege on the owner which is denied to others. 5) The applicant has not demonstrated that reasonable use of the property can not be made without the variance. To the contrary, not only do they have a home on the property in question, they are able, through their easement, to swim or fish or picnic, etc. by the lake, enjoying these benefits of the lake that other nonriparian lots do not. Based upon the preceding, it is recommended that the request for a variance be denied. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Jim Kesler -2- d6 aC v vli &jp Aa Cc K 41 '91 Mv KAIIG .... ... ... . ............................. ........................... ................................................ ......... . ............ "i ............. . ............ . ........................... ........... ...... ......... . MOO IS =D) 091 091 2 160 ---- 465, 56 "Ire. TT. ..5 ".61 1 :79.951. 150 2 it 96. * ; j q 00 .1►"O'L I V -Cc Ct ze ZIP 9LZ ON OS Roo ON . ................ EV90Z 19 L J 091 9 OCI 09 IN 01 ui In -------- Ln a C2 0 1� 13 - LE I R -99 9� b4. F- 56. j%.b F— —C 3 417p bt CD 2R 4 ..0 C D 89 �Y�_201 e1 ( , � ��Q�� o � R V nn u�, 9 $ _ F /... �,� N Exhibit A SITE LOCATION 9. - 99 I- ek;jS 3 *1 Kesler/Smith - Dock Variance o A , 3 - -- 0 E 0 rj % Ta I CL Zz kil t , c v s , ry. 4" C 22: V) LLJ LA- LTA M C\j CD CT ti O —4 .2 E C: O la CY) C: m Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY r 10 -01 -92 Eden Prairie, Minnesota TO: Planning Commission City of Shorewood FROM: James R. Kesler (For Dorothy M. Smith) SUBJECT: Description and Reasons for Requesting a variance The property located at 27944 Smithtown Road, owned by Dorothy M. Smith, is currently for sale by Edina Realty. It was discovered in the early stages of the selling process that an easement that was thought to have legally provided dockage rights on Lake Minnetonka is in fact in violation of a current city ordinance (Ord. 1201.03, Subd. 16, para c.) Because of this, the property is basically off the market until it can be determined if it can be priced to sell as "lake front easement with dockage rights" or merely as a home near the lake. Per the real estate agents for the property, the value will need to be decreased by about $80,000.00 if dockage rights are not allowed. We are requesting a variance from the above noted ordinance so that the current and all future owners of the property located at 27944 Smithtown Road can build and maintain dockage onto Lake Minnetonka per the original intent of the signed and recorded easement (Easement Agreement Record #4263811 - Hennepin County) and the long time understanding of Dorothy Smith and her now deceased husband, Edwin Smith. 18 The Smith's used to own the actual lake front property (now 27940 Smithtown Road) but subdivided it in about 1976 in order to build a new home on the non -lake front portion of the subdivision. That is the home that Mrs. Smith is now trying to sell. It is our belief that had Edwin known that the "easement" granting the dockage rights was invalid (per city ordinance), he would have subdivided the property differently or would not have done it at all. He knew the value of lake front and was counting on realizing that additional value when the day came (now) to sell his property. Sincerely, James R. Kesler (son -in -law) 6941 Raven Court Eden Prairie, MN, 55346 w- 344 -4065 h- 934 -5183 Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER Dated 1 October 1992 November 17, 1992 r • • In the 1960's, Mr. and Mrs. Ed Smith purchased a 3 -acre parcel of land fronting on Lake Minnetonka from a party named Badger. The Smiths then lived in the old Badger house which was the only residence on the property. In the mid- 1970's, the Smiths built a new house that was located between the old Badger house and the Deikel estate. In 1977, the Smiths carved out the one acre where the old Badger house was located and sold it to us (John and Kay Alsip). A stipulation in this sale was that we grant the Smiths' new house, which had no lakeshore, a walking and a view easement to the lake. Since we had no leverage in this matter, we accepted this easement as presented. As you can see from the attached map, the Smiths allowed for access to the lake in the same manner as they had done when they. lived in the old Badger house. That access was on the southwest corner of our property where there is a screen house built in the 1930's with a stone stairway to the lake and dock. This access allowed them to walk to the lake and down the rock stairway to the boat dock which we purchased from them when we bought the property. The Smiths have never had their own dock after 1976 and used ours when they needed it. The dock was configured as shown on the map, in the same way they had configured it in the past. This arrangement was fine with us since Smiths used their privileges only a few times a year. ;cle Now the Smith house is for/Land it becomes much more important for us to understand the implications of the easement with a new owner. With a screen house and low bank, it is not an option for us to use another part of the shoreline to avoid congestion. We realize that by having a dock accessible via the Smith easement, the property forhh much more value. We, on the other hand, have a real interest in protecting our one acre and lake access against what will eventually happen to the adjoining property. It should also be noted that we pay nearly $8,000 tax on one acre and the Smith property pays $3 on 2 acres. John 'and Kay A sip 27940 Smithtown Rd. Excelsior. Mn 55331 A A SERVICE OF EDINA REALTY, INC. r ' i•yl � �. R ..sl g a; .�� • lam ��A � r i��'.° �.. "JW1 x �r� jq '�• i • 7 1 A A SERVICE OF EDINA REALTY, INC. r FUNCTION? PFL PROT FULL LISTINGS LISTING NUMBER(S)? 19743 09/16/92 17:06:21 <<< L-$280,000 S- >>> BR : 3 TBA: 3 FBT: 2 TBT: 1 HBT: 0 STL: RAMBLE FIN: ^ INFORMATION DEEMED RELIABLE BUT NOT GUARANTEED 27944 SMITHTOWN RD MjjjjjjWjWtf /92/F MAP 4A-38 MUN SHOREWOOD ZIP 55331 44 LAKEFRONT AR 589 SUB 1 DIV 3 COU HENN ASB$0 ASP U MINNETONKA LOT IRREGULAR ACR 2 HS FOR 1993/ F YBL 1976-N DIR HWY 7 TO 19 TO SMITHTOWN TO 27944 #019743 WHAT A SETTING! OVER 2 ACRES OF LANDSCAPED LAWN SPRINKLED WITH TOWERING TREES HIDDEN FROM MOST OF THE WORLD. YOUR OWN PRIVATE POND WITH ISLAND OUT YOUR BACK DOOR & LAKE MTKA OUT THE FRONT. HOME IS IMMACULATE AND IN PERFECT CONDITION. .GL LENGTHY-SEE LISTER OTM 3111723340022 WAT WELL REF,RNG,DWS,WSO,F/H L APROX L APROX SEW CONNECT MPH,WSH,DRY,D/P,SVN M 26X14 1B M 18X13 FPL L,F AIRC TRM CON,CIN M DR M 16X11 2B M 21X12 HEA FA /OIL MTG 0 1' �R L 23X12 3B L 18X13 EXT HBM EXF CLR 0 0 ASM N BSM W F L PIN $ 0 2MC N 211A 11 .(T M 18X10 4B , , 0 0 M 16X14 GAR 200 AK L 22X11 BBT Y MBT Y SDN 276 SDP 470-3400 FSZ 1430 AGF 1650 BGF 1430 FSF 3080 AGN DAN & SANDY ANDERSON 933-2491 BE Y-3.15 SA 3.15 ER OFFICE EDINA REALTY, INC. L05324 PH 927-7701 APT 927-2800 ============ List No 019743 Sup# 1 Add 27944 SMITHTOWN ROAD THE LONG DRIVE LEADS PAST ESTATE-LIKE GROUNDS OF THE FEW HOMES SH OFF T- THE 'OWN OTHER ''��- ATTRACTS WILDLIFE AND THE �DlWHIC� CONTINUALLY | SERENE SETTING, ~ BE A TO SOME BUTJ� - HE 15^ LAKESHORE MAY ' t�` ,` , �'SS^'`~ �O{]THERS ES CIA - IF' ��XES AN ISSUE!� IT GIVES FUL ARE ' LAKE & VIEWS-WITHOUT ��c ur `n� ��.`� ��^ ^ .,~ [HFTW �ELLERS HAD THE HOME BUILT IN 1976, AND HAVE KEPT IT BRIGHT - IMMACULATE THE LIVING SPACES ARE WARM & COMFORTING ` [NCLUD IWG A S ^ SPACIOUS FAMILY ROOM & FIREPLACE ELEGANT LIVING '/OOM W�� ' - M�RB|= - �"PLC & ESPECIALLY COZY 3-SEASON PORCH, �LILT-�1'89- OVER THE FRONT POND & LAKE MTKA. ' �HE MS�� '' BEDROOM & LOWER BEDROOM ARE EQUIPPED WITH WALK-IN ^OSET� FULL ULL BATHROOMS. AND DON'T MISS THE EXTRA ATTIC ��ACE T HROUGH THE SECOND SEDROOM-GREAT FOR STORAGE,STUDIO P{A�ROO' � FOR THE HOBBYIST THE HEATED WORKSHOP WILL BE A ��AL !**OVERALL A GREAT HOME & BEAUTIFUL SETTING** �J 77 ._ 1 V , 0 q v- M ••J m 111 1 daR t 1 e ll 7yft ;y ,`•4"5 T frA , 1+ M � 't �� — j � N ,•� � 1 i V�� 'h'S •Z \ `` A ��r r t► .. aY i Q . yt � .y -4N o0 1• 1 t „� d ,mayy ♦' ' Y ! • `\. Q �°„� c �..a � f.iq�•t. ! . 'a' ' V •�• . p : i f ... p I ! f It ?' .e• " ,�, �• v.Fv_�i a te. ` � r IL e 5 � ;tS i; o : \ � 4 : L „ T• _v � ryaz3�.»:,s.+.»,'r• :""� t }' S i Ai Ij I f f t 'l ... 'C r ' •C •} , - . � � V w, v . �, `t, siJZ� W 0 p.i It u ! s r 'n' a tt i -T `' �t'o 1 3• d 4 d •YYk1 'kk ,P '7 ( 'f . �r':y _ �t �r 3 1' z � 0 .` �'L• , ii vp In r u y .i_ r� *x tipA 67 ik; !r t i y a _y.; •12 t t r + r . d h ; F`' ' •f •tMa �i` V ` � Q ra � .� r 3 a.Rv Z� r I I •gip .- t , t "tY It cu its � r[ f -1 , � � I w c+ -j , 'r. � o j. >�• ,� kq � m n .. - r v ° ! n �' j W �\ � j ♦ � 'TI "' ` f 55 t do o ST 7 0 6 d V1t � f•'<' �( * d 111 77 ._ 1 V , 0 q v- M ••J m 111 1 daR t 1 e ll 7yft ;y ,`•4"5 T frA , 1+ M � 't �� — j � N ,•� � 1 i V�� 'h'S •Z \ `` A ��r r t► .. aY i Q . yt � .y -4N o0 1• 1 t „� d ,mayy ♦' ' Y ! • `\. Q �°„� c �..a � f.iq�•t. ! . 'a' ' V •�• . p : i f ... p I ! f It ?' .e• " ,�, �• v.Fv_�i a te. ` � r IL e 5 � ;tS i; o : \ � 4 : L „ T• _v � ryaz3�.»:,s.+.»,'r• :""� t }' S i Ai Ij I f f t 'l ... 'C r ' •C •} , - . � � V w, v . �, `t, siJZ� W 0 p.i It u ! s r 'n' a tt i -T `' �t'o 1 3• d 4 d •YYk1 'kk ,P '7 ( 'f . �r':y _ �t �r 3 1' z � 0 .` �'L• , ii vp In r u y .i_ r� *x tipA 67 ik; !r t i y a _y.; •12 t t r + r . d h ; F`' ' •f •tMa �i` V ` � Q ra � .� r 3 a.Rv Z� r I I •gip .- t , t "tY It cu its � r[ f -1 , � � I w c+ -j , 'r. � o j. >�• ,� kq � m n .. - r v ° ! n �' j W �\ � j ♦ � 'TI "' ` f 55 t do o ST 7 0 6 Y L N • I -G `s a S t I ._- . - , ' Ll a e— P 6 Ito G k/� �--�- S t I ._- . - , ' Ll a e— WILLIAM R. RUMMLER 6532 NAVAHO TRAIL EDINA, MINNESOTA 55439 P14'. �t� - V I )* p vt - � pl� -4�f-7 e�ll- I/ 0-� 5-.e-�� / ��q -e75� Y .7 • MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis 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: 13 November 1992 RE: Reifenberger / Morford - Proposed Division and Combination FILE NO.: 405 (92.30) BACKGROUND In approximately 1989 the owners of 6130 and 6150 Church Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) purchased a tax- forfeited lot between their properties. The current owners, Mark Morford and Tom Reifenberger, now request approval to divide the 50 -foot lot in two and combine the halves of the lot with their respective homesites (see Exhibit B). The property is zoned R -1D, Single - Family Residential. In total the lots involved in this application contain 37,190 square feet of area. The division and combination will result in lot sizes of 18,550 square feet (6130) and 18,640 square feet (6150). ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION The division and combination are consistent with Shorewood's zoning requirements. In fact, it corrects a couple of nonconformities: 1) the shared lot by itself is unbuildable; and 2) the garage at 6130 will now comply with the side yard setback requirement. One problem which was revealed in the field inspection of the site is significant violation of on -site parking and outdoor storage requirements. Vehicles and recreational equipment are scattered on both properties. Section 1201.03 Subd. 5.f. prohibits parking within front yard areas, except for approved driveways. In rear yards cars must be parked in the buildable portion of the lot (i.e. must meet setbacks) and be screened from view if not parked in an approved driveway. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore (P F Re: Reifenberger / Morford Subdivision/Combination 13 November 1992 It is recommended that the division and combination be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. All vehicle and recreational equipment violations must be corrected prior to release of the resolution approving the division /combination, or within 30 days, which ever occurs first. 2. The applicants must provide a drainage and utility easement, 10 feet on each side of the new lot line. These easements must be signed by all parties having an interest in the property. 3. The applicants must provide an up -to -date (within 30 days) title opinion for the shared parcel. 4. i The metal shed which encroaches onto the property to the west must be relocated so as to be no closer than five feet from any side or rear lot line. 5. Since no new lots are being created, park dedication fees and sewer access charges are not required 6. The items listed above must be completed within 30 days. Upon completion and receipt of the Council resolution approving the division /combination the applicants must record the resolution with Hennepin County within 30 days. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Mark Morford Tom Reifenberger -2- :� • o �i ° r r �O I �. :.0 ►.LI.ON .. ' � � , , .MV ` o ^ yt $ o � n � o _ V1( ► III rn M u1 was onv ur 'v •� w• ►t 1 ;•� } . o . .. •�F• y f 69.1 SL : ".R R.-61163 S f rL • I to e 4V} Q I ? .0 t .l � .C. - '.1 w � Lt , FO ,(•• e . r rPt �v�.f - 7 a ^ A ► . ^ o ••8 � - 'M.._ w � R. ^ ;• )mm. r y • \• cr ; ' g , ^V so �w SC'901 x `16 T01 611 ' ^. „ - 971 $ o� • p t. 4p �uta u a EL 104 uTOI L•rol 1 -o 9 wv ¢ IT t'. i4 v 9► (Ilv_ •'J "_ + "j '�� .$ ��•'. •. . ` l _ I R N v !1 v �v g 1676.• IL•r07 .: E i., x 02• Sol 101 uS0{ aS01 I S01 Tt y ) : ► ► - Y1 . •. .�aa�M1'als n N t n— . w•ll-- — ► +4aailaY3� 6 --�^' cr • ,. , 1 , , 991 � t .. % ^•` 1 ►1 .0s1 V PC � •��• N S v v ' V A ac{ rr61 d ( 1 ' ' ogy ` ` n° �S.R oS�Cw �} � J ' .\ <� •! ! e9 - p It)/':i ' OS1 -� ' •- o Oil a —. LCt►t fL�t►C •Lp � d ° A 6i l�: � `�.^m.. Ir \ �n _ _ b ,1� fy 9o'C9L oc _ 4i ��. �, I ; oi! ing 1n V; t1� ?@ $ a $ o v �� !► 4o v 120 v r v v SO 79Z CI. 70'9Zt 10'921 ` v ( } d 4p L 61 721 z _� 9.9I.K.ON •1 ►► -� ...... j+ 021 - _•.._..... - ._..._ ►'099 .._..•' Z'912 Uej st'9s9 1 I OOL 1 N UR K 69 Issr, • j !6'99 �-, 1 . �^ O -- ------ - - - -- 19 , SSE A w'? _ N 1.7'99 ° ' _ - - v cpi -- - - - ---- _ �t� ?~ t � ' \ti!. ,•..f V � \i J W'1•E ►1 SSG ISSI e . A 1 ('' -V Q .` �^ -� \,'• - ' e �� i0. � f\+. w .. WISE V Vl � CIE 9L'B9 • 10 TI I 9L 11 R - � + ► X 9 0 � � 1 . , _ r _ -_. Exhibit A SITE LOCATION ' ^ Reifenberger /Morford - Division /Combination 'g 3At.OH •P QI! ,`1 ' p.)e +•p3 ryt s► v l'•.1 ___. TA PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR NO. 6130 CHURCH ROAD: (Area Is 18,550 Sq. Ft.) The North Half; of Lot 11 aAd all of Lot 12, MINNEWASHTA original Description for No. 6150 Church Road: Lots 9 and 10, MINNEWASHTA PROPOSED DESCRIPTION FOR NO. 6150 CHURCH ROAD: (Area is 18,640 Sq. Ft.) All of Lots 9 and 10 and the South Half of Lot 11, MINNEWASHTA ae hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land above described and )f the location of all buildings, if any, thereon and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Dated this 23rd day of September, 1992. CARLSON d CARLSON, INC. LAND SURVEYORS 11 ?� by �. 6� P arry R. outure, Land Surveyor / v �. Minnesota License No. 9018 • • :f p �ifilc fa / r � j =¢�� \ ke1 r J �1 I \ 1 q o ,Dower Pole 0 i "• c V 0 1 X11 o.9S -Ed,�� °f B�o6ajo Exhibit B PROPOSED DIVISION /COMBINATION 1 -,�_ - - MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 9 SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 0 16121 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 13 November 1992 RE: Shoutz, Douglas and Bonita Simple Subdivision FILE NO.: 405 (92.31) _ BACKGROUND The Shoutz's own the property located at 6130 Cathcart Drive (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). They propose to split the property into two, two -acre lots as shown on Exhibit B. The property measures 300' x 595', contains 174,320 square feet of area (four acres), and is zoned R -IA, Single - Family Residential. The use of the property is currently nonconforming due to a detached garage having been converted in the past to a second dwelling. The Zoning Code limits the number of dwellings on a lot to one. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION With the exception of the nonconforming use of the property, the subdivision request is quite simple. Despite having the area for possibly four lots, they propose only two, both of which greatly exceed the size requirements of the R -1A District. It is worth noting that any future redivision of the lots will require cooperation of at least two area landowners. Notice of the City's limitations on private roads and "back lot" development should be included in the resolution approving the division. It is recommended that the division be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicants must provide deeds for the 10 foot drainage and utility easements from all parties having an interest in the property. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 6 M r • • Re: Shoutz, Douglas and Bonita Simple Subdivision 13 November 1992 2. The applicants must pay one park dedication fee ($750) and one local sanitary sewer access charge ($1000) prior to release of the resolution. Credit is given for the lot with the house on it. 3. The previously converted garage must be converted back to an accessory building so that only one dwelling remains on the site. In the alternative, the building can be removed from the site entirely. If the applicants can not comply with this within 30 days, they should provide an estimate for correcting the nonconformity from which a 150 percent letter of credit will be determined. Correction must occur within six months. 4. An existing shed located on the proposed property line must be removed prior to release of the resolution. 5. An existing 17' x 51' storage building on Parcel A puts the property in excess of 1200 square feet of accessory space. Given the questionable condition of the structure, it is recommended that it be removed prior to release of the resolution approving the division. The same alternative for providing a guarantee of removal as stated in 3. above should be applied to this structure. 6. Since the above - referenced items may take time to correct, it is recommended that the applicant be given 60 days to record the division rather than 30. 7. The resolution approving the division should contain language expressing the City's policies on private roads and back lot development. This will put future owners on notice that further division of the large lots will require participation by other adjoining landowners. BJN: ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Douglas and Bonita Shoutz -2- o ►•'° ¢ i � 9 ►'001 _ (�)�_ •:J . L �. „ �S'••1 Y '�� vS ►�.'. 16'167 x Of 01 I [c s01 CF Sol 1 sal ��'z► — Vl Aaa38MVaLS :. � � —R— -” — — kaa�aa� -- — — � --I— _ ► , 991 WWI M ► i.._ S34 1 �cP $ ; ^ \ Ii'.' . f0' '9Z ^ n y aR ' IX n , 69 ' m N M � l i �j CS lf6 ... m v T `=,' �(YO • •� M" O OS 0;► AL V"(/ N of 09 � C In I os {moo $ 1., ^' OL �j•�. R `, ° a1R,.. N p., WIN M1101 WIVII wo CS I On SL 1 Y 1cI p N $ aim $ 2 120, v m c1 m �, „ = of r► 11 v 90'9ZI 10'98 rn 61 sZl w ' 3.97.K.01 ' R z� i ►► - -- 071 - -� -- — °Q 9c � - .� ......... .. .....I Z Wz I R - T — .•..O Q Q 1 1 - i t z z m.. ° o -, ^ _ '• 1 '`\ 69'59[ 6992 ° v :1.1i VIM { M y 991 - �1 \ _ - ..� -� «_N ILSSI .1� � o � - I .. if • u ►155f AJ ZsSZ �/� �j N I• 4 CIE m 1 S6 Kf Vl ' a_! SL • 6iy d . tip a L. ^ a.� ^v Z"L9z I �' 1 LL'K[ � •� •. 1 m I fo • IOYII 9L I► a ►'�' LLI I + --- -------2 - - - - -- - I TV '0 3.01.01 •f► I ' ' - ." R.•7p1. e] „ •••. i •:' -- ---- - - - --- --______ -_-- - - - --- — - - -- 9,. • .r� t i L ' 1 " 1 ►1 Z f52 1` " i a V1 —L13 scs� s9 t•r `*'W R.. I — - �^1 U 9A 60'1 ►Z TV M. .. OM _ .- ,;.: Exhibit A ► fi 11 95a7. � 69'M 1: �..... 5 SITE LOCATION �+ R R ..... m / 97 Shoutz - simple subdivision 9 5 i .• 1�7 ��l + T d 0AYG �•_.`� -- s� �f4svi�nuww ax ro�w•y 3oDBtLcs f N ca N� I: oc �' � o e I I I � o N i ...------- ......._.... LL o a z a _z I c D L11 Z w z (° I NI Y, g Z _Z o rise I$� M (yam : o. '' z �. o°c S w h a Q ow = � k I �' • N 1 I I �- I - saiygfysM,auwN cY.s 'swuoSZ6I 3,OF9p,T/y 9/•9y/ _ t —'— Exhibit B PROPOSED SUBDIVISION O � I f N ca N� I: oc �' � o e I I I � o N i ...------- ......._.... LL o a z a _z I c D L11 Z w z (° I NI Y, g Z _Z o rise I$� M (yam : o. '' z �. o°c S w h a Q ow = � k I �' • N 1 I I �- I - saiygfysM,auwN cY.s 'swuoSZ6I 3,OF9p,T/y 9/•9y/ _ t —'— Exhibit B PROPOSED SUBDIVISION A in Nevertheless there are several areas of the Code which will need to be amended. Three sections of the City Code are affected by the proposed changes: • Section 1201.02 - Definitions • Section 1201.03 Subd. 14. - Regulations Applicable to Shoreline Property • Section 1201.26 S, Shoreland District Proposed amendments are contained in the following pages. Changes have been highlighted as follows: z �41 MEMORANDUM MAYOR Barb Brancei COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOO 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 10 October 1992 RE: Revised Shoreland Management Regulations FILE NO.: 405 (Zoning Code) Shorewood is required to modify its shoreland management regulations to be consistent with State rules and the L.M.C.D. Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. For the most part Shorewood's current requirements are already more restrictive than those of the Department of Natural Resources. Consequently Shorewood's Code requires far less substantive changes than most communities. 1) additions are shown italicized; and 2) deletions are shown with stfikeettts. BJN:ph A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 6# J r SECTION 1201.02 BLUFF. A topographic feature suck as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the blu, f : a. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; b. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and 0 d. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. BLUFF IMPACT ZONE. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. COMMERCIAL USE. The principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental, or trade of products, goods, and services. INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. 0 NORMAL HIGH WATER MARK. This definition is replaced by Ordinary High Water Level. ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (O.H. W.L.). The boundary of public waters and wetlands which is described as an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel. SEWER SYSTEM. Piplines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. -2- SHORE IMPACT ZONE. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. STEEP SLOPE. Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. SUBDIVISION. Land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including planned unit developments. WETLAND. A surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), or as identified on the Shorewood Wetlands map (see Chapter 1102 of this Code). • -3- SECTION 1201.03 SUBD. 14. a. No structure of any kind except docks, stairways and lifts shall be built within the required setback from the ordinary high water xaf lE level of a meandered lake, as provided in Section 1201.26, Subdivision 5. of this Code. b. Docks and wharves, permanent or floating, shall not be built, used or occupied on land located within the R Districts until the a principal dwelling is has been constructed on said lot or parcel C. The number of docks and wharves per lot or parcel of land in the R Districts shall be limited to one, and the same shall be operated, used and maintained solely for the use of the members of the family or families occupying said property upon which the . dock is located; , the deek may be used in aeeer-danee with th authefity gFanted 4ifeugh feer- fifths (4i§) appfeval ef the Gity Getineil in these eases net su r r par-eel eens f i.a id g. Whefe applieabl All docks shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 76 and Ordinance No. 80 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (L.M.C.D.). • 1201.26 S, SHORELAND DISTRICT: Subd. 1. Shoreland Districts: The shorelands within the City of Shorewood are hereby designated as shoreland districts and the requirements set forth in this Ordinance shall govern development and other activities within these districts. The classification of the shoreland areas shall govern the use, alteration and development of these areas according to said classification as per M .S. see tiens 104 10 4n ..a Mi e t Re.. ens *'�4. Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105 and Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900. Subd. 2. District Application: The S District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this Ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the S District shall be in addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Subd. 3. Boundaries: The boundaries of the Shoreland District are established within the following distances from the nefm ordinary high water m level of the surface water depending eft the size ef the suffaee wat as indicated on the Shorewood Sher-elan Zoning Districts Map. Surface Water Distance (Feet)* Greater than 10 acres (Table 1) 1,000 Rivers and streams (draining an area greater than 2 square miles) 300 ** *The practical distance may be less whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser is distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water. * *The distance requirement shall be increased to the limit of the flood plain when the flood plain is greater than three hundred feet (300'). Subd. 4. Shoreland Classification: The surface waters affected by this Section and which require controlled development of their shoreland (shoreland district) are shown on the map designated as the official "Shere p '"Zoning Districts" map of the City of Shorewood which is properly approved and made a part of the this Ordinance and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Surface waters generally greater than ten (10) acres and given an identification number by the State of Minnesota are defined in Section 1201.02 of this Ordinance and listed in Table 1 of this Section. Other surface waters affected by this Ordinance, generally having less than ten (10) acres, are classified as wetlands and thus regulated under "the provisions of Shorewood Ordinance No. 70 (Chapter 1102 of the City Code). -5- TABLE 1 SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTION r1 LJ DNR Identifi- RD cation Number Name Classification 27 -133 Lake Minnetonka GD 27 -142 Lake William GD 27 -137 Christmas Lake RD 27 -144 Galpin Lake GD 27 -143 Linden Lake RD 10 -15 Virginia Lake RD 27 -145 Como Lake RD 27 -136 Silver Lake NE -- Purgatory Creek GD (Ord. 180, 5- 19 -86) 50 ft. Subd. 5. Minimum Lot and Setback Requirements: a. The following charge sets forth the minimum area setbacks and other requirements of each respective classification: (1) Min. lot size above nor- mal high water mark Abutting water Nonabutting (2) Lot width at lakeshore setback* (3) Setback from oenml ordinary high water mafk level* (4) Setback from public street Abutting Federal, State or County road Abutting town or public road (5) Max. impervious surface to area ratio NE RD GD Natural Recreational General Environment Development Development 40,000 sq. ft. I aere 20,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 125 ft. 75 88 ft. 75 90 ft. 150 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 3&% 25 % 3&;;. 25% 30425% (6) Max. building height (feet) 35 ft.** 35 ft.** 35 ft. ** (7) Side yard setback (riparian lots) 30 ft. total/ 30 ft. total/ 30 ft. total/ 10 ft. min. * ** 10 ft. min. * ** 10 ft. min. * ** (8) Setback of road, parking or impervious surface areas from nemm4 ordinary high water mar level * * ** 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. (9) Structure height (lowest floor) above ordinary high water eleyeAiea level * * * ** 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. *Setback requirements from the nefin ordinary high water fnaflE level shall not apply to stairs, lifts, piers and docks. Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site, building setbacks may be altered to more closely conform to adjacent building setbacks. * *Building heights may be increased as provided in Section 1201.03 Subd. 4. c. of this Chapter. ** *Subject to regulations and exceptions as provided in Sections 1201.10 through 1201.23 of this Ordinance. * ** *Where feasible and practical, all roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structures in (3) above. Natural vegetation or other natural materials shall be required in order to screen parking areas when viewed from the water. Parking areas of more than four (4) spaces shall be screened in accordance with a landscaping plan submitted and approved by the City Council. *****Does not include stairs, lifts, piers and docks. (Ord. 189, 11- 24 -86) b. Subdstandard Lot: Any lot of record filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds on or before the effective date of this Ordinance, which does not meet the area requirements of this Ordinance may be allowed as a building site subject to approval of a shoreland impact plan and provided: (1) The lot meets all standards of the applicable zoning use district. (2) The lot is in separate ownership from abutting lands. (3) Except for lot area, all other sanitary and dimensional requirements of the Shoreland District are complied with insofar as practical (70% width and area requirements). -7- c. Placement of Structures: Placement of structures shall comply with the provisions of Shorewood Ordinance No. 109 (Chapter 1101 - Flood Control Regulations of the City Code). d. Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, lifts, and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. Subd. 6. Development Regulations: a. Landowners or developers desiring to develop land or construct any dwelling or any other artificial obstruction on land located within any Shoreland District within the City of Shorewood shall first submit a conditional use permit application as regulated by Section 1201.04 of this Ordinance and a plan of development hereinafter referred to as " Shoreland Impact Plan", which shall set forth proposed provisions for sediment control, water management, maintenance of landscaped features, and any additional matters intended to improve or maintain the quality of the environment. Such a plan shall set forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any, change will be made in the natural condition of the earth, including loss or change of earth ground cover, destruction of trees, grade courses and marshes. The plan shall minimize tree removal, ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible, and shall affirmatively provide for the relocation or replanting of as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. The purpose of the shoreland impact plan shall be to eliminate as much as possible potential pollution, erosion and siltation. (1) Exceptions: (a) No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted accessory uses contained within the R -lA, R -1B, R -1C, R- 2A, R -2B, or R -2C Districts. (b) No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted uses contained within the R -lA, R -1B, R -1C, R -2A, R -2B, or R -2C Districts, provided that such uses are constructed on standard lots when abutting a shoreline and that all such uses are serviced with public sanitary sewer. (c) The provisions otherwise set forth in this Ordinance and in other applicable local ordinances shall apply to all plats except Planned Unit Development. (2) Subdivision: No land shall be subdivided which is determined by the City or the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to be unsuitable by reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the community. b. Sewage and Waste Disposal: Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with public sanitary sewer disposal. c. Water Supply: Any private supply of water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department of Health Standards for water quality. Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be floodproofed in accordance with City standards. d. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings: Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. r (2) Landings for stairways and lifts must not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (S) Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf -on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of items (1) to (S) above are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. Subd. 7. Shoreland Alteration: a. The removal of natural vegetation shall be restricted to prevent erosion into public waters, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. (1) Clearcutting is prohibited within required setback areas and except as necessary for placing public roads, utilities, structures, and parking areas. (2) Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project. (3) Selective cutting of trees and underbrush is allowed as long as sufficient cover is left to make cars and structures visually inconspicuous when viewed from the water. b. Grading and Filling: (1) Grading and filling within Shoreland Districts, or any alteration of the natural topography where the slope of land is toward a public water or watercourse leading to a public water must be approved by the Building Official and a permit obtained prior to the commencement of any work thereon. The permit may be granted subject to the conditions that: (a) No more than one -third (1/3) of the surface area of a lot shall be devoid of vegetative ground cover at any time. (b) Temporary ground cover such as mulch shall be used and permanent cover such as sod shall be planted as soon as possible. (c) Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment shall be employed in accordance with the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 1202 of the Code). (d) Fill shall not be placed in areas lower in elevation than the normal high water mark. (e) Fill shall be stabilized according to accepted engineering standards. (f) Fill shall not restrict a floodway or destroy the storage capacity of a flood plain. (g) The maximum slope of the finished surface which slopes toward a water body or a watercourse leading to such water body shall be 4X three units horizontal to one • vertical (g 3:1) . (h) No grading or filling shall be permitted within shore and bluff impact zones. twenty feet (20 ef the ner-mal high water fnark ef a wa+er- bedy. (i) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes greater than three units horizontal to one vertical (3:1). (j) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten (10) feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three (3) feet. -10- (2) Any work which will change or diminish the course, current, or cross section of a public water must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources as per Minnesota Statutes, section 105.44 before the work is begun. This includes construction of channels and ditches, lagooning, dredging of lake bottom for the removal of muck, silt or weeds, and filling the lake bed, including low lying marsh areas. Approval shall be construed to mean the issuance by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of a permit under the procedures of Minnesota Statutes, section 42 and other related statutes. (3) Excavation on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall require a permit from the Building Official prior to commencement of construction. Such permit shall be obtained only after the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources has approved the proposed connection to public waters. Approval will be given only if the proposed work is consistent with applicable State regulations for work in beds of public waters. e c. Steep Slopes. The Zoning Administrator must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf -on vegetation. Subd. 8. Stormwater Management: The following general and specific standards shall apply: a. General Standards: (1) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before . discharge to public waters. (2) Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3) When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff`' using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man -made materials and facilities. - 11 - b. Specific Standards: (I) Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area. (2) When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided by a registered engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. (3) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. Subd. 9 9. Planned Unit Development: The Planned Unit Development provisions contained in Section 1201.06 of this Ordinance may be utilized within a Shoreland District, when consistent with the provisions of this Section and provided that the following requirements are satisfactorily met: a. Preliminary plans shall be Wfeved by referred to the Department of Natural Resources for review. b. Sufficient open space is preserved through the use of restrictive deed covenants, public dedications, etc. c. The following factors are carefully evaluated to insure that any increased density of development is consistent with the resource limitations of the public water: (1) Suitability of the site for the proposed use. • (2) Physical and aesthetic impact of any increased density. (3) Level of current development. (4) Amount and ownership of undeveloped shoreland. (5) Levels and types of water surface use and public access. (6) Possible effects on overall public use. d. Any commercial, recreational, community, or religious facility allowed as part of the planned unit development conforms to all applicable Federal and State regulations including, but not limited to the following: (1) Licensing provisions or procedures. -12- (2) Waste disposal regulations. (3) Water supply regulations. (4) Building codes. (5) Safety regulations. (6) Regulations concerning the appropriate use of public waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105, as may be amended. () Applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. (8) Storm sewer. e. The final P.U.D. plan shall not be modified or altered in any way without written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. f. P.U.D.'s incorporating shoreline recreational facilities such as beaches, docks, or boat launching facilities, etc. shall be designed such that said facilities are centralized for common utilization. Subd. 9 10. Variance: Variances may be granted by the City Council upon application as required in Section 1201.05 of this Ordinance in extraordinary cases, but only when the proposed use is determined to be in the public interest and no variance shall be granted which the Council determines will or has a tendency to: a. Result in the placement of an artificial obstruction which will restrict the passage of storm and flood water in such a manner as to increase the height of flooding, except i obstructions approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with sound flood plain management. b. Result in compatible land uses or which would be detrimental to the protection of surface and ground water supplies. c. Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the City of Shorewood or which will increase or cause danger to life or property. d. Be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land use compatible with the preservation of the natural land forms, vegetation and the marshes and wetlands within the City of Shorewood. - 13 - A No permit or variance shall be issued unless the applicant has submitted a Shoreland Impact Plan as required and set forth in this Ordinance. In granting any variance, the Council may attach such conditions as they deem necessary to insure compliance with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. Subd. 40 11. DNR Notification Procedure: a. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under this Section shall be received by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings. b. A copy of amendments and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under this Section shall be received by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of final action or amendment. Subd. 44 12. Effect of Permit: The granting of any permit, variance or subdivision approval under provisions of this Section shall in no way affect the owner's capability to obtain the approval required by any other statute, ordinance or legislation of any State agency or subdivision thereof. Approval may be expressly given in conjunction with other permits applied for, but no approval shall be implied from the grant of such permits nor from the necessity to apply for a permit as described herein. (Ord. 180, 5- 19 -86) • -14- To 41 ORDINANCE NO. 0 XO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1.201 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: Section 1: Section 1201.02 of the Shorewood City Code is amended to add: Subd. 2. "BLUFF. A topographic feature such as a hill, cliff, or embankment having the following characteristics (an area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance for 50 • feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): a. Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; b. The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the waterbody; C. The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and d. The slope must drain toward the waterbody. BLUFF IMPACT ZONE. A bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff. " Subd. 3. • "COMMERCIAL USE. The principal use of land or buildings for the sale, lease, rental, or trade of products, goods, and services." Subd. 9. "INTENSIVE VEGETATION CLEARING. The complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block." Subd. 15. "ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (O.H.W.L.). The boundary of public waters and wetlands which is described as an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the elevation of the top of the bank of the channel." Or Subd. 19. "SEWER SYSTEM. Piplines or conduits, pumping stations, and force main, and all other construction, devices, appliances, or appurtenances used for conducting sewage or industrial waste or other wastes to a point of ultimate disposal. SHORE IMPACT ZONE. Land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. STEEP SLOPE. Land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. SUBDIVISION. Land that is divided for the purpose of sale, rent, or lease, including • planned unit developments. Subd. 23. "WETLAND. A surface water feature classified as a wetland in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Circular No. 39 (1971 edition), or as identified on the Shorewood Wetlands map (see Chapter 1102 of this Code)." Section 2: Section 1201.02 Subd. 14. is amended to delete the definition "Normal High Water Mark". Section 3: Section 1201.03 Subd. 14.a., b., c. and g. are amended to read: "a. No structure of any kind except docks, stairways and lifts shall be built within the required setback from the ordinary high water level of a meandered lake, as provided in Section 1201.26, Subdivision 5. of the Code. b. Docks and wharves, permanent or floating, shall not be built, used or occupied on land located within the R Districts until a principal dwelling has been constructed on said lot or parcel C. The number of docks and wharves per lot or parcel of land in the R Districts shall be limited to one, and the same shall be operated, used and maintained solely for the use of the members of the family or families occupying said property upon which the dock is located. g. All docks shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 76 and Ordinance No. 80 of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (L.M.C.D.)." Section 4: Section 1201.26 of the City Code is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "1201.26 S, SHORELAND DISTRICT: Subd. 1. Shoreland Districts: The shorelands within the City of Shorewood are hereby designated as shoreland districts and the requirements set forth in this Ordinance shall govern development and other activities within these districts. The classification of the shoreland areas shall govern the use, alteration and development of these areas according to said classification as per Minnesota Statutes, Chapter .105 and Minnesota Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900. Subd. 2. District Application: The S District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all zoning districts as contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this Ordinance. The regulations and requirements imposed by the S District shall be in • addition to those established for districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. Subd. 3. Boundaries: The boundaries of the Shoreland District are established within the following distances from the ordinary high water level of the surface water on the size of the surface water as indicated on the Shorewood Zoning Districts Map. Surface Water Distance (Feet)* Greater than 10 acres (Table 1) 1,000 Rivers and streams (draining an area greater than 2 square miles) 300 ** *The practical distance may be less whenever the waters involved are bounded by topographical divides which extend landward from the waters for lesser • distances and prevent flowage toward the surface water. * *The distance requirement shall be increased to the limit of the flood plain when the flood plain is greater than three hundred feet (300'). Subd. 4. Shoreland Classification: The surface waters affected by this Section and which require controlled development of their shoreland (shoreland district) are shown on the map designated as the official "Zoning Districts" map of the City of Shorewood which is properly approved and made a part of this Ordinance and filed with the Zoning Administrator. Surface waters generally greater than ten (10) acres and given an identification number by the State of Minnesota are defined in Section 1201.02 of this Ordinance and listed in Table 1 of this Section. Other surface waters affected by this Ordinance, generally having less than ten (10) acres, are classified as wetlands and thus regulated under the provisions of Shorewood Ordinance No. 70 (Chapter 1102 of the City Code). TABLE 1 SURFACE WATER DISTRIBUTION DNR Identifi- cation Number Name Classification 27 -133 Lake Minnetonka GD 27 -142 Lake William GD 27 -137 Christmas Lake RD 27 -144 Galpin Lake GD 27 -143 Linden Lake RD 10 -15 Virginia Lake RD 27 -145 Como Lake RD 27 -136 Silver Lake NE -- Purgatory Creek GD (Ord. 180, 5- 19 -86) Subd. 5. Minimum Lot and Setback Requirements: a. The following chart sets forth the minimum area setbacks and other requirements of each respective classification: NE RD GD Natural Recreational General Environment Development Development (1) Min. lot size above nor- mal high water mark Abutting water 40,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. Nonabutting 20,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. (2) Lot width at lakeshore setback* 125 ft. 75 ft. 75 ft. (3) Setback from ordinary high water level* 150 ft. 75 ft. 50 ft. (4) Setback from public street Abutting Federal, State or County road 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. Abutting town or public road 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. (5) Max. impervious surface to area ratio 25% 25% 25% • • (6) Max. building height 35 ft.** 35 ft.** 35 ft.** (7) Side yard setback (lots abutting water) 30 ft. total/ 30 ft. total/ 30 ft. total/ 10 ft. min.*** 10 ft. min.*** 10 ft. min.*** (8) Setback of road, parking or impervious surface areas from ordinary high water level * * ** 50 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. (9) Structure height (lowest floor) above ordinary high water level * * * ** 3 ft. 3 ft. 3 ft. *Setback requirements from the ordinary high water level shall not apply to stairs, lifts, • piers and docks. Where development exists on both sides of a proposed building site, building setbacks may be altered to more closely conform to adjacent building setbacks. * *Building heights may be increased as provided in Section 1201.03 Subd. 4.c. of this Chapter. ** *Subject to regulations and exceptions as provided in Sections 1201.10 through 1201.23 of this Ordinance. * ** *Where feasible and practical, all roads and parking areas shall meet the setback requirements established for structures in (3) above. Natural vegetation or other natural materials shall be required in order to screen parking areas when viewed from the water. Parking areas of more than four (4) spaces shall be screened in accordance with a landscaping plan submitted and approved by the City Council. • * * ** *Does not include stairs, lifts, piers and docks. (Ord. 189, 11- 24 -86) b. Subdstandard Lot: Any lot of record filed in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Deeds on or before the effective date of this Ordinance, which does not meet the area requirements of this Ordinance may be allowed as a building site subject to approval of a shoreland impact plan and provided: (1) The lot meets all standards of the applicable zoning use district. (2) The lot is in separate ownership from abutting lands. (3) Except for lot area, all other sanitary and dimensional requirements of the Shoreland District are complied with insofar as practical (70% width and area requirements). c. Placement of Structures: Placement of structures shall comply with the provisions of Shorewood Ordinance No. 109 (Chapter 1101 - Flood Control Regulations of the City Code). d. Bluff Impact Zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, lifts, and landings, must not be placed within bluff impact zones. Subd. 6. Development Regulations: a. Landowners or developers desiring to develop land or construct any dwelling or any other artificial obstruction on land located within any Shoreland District within the City of Shorewood shall first submit a conditional use permit application as regulated by Section 1201.04 of this Ordinance and a plan of development hereinafter referred to as " Shoreland Impact Plan", which shall set forth proposed provisions for sediment control, water management, maintenance of landscaped features, and any additional matters intended to improve or maintain the quality of the environment. Such a plan shall set • forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any, change will be made in the natural condition of the earth, including loss or change of earth ground cover, destruction of trees, grade courses and marshes. The plan shall minimize tree removal, ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible, and shall affirmatively provide for the relocation or replanting of as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. The purpose of the shoreland impact plan shall be to eliminate as much as possible potential pollution, erosion and siltation. (1) Exceptions: (a) No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted accessory uses contained within the R -lA, R -1B, R -1C, R- 2A, R -2B, or R -2C Districts. i (b) No conditional use permit or shoreland impact plan shall be required for the development of permitted uses contained within the R- 1A, R- 1B, R -1C, R -2A, R -2B, or R -2C Districts, provided that such uses are constructed on standard lots when abutting a shoreline and that all such uses are serviced with public sanitary sewer. (c) The provisions otherwise set forth in this Ordinance and in other applicable local ordinances shall apply to all plats except Planned Unit Development. (2) Subdivision: No land shall be subdivided which is determined by the City or the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources to be unsuitable by reason of flooding, inadequate drainage, soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or the community. b. Sewage and Waste Disposal: Any premises used for human occupancy shall be provided with public sanitary sewer disposal. c. Water Supply: Any private supply of water for domestic purposes shall conform to Minnesota Department of Health Standards for water quality. Private wells shall be placed in areas not subject to flooding and up slope from any source of contamination. Wells already existing in areas subject to flooding shall be floodproofed in accordance with City standards. d. Stairways, Lifts, and Landings: Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways and lifts must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts must not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts, and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings, or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts, and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water assuming summer, leaf - on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities such as ramps, lifts, or mobility paths for physically handicapped persons are also allowed for achieving access to shore areas, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of items (1) to (5) above are complied with in addition to the requirements of Minnesota Regulations, Chapter 1340. Subd. 7. Shoreland Alteration: a. The removal of natural vegetation shall be restricted to prevent erosion into public waters, to consume nutrients in the soil, and to preserve shoreland aesthetics. (1) Clearcutting is prohibited within required setback areas and except as necessary for placing public roads, utilities, structures, and parking areas. (2) Natural vegetation shall be restored insofar as feasible after any construction project. (3) Selective cutting of trees and underbrush is allowed as long as sufficient cover is left to make cars and structures visually inconspicuous when viewed from the water. b. Grading and Filling: (1) Grading and filling within Shoreland Districts, or any alteration of the natural topography where the slope of land is toward a public water or watercourse leading to a public water must be approved by the Building Official and a permit obtained prior to the commencement of any work thereon. The permit may be granted subject to the conditions that: (a) No more than one -third (1/3) of the surface area of a lot shall be devoid of vegetative ground cover at any time. (b) Temporary ground cover such as mulch shall be used and permanent cover such as sod shall be planted as soon as possible. 0 (c) Methods to prevent erosion and trap sediment shall be employed in accordance with the Shorewood Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 1202 of the Code). (d) Fill shall not be placed in areas lower in elevation than the normal high water mark. (e) Fill shall be stabilized according to accepted engineering standards. (f) Fill shall not restrict a floodway or destroy the storage capacity of a flood plain. (g) The maximum slope of the finished surface which slopes toward a water body or a watercourse leading to such water body shall be three units horizontal to one vertical (3:1). 0 (h) No grading or filling shall be permitted within shore and bluff impact zones. (i) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes greater than three units horizontal to one vertical (3:1). 0) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three (3) feet horizontal to one (1) foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten (10) feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three (3) feet. (2) Any work which will change or diminish the course, current, or cross section of a public water must be approved by the Department of Natural Resources as per Minnesota Statutes, section 105.44 before the work is begun. This includes construction of channels and ditches, lagooning, dredging of lake bottom for the removal of muck, silt or weeds, and filling the lake bed, including low lying marsh areas. Approval shall be construed to mean the issuance by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources of a permit under the procedures of Minnesota Statutes, section 42 and other related statutes. (3) Excavation on shorelands where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall require a permit from the Building Official prior to commencement of construction. Such permit shall be obtained only after the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources has approved the proposed connection to public waters. Approval will be given only if the proposed work is consistent with applicable State regulations for work in beds of public waters. c. Steep Slopes. The Zoning Administrator must evaluate possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before issuing a permit for construction of roads, driveways, structures, or other improvements on steep slopes. When determined necessary, conditions must be attached to issued permits to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures, vehicles, and other facilities as viewed from the surface of public waters, assuming summer, leaf -on vegetation. Subd. 8. Stormwater Management: The following general and specific standards shall apply: a. General Standards: (1) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. (2) Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. (3) When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and man-made materials and facilities. b. Specific Standards: (1) Impervious surface coverage of lots must not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area. (2) When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation must be provided by a registered engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota that they are designed and installed consistent with the field office technical guide of the local soil and water conservation districts. (3) New constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters must provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and sldmming of surface debris before discharge. Subd. 9. Planned Unit Development: The Planned Unit Development provisions contained in Section 1201.06 of this Ordinance may be utilized within a Shoreland District, when consistent with the provisions of this Section and provided that the following requirements are satisfactorily met: 0 a. Preliminary plans shall be referred to the Department of Natural Resources City approval for review. b. Sufficient open space is preserved through the use of restrictive deed covenants, public dedications, etc. c. The following factors are carefully evaluated to insure that any increased density of development is consistent with the resource limitations of the public water: (1) Suitability of the site for the proposed use. (2) Physical and aesthetic impact of any increased density. (3) Level of current development. (4) Amount and ownership of undeveloped shoreland. (5) Levels and types of water surface use and public access. (6) Possible effects on overall public use. d. Any commercial, recreational, community, or religious facility allowed as part of the planned unit development conforms to all applicable Federal and State regulations including, but not limited to the following: • (1) Licensing provisions or procedures. (2) Waste disposal regulations. (3) Water supply regulations. (4) Building codes. (5) Safety regulations. (6) Regulations concerning the appropriate use of public waters as defined in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 105, as may be amended. (7) Applicable regulations of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. (8) Storm sewer. e. The final P.U.D. plan shall not be modified or altered in any way without written approval from the Department of Natural Resources. L P.U.D.'s incorporating shoreline recreational facilities such as beaches, docks, or boat launching facilities, etc. shall be designed such that said facilities are centralized for common utilization. Subd. 10. Variance: Variances may be granted by the City Council upon application as required in Section 1201.05 of this Ordinance in extraordinary cases, but only when the proposed use is determined to be in the public interest and no variance shall be granted which the Council determines will or has a tendency to: a. Result in the placement of an artificial obstruction which will restrict the passage of storm and flood water in such a manner as to increase the height of flooding, except obstructions approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in conjunction with sound flood plain management. b. Result in compatible land uses or which would be detrimental to the protection of surface and ground water supplies. c. Be not in keeping with land use plans and planning objectives for the City of Shorewood or which will increase or cause danger to life or property. d. Be inconsistent with the objectives of encouraging land use compatible with the preservation of the natural land forms, vegetation and the marshes and wetlands within the City of Shorewood. No permit or variance shall be issued unless the applicant has submitted a Shoreland Impact Plan as required and set forth in this Ordinance. In granting any variance, the Council may attach such conditions as they deem necessary to insure compliance with the purpose and intent of this Ordinance. Subd. 11. DNR Notification Procedure: a. Copies of all notices of any public hearings to consider variances, amendments, or conditional uses under this Section shall be received by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources at least ten (10) days prior to such hearings. b. A copy of amendments and final decisions granting variances or conditional uses under this Section shall be received by the Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of final action or amendment. Subd. 12. Effect of Permit: The granting of any permit, variance or subdivision approval under provisions of this Section shall in no way affect the owner's capability to obtain the approval required by any other statute, ordinance or legislation of any State agency or subdivision thereof. Approval may be expressly given in conjunction with other permits applied for, but no approval shall be implied from the grant of such permits nor from the necessity to apply for a permit as described herein. (Ord. 180, 5- 19 -86)" Section 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COIJNCII.OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, this day of , 199_. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator /Clerk November 30, 1992 TO: Mayor and City Council VIA: Jim Jones, Minnetonka Community Education & Services Director FROM: Michele Benyo School/Community Relations Coordinator RE: Expanding Initiative: Minnetonka School - Community Partnership Team RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Shorewood hear a report about BE Partners, the Minnetonka School/Community Partnership Team, from Cornell Anderson, of Park Nicollet, and John Anderson, Minnetonka High School • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Nationwide interest in business - education partnerships as exciting opportunities for both schools and businesses is catching on in the Minnetonka Schools. The Minnetonka Business - Education Partnership Team is not new, but it is Mnewed, revitalized by an enthusiastic group of local business people and district staff people who began meeting last year. The mission of the Minnetonka Business - Education Partnership Team, BE Partners, is to bring businesses, students and educators together in mutually beneficial partnerships designed to provide meaningful learning experiences, to enhance effectiveness in the workplace and classroom, and to strengthen community relationships. Over the summer the team prepared the attached 1992 -93 Action Plan which they have begun to implement. Minnetonka School - Commmunity Partnership Team Steering Committee Members Community Members Cornell Anderson, Park Nicollet John Babbs, Hallowell Associates, Inc. Darleen Ellingson, Instant Web, Inc. Dick Hawley, Consultant Don Kelly, Simple Systems, Inc. Jim Moravek, HGA, Inc. Paul Tesarek, First Minnetonka City Bank Teachers John Anderson, MHS Ann Camp, MJHS Diane Jost, MIS Jaki Ladniak, MIS Karen Lindquist, Clear Springs Dani McHugh, Scenic Heights Pam Orr, Excelsior John Peterson, MHS Stew Peterson, Minnewashta Peggy Sponagle, Deephaven Administration Michele Benyo, School/Community Relations Coordinator Jim Jones, Minnetonka Community Education and Services Lois Norby, Volunteer Coordinator u Welcome to BE Partners! If you have ideas for ways businesses and schools can work together, BE Partners would like to hear them. If you would like to participate in a business - education partnership, BE Partners can help you find a partner. If you don't know much about business - education partnerships and want to know more, BE Partners invites you to join us! The business people and educators making up the Minnetonka BE Partners Team have joined together to help public education and the business community better understand one another's needs and resources and to provide mutual support. BE Partners strives to bring businesses, students and educators together in mutually beneficial partnerships designed to provide meaningful learning experiences, enhance effectiveness in the workplace and classroom, and strengthen community relationships. A business - education partnership, BEP, is a cooperative relationship between one or more business or community organization and one or more school, student or school employee. A partnership meets an identified need, using the resources of both partners for their mutual benefit. Community partners may offer expertise, internships, incentives programs, mentors, tutors and instructional enrichment. School partners may offer expertise, training, facilities and equipment, recognition and special opportunities for employees. A partnership may be completed in one meeting, but most partnerships last longer, some of them continuing for years. ♦ Enhance visibility of the local BE Partners Team and educate businesses and school district staff about business education partnerships. Activities will include: • A community awareness event in the fall • Involvement in the MHS Career Center and in Career Day in November • Involvement with science fairs and technology events as advisors and /or event judges • Promote participation in one- to-one partnerships: mentorships (student /business person partnerships) and counterparts (school employee /business person partner- ships). • Continue to promote involvement of business people as resource speakers in classrooms. One-to -one One - to-one partnerships — mentorships and counterparts —form personal connections between businesses and schools. They offer individualized opportunities to meet both partners' unique needs. Through a mentorship, a business person partners with an individual student to work on a school project or to serve as a positive role model. Partners are matched based upon mutual interests and needs. Counterparts allow a business person and school employee to share expertise by working on a project or by developing a professional relation- ship. A business person may partner with any school employee. In the classroom Business people who share their expertise with students in the classroom contribute insights and perspectives that often go beyond those of the regular classroom teacher. Last year more than 300 resource speakers volunteered in our schools. In the community Whether it's co- sponsoring a Health Fair with students, working with students on service projects, hosting a student interested in a particular career, contributing labor to the district Rake -a -thon, sponsoring bike safety programs, or displaying student artwork in a place of business, business- education partnerships contribute to the community in countless ways. Benefits to businesses • Job enrichment experiences that can boost employee morale, ovalty and productivity. • An enhanced public image and recognition for contributions to the community. • An opportunity to identify and attract qualified part -tune, summer and permanent employees. • An ovportunity to help our schools produce a Benefits to schools • Expertise which may help provide a more com- plete education for students or skills for staff. • Increased awareness of business community resources and concerns. • Better preparation of students for the world of work through contact with the business community. r— -------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ------------------ Yes, i wa nt to BE Partners L I may be interested, but I need more information. Please call me. Please check your area of interest below: Career education Resource speaker (List topic.) Mentorship (student/business person) Work on awareness event Counterpart (staff member /business person) Other (Please specify.) Name Title Company /School Phone Address ZiP i Return this form to the Office of Volunteer services, 261 School Avenue, Excelsior, MN 55331. L------------------------------------------------ - - - - -J BEPs benefit our community and schools, as well as the individuals involved, filling special needs for business people, educators and students. Minnetonka partners have been involved in Resource speaking "It is a learning experience, a chance for me as a business person to 'walk in the classroom teacher's shoes' for a day. " Mary Prechel, Methodist Hospital Mentorships "The student saw that someone outside of the home and school cared about his education. As a mentor l was put in touch with the issues and values that are most important to today's teenagers. " Dave Steiner, Anderson Consulting Counterparts "It was a real active experience for me. I can go into my classroom now and give my students a hands -on perspective and show them how their education is relevant. " Rebeccah Bertucelli, Sth grade teacher Minnetonka Intermediate School Special projects . "The technological advantage that business partners such as Holiday, Inc. have given my students is incredible. The problem- solving skills of my students are enhanced by the realistic, updated information they have received from professionals in the field. " . Juris Terauds, technology education teacher Minnetonka High School 90tIE slooyos >?�uolauulw `oAuae elayollN Jo 9198-£Lir oul `salEloossV IlannollEH `sgqv1q uyop :Jo01u00 'slooyos 04u01aWN a ut sd/ysiaupod ugyDonpa- ssagisnq Inogo Ug110WJ0Jg1 GJOW Jo.4 ,fgioN 5 l 0 '1 sauo f Lin alSeuods ASSad neg - 'oAuag alagDiW uossaJad orals u uossa ;ad uqo j u0 uied Xaiesa.I. Ined g2nl -pW lima )laneiolnl Lin 1smbpurl uas" AIla>I uo(1 ) ielupe'I Piet AalmeH ANN Iso f aueta uos uaalse(I du-D uuy sleq: ugol uossapuy ugol uosiapuy IlauioD sJa400e1 sjegweyy �41unuiuuo:D Counterparts "It was a real active experience for me. I can go into my classroom now and give my students a hands -on perspective and show them how their education is relevant. " Rebeccah Bertucelli, Sth grade teacher Minnetonka Intermediate School Special projects . "The technological advantage that business partners such as Holiday, Inc. have given my students is incredible. The problem- solving skills of my students are enhanced by the realistic, updated information they have received from professionals in the field. " . Juris Terauds, technology education teacher Minnetonka High School 90tIE slooyos >?�uolauulw `oAuae elayollN Jo 9198-£Lir oul `salEloossV IlannollEH `sgqv1q uyop :Jo01u00 'slooyos 04u01aWN a ut sd/ysiaupod ugyDonpa- ssagisnq Inogo Ug110WJ0Jg1 GJOW Jo.4 City of Excelsior November 2, 1992 I. Introduction On October 4, 1991, the City of Shorewood requested a proposal from the City of Excelsior to maintain the Shorewood Water and • Sewer Systems. The City of Excelsior was not able to respond in 1991 but do so now for 1993. This proposal meets all the minimum requirements specified in the RFP. It also goes beyond those minimum requirements to provide a higher level of service than requested. We find it necessary to do this in order to retain the quality of service we expect to provide in Excelsior and ease the administrative and supervisory burden which would exist with maintaining two systems to two different standards. We will note where these different standards are in the pages that follow so you can determine where the cost differences are and try to compare proposals. It is our understanding the City of Shorewood's Water and Sewer Systems contain the following: 1. 15 sanitary sewer pumping lift stations; 2. Approximately 50 miles of sanitary sewer collection systems; 3. 5 vertical turbine and 2 submersible pump water wells in five separate service areas 4. One 400,000 gallon water elevated tower and four hydro - pneumatic systems to maintain pressure in the four service areas without elevated tower; 5. 1,000 g.p.m. capacity iron removal water treatment plant; 6. Approximately 171 fire hydrants in a water main distribution system of unknown mileage; 7. Approximately 738 water meters assumed to be at outside locations. Proposal to Maintain the Water & Sewer Systems of the City of Shorewood November 2, 1992 Page 2 II. Terms of Agreement Acceptance of this Proposal would necessitate entering an Agreement for Services. We propose a minimum three (3) year Agreement. The second year of an agreement can be a better indicator than the first year, of the full services desired and provided. The third year is then the opportunity to provide the services exactly as everyone agrees and to charge the realistic and accurate fee. This Proposal only includes a fee for the first year. • We propose that either party could cancel the agreement with six (6) months written notice to the other party. Shorewood would assure Excelsior the payment of any "carry over" costs incurred in the termination. The major "carry over" cost could be unemployment compensation for terminated employees. Other costs could be involved with disposing of unneeded capital items. III. Service Provisions The City of Excelsior will provide the following: 1. Minnesota State Certified water and wastewater operators. Water Supply - Class C & B Certificate. Wastewater Class - S -C and S -B Certificate. 2. Routine and general maintenance for the water systems and sanitary sewer collection systems including emergency call outs, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with holidays on -call. 3. Additional technical assistance for major repair work including electrical control service, excavation work, well pump removal, motor repair, major piping changes or repairs, etc. are to be the financial responsibility of the City of Shorewood. 4. Tools, equipment, vehicles and fuel to carry out the necessary job functions. 5. Upon request, inspection and records for all new water and sewer service line installations. 6. Review and comment for all new water and sewer additions. 7. Regular meetings with the Shorewood City Administrator and Director of Public Works to insure continuity of operation. Proposal to Maintain the Water & Sewer Systems of the City of Shorewood November 2, 1992 Page 3 8. Contact with the public to handle and resolve technical problems while coordinating with the City to establish good public relations. We will not provide office or clerical staff . All initial calls from the public are to be directed to Shorewood City Offices. 9. Supply NO materials. All materials will be paid for by the City of Shorewood. All equipment rental for major repairs or for expanding the systems, such as excavation equipment shall be paid for by the City of Shorewood. 10. At seven (7) Water Wells and one (1) Iron Removal Water Treatment Plant: (a) Daily inspections and routine maintenance, according to the operations and maintenance manual provided by the City of Shorewood. (b) Compile daily pumping and maintenance records. (c) Collect water samples for analysis such as coliform bacteria, lead and copper testing, and prepare required reports for State Health Department and other agencies. • (d) Routine water testing for the treatment plant and wells: chlorine, fluoride, iron, PH, etc. (e) Quarterly assess performance of the wells and treatment plant efficiency to insure that all electronic controls and pump equipment are operating at maximum efficiency. 11. Water Main Distribution Systems (a) Flush and maintain the fire hydrants, two times per year - Spring and Fall. Fall flushing of the system includes inspection of the hydrants, check the inside of the hydrant standpipe to see that it is properly drained. Check the packing to prevent freezing, loosen nozzle cap threads and oil if necessary. Proposal to Maintain the Water & Sewer Systems of the City of Shorewood November 2, 1992 Page 4 (b) Water main breaks. Once we're notified: 1st Minimize property damage, then minimize loss of water, followed by review repair procedures, identify and notify appropriate contractor for job, notify Gopher State and City staff. Will assist the excavating contractor in making repairs and supervise the repair work.. (c) Read water meters on a quarterly basis and provide the labor to inspect and maintain all water meters • to insure that revenues due to the City are charged and that the meters are functioning at maximum efficiency. 12. Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Maintenance (a) Inspect operation of fifteen (15) lift stations two (2) times per week and keep records of pumping and maintenance. (b) Routine maintenance and minor repairs on lift stations and control systems, and cleaning wet wells. Clean and adjust float control and bubbler systems. Maintain alarm systems. Check pumps.for amp draw to assess electrical energy in order to ensure maximum efficiency. 13. Sanitary Sewer Collection System (a) Annually clean 1/4 of the sewer system or about 12 1/2 miles of sewer lines. Cleaning will be done with high pressure jetter or mechanical rodder. By cleaning sewers we will inspect manholes for deterioration and leakage and sewer lines for broken pipes and infiltration. (b) We will provide maintenance log sheets on sewer cleaning and manhole inspection and point out problem areas and make recommendations on repairs. The above process will assist the City of Shorewood in proposing a reduction of Infiltration to be used in negotiations with MWCC over their charges to the City. Proposal to Maintain the Water & Sewer Systems of the City of Shorewood November 2, 1992 Page 5 IV. Service Equipment The City of Excelsior will provide the equipment necessary to complete the described service work. Any required excavating equipment will be obtained (rented) for any necessary work and is beyond the service provided in the Proposal. V. Service Fee The City of Excelsior will keep records of and account for all costs involved in providing services and equipment herein proposed. . Account classifications are as follows: 101 Personal Services 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 220 General Supplies 300 Professional Services 360 Insurance 404 Maintenance & Repair of Equipment 540 Machinery It is estimated the minimum charge for 1993 will be $120,000. The fee will be computed and charged monthly based on the actual costs incurred and overhead added. VI. Schedule • The City of Excelsior will prepare for a fee the Agreement for Service immediately upon notification by Shorewood. of their acceptance of the Proposal. It is expected some service could begin within thirty (30) days with full service, as Proposed, within ninety (90) days. Gregory S. Withers City Manager MUNITECH, INC. 2373 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD MOUND, MN 55364.1634 Phone: 6121472.2718 October 14, 1992 City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Rd. Shorewood, MN 55331 • Attn: Mr. Al Rolek Finance Director Re: Water and Sewer System Maintenance Contract Dear Mr. Rolek, Enclosed please find copies of the Water and Sewer System Maintenance Contract for 1993 with no increase in cost over last year. After both copies are signed, please return one of them to Munitech, Inc. We look forward to continuing our work with the City of Shorewood next year. Please call me if you have any questions. • Yours truly, Bob Polston President Munitech, Inc. Encls. Bp /J p UTILITY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE • SERVICE FOR ALL MAKES OF METERS • SPECIALIST IN FLOW METER RE n6u WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CONTRACT January 1, 1993 - December 31, 1993 IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between Munitech, Inc. a Minnesota corporation hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" and, the City of Shorewood, hereinafter called the "City ", as follows: 1. The contractor will furnish the City with the following services: A. To provide Minnesota State certified water and wastewater operators, and the ability to provide services of a certified electronics technician. B. To operate and maintain the water system and the sanitary sewer pumping stations of the City 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (holidays on-ca-11). To advise the City on an effective sanitary sewer cleaning schedule. C. To daily inspect the operation of the pumping facilities. To quarterly assess performance of the well and pumping efficiency. To insure that all electronic controls and pumping equipment are operating at maximum efficiency. D. To review and comment on proposed additions to the water and sewer systems and to inspect and approve all hookups to the systems. E. To provide water meter readings to the City on a quarterly basis; to inspect, and maintain, water meters, ensuring that all revenues due to the City are charged, and that the meters are functioning at maximum efficiency. Recalibrate repair and replace meters which • have been identified by the City to be ✓ faulty. F. To assess electrical energy requirements to insure that pumping costs are kept as reasonable as possible. G. To provide tools, equipment, vehicles and fuel to carry out the necessary job functions. H. To collect fluoride and bacteriological samples and tests as required by the Minnesota Health Department and to file all appropriate reports with the State. I. To meet regularly with the City Administrator and Director of Public Works to insure continuity of operation. J. To provide contact with the public to handle and resolve problems while coordinating with the City to establish good public relations. K. To inform the Director of Public Works or designated person immediately upon knowledge of an emergency or unusual situation and keep them informed for the duration of that situation. L. To perform operations and maintenance functions at the water treatment facility according to the Operation and Maintenance Manual (0 & M) provided by the City. M. To maintain workers' compensation insurance, liability insurance, automobile insurance on vehicles etc., health insurance, and employment compensation. The City will have no responsibility for social security, vacation pay, retirement or disability insurance. The contractor shall be deemed in all ways to be an independent contractor. N. To supply labor for minor repairs on all equipment such as chemical pumps, control systems, sewage pumps and motors. Major repair work including removing well pumps, motors, main electrical service, and major piping changes are to be the responsibility of the City. 0. To supply no materials. All materials will be paid for by the City. All equipment rental for major repairs or for expanding the systems, such as excavation equipment shall be paid for by the City. 2. The Contractor shall have the authority to purchase materials and to hire equipment and equipment operators on behalf of the City in an emergency with the permission of the City. 3. The term of the contract shall be from January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. • 4. The City will pay the contractor the sum of $6,200-00 per month. IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have caused these presents to be executed this day of , 1992. MUNITECH, INC. By: V I I L41 �� Robert D. Polston President�� / By - - - - , CAa r ls✓� Stanton K. Anderson Vice President THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Barbara J. Brancel Mayor By: James C. Hurm City Administrator -2- WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CONTRACT January 1, 1993 - December 31, 19.93 IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between Munitech, Inc. a Minnesota corporation hereinafter referred to as the "Contractor" and, the City of Shorewood, hereinafter called the "City ", as follows: 1. The contractor will furnish the City with the following services: ' A. To provide Minnesota State certified water and wastewater operators, and the ability to provide services of a certified electronics technician. B. To operate and maintain the water system and the sanitary sewer pumping stations of the City 24 hours per day, 7 days per week (holidays on- call). To advise the City on an effective sanitary sewer cleaning schedule. C. To daily inspect the operation of the pumping facilities. To quarterly assess performance of the well and pumping efficiency. To insure that all electronic controls and pumping equipment are operating at maximum efficiency. D. To review and comment on proposed additions to the water and sewer systems and to inspect and approve all hookups to the systems. E. To provide water meter readings to the City on a quarterly basis; to inspect, and maintain, water meters, ensuring that all revenues due to the City are charged, and that the meters are functioning at maximum efficiency. Recalibrate repair and replace meters which have been identified by the City to be-faulty. F. To assess electrical energy requirements to insure that pumping costs are kept as reasonable as possible. G. To provide tools, equipment, vehicles and fuel to carry out the necessary job functions. H. To collect fluoride and bacteriological samples and tests as required by the Minnesota Health Department and to file all appropriate reports with the State. I. To meet regularly with the City Administrator and Director of Public Works to insure continuity of operation. J. To provide contact with the public to handle and resolve problems while coordinating with the City to establish good public relations. K. To inform the Director of Public Works or designated person immediately upon knowledge of an emergency or unusual situation and keep them informed for the duration of that situation. L. To perform operations and maintenance functions at the water treatment facility according to the Operation and Maintenance Manual (0 & M) provided by the City. M. To maintain workers' compensation insurance, liability insurance, automobile insurance on vehicles etc., health insurance, and employment compensation. The City will have no responsibility for social security, vacation pay, retirement or disability insurance. The contractor shall be deemed in all ways to be an independent contractor. N. To supply labor for minor repairs on all equipment such as chemical pumps, control systems, sewage pumps and motors. Major repair work including removing well pumps, motors, main electrical service, and major piping changes are to be the responsibility of the City. 0. To supply no materials. All materials will be paid for by the City. All equipment rental for major repairs or for expanding the systems, such as excavation equipment shall be paid for by the City. 2. The Contractor shall have the authority to purchase materials and to hire equipment and equipment operators on behalf of the City in an emergency with the permission of the City. 3. The term of the contract shall be from January 1, 1993 through December 31, 1993. __ 4. The City will pay the contractor the sum of $6,200.00 per month. IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have caused these presents to be executed this day of , 1992- MUNITECH, INC. By: � 1) /�" /GU Robert D. Polston President By: Stanton . Anderson Vice President THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: Barbara J. Brancel Mayor By: James C. Hurm City Administrator -2- CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 T E L E : 612- 474 -5233 November 18, 1992 James C. Hurm City Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Hurm: As you know, since sending revised 1993 fire service figures to you in September, we have been negotiating with the City of Deephaven. The City of Minnetonka has made a strong proposal to Deephaven to provide fire service. The Deephaven City Council has made a decision to stay with the Excelsior Fire Service through 1993. We are pleased with that decision but realize we have much work ahead to negotiate a long -term contract. . We trust we can now proceed to enter into the agreement Excelsior and Shorewood discussed earlier based on your proposed capital outlay schedule. That written agreement is enclosed and entails a charge of $98,103 for 1993. We will involve you in the 1994 budgeting process beginning early in 1993. As soon as our new Council is seated we will discuss how to begin negotiations for a long -term contract. Please execute the enclosed Agreement and return a copy for our files. Thank you. Sincerely, Greg�ry Withers City Manager GSW:cj Enclosure AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1992, by and between the City of Excelsior, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Hennepin in the State of Minnesota, party of the first part, hereinafter referred to as "Provider ", and the City of Shorewood, a Municipal Corporation of the County of Hennepin in the State of Minnesota, party of the second part, hereinafter referred to as "Receiver ", witnesseth: WHEREAS, the City of Excelsior has labor, facilities, and equipment and is willing and able to provide fire protection service to neighboring municipalities; and WHEREAS, the City of Shorewood is a neighbor to the City of Excelsior and is desirous of receiving fire protection service; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual . covenants of the parties hereto, it is agreed as follows: I. PROVISION OF SERVICES The Provider will endeavor to protect and save lives and property in the City of Shorewood from destruction by fire, by furnishing suppression, prevention, inspection and investigation services to the same extent as it does within the City of Excelsior. The Provider will also furnish labor and equipment to perform rescue operations on land and water, and provide limited medical treatment of injuries until basic or advanced life support with transportation is available at the scene to remove the patient to a medical facility. • The Provider will not furnish labor or equipment for any activity or service determined by the City Manager of Provider to be of high risk to safety or health of the participants. II. SERVICE AREA The Provider will furnish all services to all properties within the corporate limits of the Receiver municipality unless other designated as "Excluded Property" on the Service Area Map (Exhibit I). The Receiver shall provide a Service Area Map to the Provider. The map shall be updated at least annually by the Receiver in order to provide the most recent property descriptions to enable the Provider to locate and determine the best routes to all locations within the Receiver municipality. III. OBLIGATIONS OF PROVIDER The Provider will make reasonable efforts to respond to all service calls from the Service Area, whenever notified, but subject to the following conditions and limitations: AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES PAGE 2 A. The Provider will not be required to furnish any services unless the road and weather conditions are such that any response to a service call can be made with reasonable safety to the personnel and equipment. The judgement of the Fire Chief, or other Officer in charge, at the time of the service call that a response can not be made with reasonable safety to the personnel and equipment shall be final and conclusive. B. In the event all of the Provider's equipment is being used at the time that a service call is received, or is otherwise needed to local service, or in the event the Provider has received a prior contract call, or received • simultaneous-contract calls, the Fire Chief or other Officer in charge, at the time of the service call shall have complete discretion in deciding how to respond to the service call(s), including the order of response. Monthly fire service reports shall be provided to the City Administrator denoting the number of calls for the previous month and the hours spent in suppression, prevention, inspection, and investigative activities. A monthly rescue /medical report denoting the number and types of calls shall also be provided. Personnel assigned to provide services within the Service Area shall be employees of the Provider. The Provider shall assume all obligations with regard to compensation and benefits including worker's compensation insurance, withholding tax, and other agreed upon benefits which may exist. The Receiver shall not be required to furnish any of the foregoing fringe benefits or assume any other • liability of employment to any employee or other person assigned to duty within the Service Area, unless the Receiver employs such individual directly, independent of this Agreement, to provide fire suppression or related services in the Service Area. In such event, all obligations and liabilities with respect to employment of said individual shall be the complete responsibility of the Receiver. No such direct employment shall be entered into by the Receiver without first obtaining the written approval of the City Manager of the City of Excelsior. The fire suppression, prevention, inspection, and investigative services rendered to the Receiver shall be under the sole direction of the Provider. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance, the hiring, firing, and discipline of the personnel assigned, and other matters relating to the regulations and policies, shall remain in the sole control of the Provider. Any disputes between the parties to this Agreement as to the extent of functions and duties to be rendered hereunder, or the level or manner of performance of such service, shall be resolved by the Excelsior City Manager. AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES PAGE 3 The Provider shall keep accounting records showing the total costs of providing fire suppression, prevention, inspection, and investigative services, and rescue and medical services within the several Service Areas to which these services are rendered. These accounting records shall be made available to the Receiver upon request. . IV. OBLIGATIONS OF RECEIVER As previously mentioned in Section II of this Agreement, the Receiver shall, within six months of signing this Agreement, provide a current map of the City designating the Service Areas and any exceptions. Said map shall also designate address patterns and show any water main and hydrant size and locations. The Receiver shall adopt the latest Building and Fire Safety Codes approved in the State of Minnesota. The Receiver shall give the Provider sufficient legal authority for fire inspections and investigations within the Service Area, and shall notify the Fire Marshal of any and all building permits issued within the Service Area. The Receiver shall also adopt regulations to limit building heights to a maximum of 35 feet as defined by the Uniform Building Code. The Receiver shall make timely payments of the Service Fee as denoted in Section VII of this Agreement, in ,order for this Agreement to be in force and effective. V. INDEMNIFICATION • The Receiver will indemnify and hold the Provider harmless against all claims or causes of action resulting from any action by the Provider under this Agreement. The Provider shall not be liable in any way to the Receiver for loss or damage of any kind resulting from the failure of the Provider to respond to a service call whether such loss or damage is caused by the negligence of the officers, agents, or employees of the Provider, its fire department or other department. The Provider shall not be liable in any way to any inhabitant or property owner within the Service Area, or to any person, firm or corporation for failure of the Provider to attend a fire, or to put out a fire, or for damage to goods, or for any inspection, or for any act or omission. The Provider shall make no claims against the Receiver on account of damage to the property of the Provider while providing services within the Service Area. The Provider shall carry liability insurance protecting itself against damage claims of its personnel for personal injuries sustained while in service within the Service Area, and to further carry liability insurance saving both parties harmless so far as negligent acts of the employees of the Provider are concerned. AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES PAGE 4 VI. COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY The Fire Chief, or Senior Responding Officer, shall have the sole and exclusive right and responsibility to prescribe the manner and method of responding to calls and rendering the services contemplated. Said individual immediately upon arriving at the scene of any fire, rescue, or medical call shall have the sole and exclusive responsibility and authority to direct and control any and all firefighting and emergency operations at such scene or scenes, including the direction of police officers at the scene with respect to traffic control, protection of citizens, and other incidents of the emergency. If, in the opinion of the commanding officer additional equipment is needed from other jurisdictions or private businesses to reduce the emergency, then he shall have authority to obtain the needed equipment and the Receiver shall reimburse all associated costs to the Provider. VII. DETERMINATION OF SERVICE FEE AND PAYMENTS Services described in Section I of this Agreement shall be rendered in consideration of the following formula and fee. The Formula used to determine the annual service fee shall be: TCR X TBP = RAF TCT Where TCR is the most recent certified Tax Capacity of the • Receiver; TCT is the most recent certified Tax capacity of the Excelsior Fire Department's Total Service Area (comprising all or parts of the cities of Deephaven, Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay) ; TBP is the Total Annual Budget of the Excelsior Fire Department, the Provider; and RAF is the Receivers Annual Service Fee. The Tax Capacity of each Service Area within the Excelsior Fire Department's Total Service Area shall be that figure officially calculated by the Hennepin County Treasurer. By August 1, of each year during which this contract remains in effect, the Provider shall notify the Receiver of the Estimated Annual Service Fee for the next year. The Final Annual Service Fee shall be billed to the Receiver in quarterly amounts and shall be due and payable on February 1, May 1, August 1, and November 1. VIII. TERM OF SERVICE The term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year, commencing January 1, 1993 and expiring December 31, 1993, and shall renew automatically, unless terminated by either party giving six months written notice to the other party of their intention to cancel the Agreement on December 31. AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES PAGE 5 IX. NOTIFICATIONS Legal notifications or fee statements required to be given to the parties of this contract shall be made in writing to the following officials at the stated locations: The Provider The Receiver City Manager City Administrator City of Excelsior City of Shorewood 339 Third Street 5755 Country Club Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 40 In witness hereof, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first written above. City of Excelsior Lu ille O. Crow, Mayor ATTEST: Marlin H. Amundson City Clerk /Treasurer Gre S. Withers, City Manager City of Shorewood Barbara Brancel, Mayor James C. Hurm, City Administrator NOV 24 '92 14 :11 OSM MPLS, MM P.2 Orr (A scheten May eron& As§ociales,1nc. November 23 , 1992 300 Park Place.Canter 5773 vaycata Boulevard Minneapolis, 4tN 35116 -1323 Mr. James Hurm, Administration X1-800- 7-5775 - soo -73� 3:75 City of Shorewood FAX 357 -577.3 Engineers 5755 Country Club Road Architects Planners Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Surveyors Re: Public Works Site Bishop Petition OSM Project No. 4860.01 Dear Mr. Hurnx • As requested, we have investigated the items brought to the Council's attention with regard to the new public works site. Specifically, these items are: 1). Can the back -up horns on the City's heavy equipment be disconnected or somehow quieted? 2). Can the City reduce the amount of light escaping from the site, particularly from the security lights? 3). Will there be increased drainage to the east onto Mr. bishop's property due to the site improvements? 4). Are any eroded soils being deposited on Mr. Bishop's property from the public Works site? The back -up horns on the heavy equipment are a safety requirement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Disabling these horns would be in violation of OSHA rules and more importantly, would be a safety hazard to the Public Works employees and the general public. Public 'Works has disconnected some of the security lights, and has ordered shields for some of the remaining ones. Hopefully, a secure level of lighting can be restored that is amenable to Mr. Bishop. The drainage directly onto Mr. Bishop's property should actually be reduced due to these improvements. The majority of the surface water is being captured by roof drains and storm sewer and directed to the pond down by the walking path. This pond is being enlarged to reduce the flow rate from the City's site. The natural now dire -don from the pond is to the west, away from Mr. Bishop's property. About 400' of entry road drainage is being captured by curb and gutter and directed to the ditch running parallel f Equal Opportunic; E:nolover NOV 24 "92 14:12 OSM MPLS, MN P.3 Mr. James Hurm November 23, 1992 Page 2 to County Road 19. We have obtained a permit from Hennepin County for the drive access, and do not anticipate a large flow increase due to the relatively small drainage area involved. Because some erosion during construction is inevitable, we took the precaution of constructing a silt fence a minimum of one foot (1) inside the property line downslope of construction. This fence has been maintained and has done a good job of keeping eroded soils on site. A small (about 15' x W) area in the right-of -way of County • Road 19 has some eroded deposits on it, which is scheduled to be taken care of when the silt fence is removed The steepest portions of the site have been sodded, and the remaining portions are scheduled to be seeded yet this fall. The silt fence can likely be removed next spring or early summer after we have a good vegetative cover. Please call with any other questions. Sincerely, ORR- SCHELEN- MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Joel. Dresel, P.E., L.S. /dl'�' "; /';� • • b1 ee: Barb Brancel - Mayor Kristi Stover Dan Lewis Robert Gagne Rob Daugherty Jim Hurm - City Administrator A To: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL We the undersigned resident /citizens and near neighbors of the new Shorewood Public Works buildings question the need of the exterior lighting of the building which is polluting our spaced Further, we object to the daily very irritating noise penetrating the area, which emanates from one of the loading maehines. We agree that Mr. Bishop may present this notice on our ri t► V �- L i /T5 vD °� X75 MAYOR Barb Brancei COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob Daugherty Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 • (612) 474 -3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 23 November 1992 RE: Chandler, John - Request for Variance or Return of Sewer Assessment FILE NO.: Property - 28200 Woodside Road Mr. Chandler appeared at the 9 November Council meeting and presented the attached letter requesting a lot area variance to subdivide his property or a return of the sewer assessment which had been paid on the property. With respect to a lot area variance, Shorewood's Code requires that the applicant demonstrate that some hardship exists which keeps him from making reasonable use of this property. The application for a variance requires certain information relative to location of buildings, access, lot dimensions, in this case - location of the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka, etc., all based upon a survey of the property. Once this information has been evaluated, a public hearing must be held prior to any decision being made by the City. Mr. Chandler's determination that his lot contains only 73,500 square feet of area is not based upon a survey but rather appears to be an enlargement of the Hennepin County half - section map (his Exhibit 3). Given the amount of area which appears to be lacking and the fact that other lots in the area appear to be 40,000 square feet or larger, it is understandable that Mr. Chandler would not wish to risk the cost of a survey. Staff has researched the status of sewer assessments on Mr. Chandler's property. City records show that the property was assessed for two units. The City Attorney advises that technically the City is not obligated to correct the assessment 20 years after the fact. There is, however, some precedent for refunding the assessment. A few years ago the City agreed to return a sewer assessment on a lot which had been deemed unbuildable (see Henney, Bill - Lot Width and Area Variance). The concensus of the staff is that it would be unfair not to refund the $1800 assessment. Whether or not interest should be included is up to the City C mincil _ A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore Re: Chandler, John Request for Variance- 23 November 1992 ^ , Prior to any refund being paid, the City should require. documentation by Mr. Chandler's surveyor verifying that his property is only 73,500 square feet in area. If you have any questions relative to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact my office prior to Monday night's meeting. _ BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm - Tim Keane Joel Dresel Al Rolek Jack Chandler -2- �t City Council City of Shorewood Re: Request for variance of lot size or return of sewer assessment. I am John D. Chandler - 28200 Woodside Road When the sewer project started, the city measured all the property for purposes of making assessments based on buildable lots. My property was judged to have 84,942 square feet (Exhibit 1) and therefore I received two sewer assessments. Since my back property did not abut a road, I obtained a 50' easement on the Woodside Cul -de -sac from my neighbor Ralph Robinson (Exhibit 2). This was done with the knowledge and approval of Brad Nielsen. When I requested permission to divide my property for the purpose of creating a seperate building site on the rear portion of my lot, I was informed by Brad that I needed to obtain a survey showing the actual square footage. Since the city had said I had 84,942 square feet, I was surprised to find that my property was 73,500 square feet (Exhibit 3). I had the surveyor divide the property lines to show how I would have 40,000 on the rear lot and 33,500 on the front lot where my present house is. The property to the rear of the driveway easement is very steep and virtually unuseable (Exhibit 4). When I requested permission to divide the property, Brad informed me that I should present this as a sub - division, and present my proposal to the planning commission. However, in order to do this, I would need a complete survey showing distance from structures, roads & utilities with elevations etc. The surveyors said this would cost approximately $2,000. Before making this expenditure, I would like to know if the council • would approve this division and allow a variance to 33,500 square feet for my present house and if it would not approve this, I would then request a return of my sewer assessment plus interest. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Very Truly Yours, Jack Chandler L SE CO 4n TRACT Y 36 ss..s 5 t - � a.;= 2::.�; .4' ' tea. ��e��. � t - t � _ i "'`" .. ,� .a , R. - L.!s. •. � �� ;1099 ,�:: •�� . o Y Jam- JT�Jj lCt _ 7.1 (, 0 .1 qwft N o• 455 r R.L tA 4 z55J 1 ti W 4% ,\• .f44 9 t , e 1 ` �\ 4 Y } 4T N. .r y ��• It 4. L l 4 O , � 1 1 PO r� ra t i r 2 \ , ' - Sou �.Ot ; OF RQCT C CORNER ii 4 1 s to "' �F That pa -+ SURVEY N of Titl e z of Minn a curve N ° a radius to p through o T C CD '' from the C, and (n south lin CD feet west of said T O O L_.j .' O 1 i j 50 •C• w 4 SCALE ro N w o DENO N BEARINGS I - - . hereby Lr_ plan or or under -- that I a C: 0 5 ti PROPOSED I EASEMENT -- G 42,692 SQ. FT. It Y 1 . I I 1 C O _N n 10 CO z r I i �i ,N•- L A P sn• I =1 � W C 1 , P N s t ;gr I e� 2� o- 8e - �!l_ i 1 1 XA X -/ 1*1Z OWN EASEMENT DESCRIPTION pa r of Tract C, REGISTERED LAN[ 0. 1585, Files of the Registrar S County of Hennepin, State esota, lying southeasterly of concave to the southeast having of 180.85 feet. Said curve passes a point on the east line of said distant 51.01 feet northerly southeast corner of said Tract passes through a point on the e of said Tract C distant 75.11 erly from the southeast corner ract C. 0 50 100 IN FEET TES IRON MONUMENT SHOWN ARE ASSUMED certify that this sketch. report was prepared by me my direct supervision and m a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 17th day of April 1987 SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, INC. BY: ti. Edward H, unde, R.L.S. Reg. No. 8612 REVISED :OCTOBER 23,1987 I � J \J 7-XI ) e Z, 7' m • C MI NNE - rO At 4 4 I �� _'' � � ,- it • , ; I i � �\ `_� tA I-A ed LA Oa ell 7 Jb It LA w XIA 7 Ci A rn or) 0 1\ % 3o (A �b 6 Z I 1p t . .2t(o w '40 ' 0O R;m Ao bo rx O v ' L1138-63 C-1 4. cOtGs 0, 9 4` .019 ett ........ ols C� U rp e 4 J j -% J l 1 ` V� v • • / tf) a IMPORTANT NOTICE CITY OF SHOREWOOD OPEW OO Presorted { r First Class y z U.S. POSTAGE PAID i PERMIT NO. 5533" 128 PLEASE RETURN THIS STUB WITH PAYMENT John Doe 12345 Your Street Shorewood, MN 55331 7Q)E: ' " " �' PENALTIf� �` �= PREVIQUS SAC_.. ACCOUNTNUMBEFF I DUEDQTE 1/ 1/ tl 0_00o- o0000-0 t ACCQUNFNUMBER % ^AYDIItRWENDMt"; " AMOU4(TDUE ;G AA�t1NEiRl6NDll�: - =, AMOUNT DUE AFTER DUE DATE AFTER DUE DATE 0 REVERSE SIDE F OR CODE EXPLANATIO The City of Shorewood has been informed by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) that the sewer treatment charges for 1993 are being increased by $178;155. This is a 47% increase over the 1992 MWCC charges and is among the largest increases for these services in the Metro area. The MWCC states that this is primarily due to a higher than normal flow of non - sewage water that is entering the sewer system. Because the City of Shorewood has one of the more difficult sewer systems in the Metro area to meter, a large percentage of this flow is estimated by the MWCC. 4 s a result of the MWCC increase, the City must increase its sewer rates harged to residents. Beginning January 1, 1993, the sewer - 'rate will go from the current $54.75 per quarter to $74.75 per quarter, a $20.00 per quarter increase. This increase is reflected in the above sample utility bill. In addition, the MWCC has informed the Council that a similar increase in charges is likely in 1994. The City Council is not satisfied with the MWCC's explanation for these charges and intends to challenge the increase. The Council is asking for a better explanation of the reasons for the increase, and for a fairer method of distributing the sewage treatment charges across the entire MWCC system. The City Council is encouraging residents to likewise voice their displeasure with the increase to the MWCC by writing or calling Gloria Vierling, your MWCC representative, Louis R. Clark, MWCC Chair, and Gordon Voss, Executive Director of the MWCC. The mailing address is Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101- 1633, and the phone number is 222 -8423. Your support and action at this time is crucial. Perhaps with your assistance the City Council's efforts to avert these exorbitant charges will be successful. F R 12345 Your Street R November 10, 1992 Mr. Jim Hurm City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mr. Hurm, Two years ago, Knutson Services, Inc. responded to a RFP from a consortium of Hennepin County cities which included Shorewood, Mound, Excelsior, Spring Park, Minnetonka Beach, and Wayzata. As a result of our proposal, KSI was awarded a contract for a three year period commencing January 1, 1991. We requested (and received) an extension for one year based on the collection of glossy papers (i.e. magazines and catalogs); thus our existing contract with your community extends through December, 1994. A review of the recycling history in these communities reveal varied results from failed collection business to international conglomerate domination to our unprecedented success. Knutson Services is proud of our assistance in the latter The current system presented and utilized by the cities has truly been a benchmark for the other Hennepin County communities. The pricing, revenue sharing, and products collected by KSI was innovative...... unfortunately only hind -sight proves certain aspects to be ill fated. No amount of foresite could have predicted the economics of recycling. One year ago, KSI approached the communities with the recycling concerns of the "penalization" from increased participation, product processing, revenue sharing inequities, and drop off center expense. Concessions were granted in the areas of revenue sharing and two communities which eliminated their drop sites. Although very welcomed, • it is clearly evident that these did not go far enough towards assisting KSI in maintaining a financially viable program. KSI is requesting that your community grant the following concessions to the original R.FP /service contract: 1) Material Revenue Sharing Knutson Services reaffirms our belief in the concept of revenue sharing with the community; however, based on the complexities of processing/marketing materials and the formula negotiated, it has been a detriment to Knutson Services. It is our request that a moratorium on revenue sharing be implemented retroactive to November 1, 1992. The resumption of Material Revenue Sharing would be implemented upon the value of recycled products "comiing back" afld a fair equitable formula be developed. 2) Cost of Collection Now, not only are more residents recycling... "all recyclers are recycling All they can "! The enclosed graph of your communities tonnages illustrate that we are in essence being financially "penalized " SOLID WASTE • RECYCLING SYSTEMS STREET SWEEPING r Since 1961 Printed on recycled paper for our successes. The off set of our increased collection costs were to be borne by improving product markets; these have not materialized yet. The true costs of transportation and processing are being clearly reflected by the bids submitted in neighboring Hennepin County communities (please refer to exhibit B). It is our request that Knutson Services be granted a per house collection increase of $.17 per month for 1993 and $.15 per month for 1994. T SHOREWOOD TONNAGES (EXCLUDES DROP OFF) O 60 N 54 S 48 0 42 F 36 R E 30 C 24 Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L A 12 B 6 • L E 0 S 1991 1992 SERVICE PERIOD *ACTUAL Knutson Services has kept your community apprised of developments within the infant industry of recycling. It is only out of absolute necessity which we approach you with this request. We would be readily available to discuss these matters and will provide additional information as requested. In advance, thank you for your positive considerations. Respectfully submitted, Mark Heieren Sales Manager cc: Paul Kroening - Hennepin County Recycling K N O O) O 0) V � 0) M EE O IM 0) EK 2 ►n N Lr) o 7.;Or-� H M (> O N O) 0) U N N 4 N N 3% M 0) s t O 0) C) O) r N 0) M N Of 0) Z O 2 O Z Z O U W J J 0 Q O IZ Z I U U W J i J_ Z N a r • CIA O 0 N O O) O 0) � C) � 0) M � O O IM 0) N 0) M N (n CD O O M M C) 00)j O r N O) 0) M 0 0) N M 0 0 Cb O M 0) 0) M 0) s t O 0) C) O) r N 0) M N Of 0) N 0) 0) M 0) 0) C V 0) 0) d' C) 0) Cl) 0) 0) d• 0) M C, 0) 0) N N N 0) 0) 0 O 0) N 0) 0) N a) 0) N 0) O N 0) 0) M O 0) T T T T T T T T T T 0) T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T CO M M M r M M M T M M T M T M co T co T M T T M M T co) T M M T M T M T M T T M 00 N T M T M O M T T T T M co co T M T M T M T CO) '• U Q U ¢ LL¢ y C ca ❑;-� O ❑ U ❑� U mm ❑ U ❑ 4 ❑� R d ❑�p� G Rm V m j 0 mm ❑ U ❑ d V mmmmpmm ❑p 0 ❑O❑ M 0 0 U m U ❑- 0= ❑ ° -� U mmmm ❑LL❑ ci U ❑Q� M c m U U U mmmmmmm 0000000 U U U U C) � Z l� I I IItI I l t NU 1 1 i FW- 0 N U o)s MNN co l I ;O I U Q ¢ I Nr a) (3)c0 I o) o rn O)00 CM(M W l 00 00) O O OT O I l O rn �NTNODCMNT0) l l O)0)0) l� l 0 I 0)0)0) I Q ¢M000)a)O 1 NTrTrT 1 1 1 i l l CM NNNNNN 0) (7) 0000)0) l l l l O O�! 0 M 0)O)0)0)0)0)O T . 1TIT T T Z O T T T Of T T T to T r r• N ��r T T T T T T T T tn T T -Iz T Z O T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T TI C GI�I T CI T GI T T C T C C C G +Z 1� f T C G S T C T G T G N T C T C T C T G T C R T C T C T T T T C C C T C T C G T G C M Mi(pi to to O O O O O .6 -� � n:U-,n nI2z -1 ��nLL ILL Cn��- »ILLnnn::��I��IZ��t1 »��7)nn 0 = V(a0(OI1-IOIC4gOR 0)rl�NO)TtoO)MO)I--N�Oo I-ON(GOZ6 LA )n040LO st0)r� "t Cr) OOh O WoNowmr-0 Tr 0 I't 0)O 64169 69 69169 t 69 69 69 69 6 69 69 N fH T 69 T 69 N r fR 69 - - fR T 69 N 69 N 6% T 69 N 69 — 69 I T 69 T 69 T fA T fA T 69 T 69 -- T N 69 64 40 N 69 r fA N 69 T 69 N 64 I I IL CL I I I Z¢ WOO O Iy cI I I I ( c - y V Q m y d J O V �; o m to . . . . . . m W Q j E¢ j E E U U E¢¢ U= O 0 ¢ J I - Z U00 R =�— c y O ❑❑ C 2= to C�2¢¢ ° m m C J C C ° �_� to O m¢= m )a G o G o C O m 0 0 ¢ m m 0 m O 0 O 0 0 0 U U m )n N Y Y m N m N_ y m y m y t7 M i s mpa y Y m° rn y 7 y m N m y m¢ vi N L m � �„ y to .4 y 3 y j L ¢¢¢¢¢¢ N N N N N N ai R t IUIa a 3 I� Im�Y �� I� Im�3 aU�YmYm � ��W�� Qm YYmY O O m R LL C a) O c _ LL O I - (a C LL C - LL 8 0 0 1 •i at R _� W C C LL 3 WWWWWWm 11. Z O W LLU ❑ I( IY m m .Y m Y m O g Y m O O g - YYRM : m m m - m - X m -- m m C O m OW O a�;?�0 dl d��I��YYYYYY�YYYY�Y m 0 > > >> a$ mY�CYYYY� m -- d U - -� U -- d m m m ��J�I m 2 m w o U J ¢ O m�miml I I I m m m m m m m m m m m m m 1 m 0 0 m m m m i m m'3 U m m m m m m m m m m m m I m � :3 ' m m'3 m , ,3 : m m 3 m m m 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 LL U �1 13jmlm � � I�� ln1� �� --3 lnlDlnlYlmminl- ' j E I O i IYI I � O N ca m 7 Y U C. O �a�t aa�� I l C Im .m = 0 o I (� 4) o .y O .= co R -% m .0 c O ma N -0 ° Y R ca m m ¢ ' '° m c a CY C a M "C C I c 51� R > G'aa l ` lcaa • ° -�c y � O � 3 I mc¢ m c m° C C y ° '�-a 0 L� 0 - y y� c o y� °= c? y 0 3 a m R R= ( D m m c J d ca c o c m �Y'O,°IL O!OIt6 CL m G y m C y O m C l ai C C m m C m m m 7 y L mQ lY1 J C O O m O C m� C y` .. O O m O O OD!(alU'UI ❑!L�,lJ m .CIV WIW�C'3 C'3 =�_;_ = S L C �I� C_ C !,M O �¢ ¢ItL,¢ to In fn ,(A (n r et! �I� C O O O m ai r to t d - 0 CL c m o m Z > M m = U l{I j .10.. m y y � m U :a y m Q ° m U `o T c Y m O > O M y rr G m m m L r «. j i ° c w m O U) W � C 0 0 � U N �. `° t . C O. y O O) cca a O. U V O M U Q. m m � 0. d OI C d U m C 0 m = y 0 y t O t O V Aq CITY OF WAYZAT24 600 RICE STREET, WAYZATA, MINN. 55391 PHONE 473 -0234 MEMO TO: LMRG Members FROM: Sonny Clark DATE: November 23, 1992 • The enclosed letter to Knutson was drafted as a result of a meeting held November 23, 1992 at Wayzata. Present were Joyce Nelson, Duffy Day, Carl Zieman, Paul Kroening, Sonny Clark and Dave Frischmon. If you will please respond to me ASAP we will move forward to send this letter on to Knutsons or meet to amend this with the coordinators. Please call 473 -8113 or fax to 473 -4178 ASAP. • FAq DRAFT KNUTSON SERVICES INC. CITY OF WAYZATA 600 RICE STREET, WAYZATA, MINN. 55391 PHONE 473 -0234 DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT The Lake Minnetonka Recycling Group, including Paul Kroening from Hennepin County, met on Monday, November 23rd, to consider your recent proposal to place a moratorium on the revenue sharing and a per household rate increase for 1993 and 1994. It is fair to say that a variety of opinions arose ranging from "a contract is a contract and should be adhered to" to "there is credence in Knutson's request as compared to other existing contracts in Hennepin County ". As a consensus the LMRG would be willing to recommend to their various City Councils that: 1. The revenue sharing clause (Section 4) of the contracts be reevaluated and redefined by Knutson and the LMRG. This task is to be completed by December 31, 1992. 2. That Knutson will make good on all outstanding revenue sharing payments owed to LMRG cities prior to November 1, 1992. 3. The LMRG cities will declare a suspension of revenue sharing payments for the months of November and December 1992. 4. That Knutson immediately bring up to date all outstanding reports on tonnages collected and markets used as per Section 4, part D of the contracts. 5. If the previous items are accomplished by December 31, 1992, it be recommended that the per household collection fee be increased by 10 cents in 1993 and 10 cents in 1994. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT CHECKS ISSUED SINCE NOVEMBER 6, 1992 10318 10319 10320 10321 10322 10323 10324 10325 10326 10327 10328 10329 10330 0331 0332 10333 10334 10335 10336 10337 10338 10339 10340 10341 10342 10343 10344 10345 10346 0347 0348 10349 10350 10351 10352 10353 10354 10355 10356 10357 10358 10359 10360 10361 10362 10363 10364 10365 10366 (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) First State Bank Void Commiss of Revenue Pera ICMA Retirement Trust AFSCME Local #224 Child Suppt Enforcement Anoka Cty Suppt/Collectn Pera Medcenters Health Plan Medica Choice Group Health, Inc. League of Mn Cities Mn Mutual Life Commercial Life Ins Co. AFSCME Council 14 Northern States Power Pera Superamerica US West Communications Bellboy Corporation Boyd Houser Candy /Tobac. Griggs, Cooper and Co. Hoops Trucking Johnson Brothers Liquor Mn Bar Supply North Star Ice Pepsi -Cola Company Ed Phillips and Sons Quality Wine /Spirits Thorpe Distributing Weekly News, Inc. City Cty Credit Union Void First State Bank Commiss of Revenue Pera ICMA Retirement Trust Child Suppt Enforcemt Anoka Cty Suppt /Collect. Airsignal, Inc. Wendy Davis Fina Fleet Fueling Daniel Freedland Patricia Helgesen The Knox Company Cellular Telephone Co. City of Minnetonka Bradley Nielsen Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Empee addtl life ins Nov health insurance Nov health insurance Nov health insurance Nov dental insurance Nov disability insurance Nov life insurance Nov delta dental Street light utilities Payroll deductions Gasoline purchases Telephone services Liquor purchases Misc and supplies purch Liquor,wine,misc purch Liquor and wine purchases Liquor and wine purchases Misc and supplies purch Misc(ice) purchases. Misc(pop) purchases Liquor and wine purchases Liquor,wine,misc purchases Beer and misc purchases Advertising Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll.deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Beeper services Sec 125 reimbursement Gasoline purchases Release of escrow Sec 125 reimbursement Door mount key box Cellular phone air time Third quarter water Sec 125 reimbursement 6,652.28 1,062.45 2,318.33 616.28 131.30 87.50 110.59 42.00 909.50 4,058.50 1,070.28 403.00 85.50 49.63 224.00 1,843.19 35.00 573.71 162.52 2,167.02 2,262.91 4,535.25 467.60 4,460.23 377.04 292.92 95.32 2,420.85 994.80 11,129.40 256.00 838.00 CONTINUED NEXT PAGE 6,277.12 1,006.76 1,993.02 616.28 87.50 110.59 9.58 134.17 308.08 150.00 816.00 101.00 10.92 983.77 140.00 -1- CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED PURPOSE AMOUNT CHECKS ISSUED SINCE NOVEMBER 6, 1992 10367 (G) Northern States Power Utilities 2,100.60 10368 (G) Joseph Pazandak Prot insp mileage 106.37 10369 (G) Pepsi Cola Company Pop machine rental 10.65 10370 (G) University of Minnesota MPWA Fall Conf - Zdrazil 125.00 10371 (G) Us West Communications Telephone services 48.93 10372 (L) Bellboy Corporation Liquor purchases 2,189.59 10373 (L) Midwest Coca -Cola Bottlg Misc(pop) purchases 500.22 10374 (L) East Side Beverage Co. Beer and misc purchases 9,057.85 10375 (L) Griggs, Cooper and Co. Liquor,wine,misc purch 4,139.64 10376 (L) Johnson Brothers Liquor Liquor purchases 340.40 10377 (L) Pepsi -Cola Company Misc(pop) purchases 237.60 10378 (L) Ed Phillips and Sons Liquor and wine purchases 4,168.32 10379 (L) Pogreba Distributing Beer and misc purchases 3,483.4010 10380 (L) Quality Wine /Spirits Liquor and wine purchases 3,130.17 10381 (L) Commiss of Revenue Oct 1992 sales tax 10,327.29 TOTAL GENERAL 36,484.94 TOTAL LIQUOR 66,958.78 TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED 103,443.72 0 -2- ^ CITY OF 8HUREWOOD CHECK APPROVAL LISTIN8 FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1992 MTG aHECKW VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT- AMOUNT ________ ------------------------- ------------------------ -------- ----------- 10383 ABEL HEATING, INC, ELEC SVC-AMES8URY WELL WATER DE 263.71 18384 ALL STEEL PRODUCTS CO- STREET SUPPLIES STREETS 122-25 10385 AMERICAN ENG)NEEQTNG PW FACILITY SVCS PROJECTS 354-28 CHURCH ROAD �NG SVCS PROJECTS 1,015-40 TOTAL FOR AMERICAN ENGINEERING 1"369'60 10386 JEFF REINHAAT DBA CITY HALL JANITORIAL SVC POLICE P 295'00 10387 C-H CARPENTER LUMBER PW BLDG SET UP SUPPLIES PROJECTS 642'73 10388 CARGTLL SALT DIVISION DEICING SALT SNOW 8 T 3,625'S6 1�� 389 CHANHASSEN LAWN AND SPORT SNOW BLOWER MATNT SUPPLY PUB WK8 7-77 10390 CRAGUNS CONFERENCE CTQ LODGING DEP-LATTER ADMTN � 6U-00 10391 CROSSTOWN-OCS, INC. CITY HALL COFFEE SUPPLY MUN BLDG 47'00 18392 DAY-TIMERS, TNC' DAYTTMER SUPPLIES COUNCIL 38-59 DAYTIMER SUPPLIES AOMTN 36-18 +*� TOTAL FOR DAY-TIMERS, INC' 74-57 10393 UATSKILL"S SUPER VALU PW OPEN HSE REFRESH- CITY GAR 18-38 10394 EATCKSON ROLF E.A. DEC ASSESSING FEE PROF SER 3,09B-00 ASSESSOR SUPPLIES PROF SER 78.7..5 TOTAL FOR ERICKSON, ROLF E.A. 3,176-7..'; 11#395 EXCFLSTOR-CITY OF THIRD QTR WATER WATER DE 2"I16'73 10396 FEED-RITE CONTROLS, INC. DEMURRAGE CHARGE WATER DE 30-88 18397 FRONTIER ELECTRIC LIFT STN ELECT SVCS SEWER DE 845'0U 10398 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL, IN ONE-CALL SERVICES WATER DE 66.2S ONE-CALL SERVICES SEWER DE 66-2S TOTAL FOR GOPHER STATE ONE-CAL 132-58 10399 GROSS OFFICE SUPPPLY DESK DRAWER PROJECTS 21'3O 10400 HART FORMS & SYSTEMS A/P CHECKS-TAX FORMS FINANCE 448'07 UTTTLITY BILLING FORMS WATER OF 170-32 UTITLTTY BILLING FOAMS SEWER OF 340-64 TOTAL FOR HART FORMS & SYSTEMS 959-03 18481 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SEPT PRISONER EXPENSE POLICE P 704-08 10402 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER COUNTY POSTAGE GEN GOVT 35'42 10403 HOTSTNQTON GROUP [NC PARK PLANN{NG SVCS PARKS & 495-75 10404 JOSEPH T RYERSON/SONS INC PW SHOP S&T UP SUPPLIES PROJECTS 292'3� CI|Y OF 5HOHEWOOD CHECK APPQOVAL LTSTTNG FOR NOVEM��Q 3U, 199� MTG CHECK# VENDOR NAME OESCRIPTTON DEPT- AMOUNT -------- __—____—___—_—_—__—____-- � ^ l0405) KNOX COMMEQCIAL CRED1T 10486 LYMAN LUMSFR COMPANY PW 5HOP SET UP SUPPLTFS PROJECTS 3129-93 BLEACHER BOARDS PARKS & 57-45 10407 JOHN MELDAHL CRAD—M(F.L ENT PRE8SURE WA9HFA TF CITY GAR 58'68 10408 METRO WASTF CONTAOL COMM' DEC CONTRACT PAYMENT SEWER DE 31,389 00 10409 METRO WASTE CONTROL. COMM- OCT SAC CHAQQE3 SEWER OF 3,465-0U 18410 COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORT INSPECTION 8VC3 PROJECTS 33'39 10411 MN 3UN PU81-TCAT70NS PUBLTSHINQ GEN �OVT 29-O0 PUBLTSHTNG -------- 14D-700 A** TOTAL FOR MN SUN PU8LICATTONS 169-78 10412 WM' MUELLER. & SONS, IN( STREET 8UPPLlES STREETS 7O'57 �TR�ET SUPPLI�8 8NOW & T 1,418-36 TOTAL FOR WM' MUELLER & SONS" 1,488-93 l0413 MUNITFCH, INC- O�C CONTRACT PAYM�NT DEC CONTRACT PAYMENT TOTAL FOR MUNITECH, INC- l0414 NAVAR�E AMOCO 1.0415 MAINT MAINT M MATNT MATNT MATNT ��* TOTAL F0Q N TIRE REPAIR 8UPPLI�� 8UPPLIFS : '3UP1P L1 ES SUPPLlES SU I'D PLTE� 8UPPLTE3 AVARQE TQUE- VALUE WATER OF 3,41U'8O SEWEH DE �,79U'0U &,�U8-Uo PUB WKS 7-U0 HUN BLOG 4l'SU PUB W.KS 29-43 CTTY GAR 42 66 PARKS & 4'47�� PARKS & 21-07 P8OJ�CT8 101_27 240 40 18416 NORTHER. N C0 UN[lF8 8EC 8VC COUNCTL MEETlNG MINUTES COUNCTL 37'�3 -7S PLANNING COMMI3S M[NUTFS PLANNJNG 1U3 -5n. 0 TOTAL FOR NORTHFRIN COUNTTE3 SE 4 25 1,04I7 NW A8PHALT� IN('- PAYMENT VOUCHER #2 -------- 54,628-66 1.0418 UA8,SCHELENMAY�QON/ASSOC S �PT ENG F��S—O�V�L -------- 18�'81 S�PT �N� F�ES—ON GOTNQ -------- S4�-48 SEPT EN( FIFES --- GEMEAAL PROF SER 4, I3 9E-PT PROJFCTS 1,719 91 ' SEPT ENG MKT AD PROJECTS 9'38 SEPT NG FEES—CHUQCH AD PROJECT3 1, 33 SEPT FNG FFF3—LIFT STNS SEWER OF 9-3� TOTAL FOA ORKSCH�LEN,MAYE�ON/ 8,�58-S4 lU�19 PIKES BUTLDTNG mATNT NA NC CON3TRUCTION CLEANUP C/TY �AR �� 6S 10420 PUMM�R COMP�NY, INC- PLANNING PLANNINQ 5I 6U . CITY 8F 9HOAEWOOD CHECK APPROVAL LlSTTNG' FOA NOVEMB�� 30, l9�� MTG '1H�CK# VEN0OQ NAM� DESCHIPTTON OEPT' AMOUNT 104�l A R & W OLLO FF SERVTC�, IN UI�PO8AL SVCS � C L AEYJN 96O-A0 10422 WTNC`8 MOBIL TIRE RFPAIA PUB WKS S8'59 10423 8AFFTY-KLEEN CORP- PAAT8 WA3HEA SVCTN('-1 PUB WK8 149'28 PTS WASHEQ TQAINTNG KIT -------- 314-18 TOTAL FOR SAFETY-Kt...'-.'FN C(HP- 463-46 10424 SCHMITZ AND SONS, TNC' PAYM�NT 4.2 SEWEH DE 36,699'05 104�5 8HOAEWOOO TREE SEAVTCE TREE T�EE MAT 388-0U 4�6 SO L� MTKA PUB 8AF�TY D�P D�C CONTRACT PAYMENT POLICE P 31,39E3-81 l8437 TOM�A PRINTTNG CO- OFFTCE SUPPLJES �EN QOVT 11'1�9 l04�8 TWTN CITY WATI CLTNIC OCT WATER WAM-2 DEF: �O'8U 111.)429 VAN 1A)AT11 AND �O��AS, TN TC ONTROL 8UPPLT T 1256'70 1D43U VTCTO�TA REPAIA AND P SHUP 3FT UP SUPPL PROJFCT3 41-88 1 04�l N N WTTT F7ACTAL FINANCIAL 3 VC8 FTNANCE ""!:'1-U2 ' 1.0432 WORDP�QF�CT PU8LT�HTNG COMPUTER MAG SUBSCRIPTN Gil QOVT 24-0U 1. O433 /'FP NO SOAP-PW CTTY ("� A 64 11 434 ZIE�LE�, INC- DOOR LA[CH ASSEMALY PUB WK� 57'69 ' *�* TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL 195,B65 64 TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST 297,309.36 -5- CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER FOR RETRO PAYROLL DATED NOVEMBER 9, 1992 206754 Void 206755 Wendy Davis 206756 Patricia Helgesen 206757 Anne Latter 206758 Susan Niccum 206759 Joseph Pazandak 206760 Beverly Von Feldt TOTAL PAYROLL 790.22 469.49 4.92.31 307.20 1,090.98 114.82 3.265.02 = M. CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER FOR NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAYROLL 206761 Void 206762 (G) Dee Allar Election judge 78.50 206763 (G) Lenora Bache Election judge 34.63 206764 (L) Scott Bartlett 20.5 reg hours 118.33 206765 (G) Edwin Boltman Election judge 80.80 206766 (G) Irene Chanin Election judge 48.48 206767 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 557.72 206768 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 148.54 206769 (G) Carmen Doughty Election judge 71.57 206770 (G) Denise Douglass -White Election judge 84.27 206771 (L) Julie Dunn 17.75 reg hours 92.62 206772 (G) Jeanne Englund Election judge 69.26 06773 (G) Gail Finney Election judge 71.57 206774 (L) Cory Frederick 44.0 reg hours 239.68 206775 (L) John Fruth 7.5 reg hours 43.29 206776 (G) Suzanne Grahn Election judge 154.31 206777 (G) Charlotte Hall Election judge 38.09 206778 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 722.96 206779 (G) Joanne Hermann Election judge 135.76 206780 (G) Norma Hogle Election judge 76.18 206781 (G) Elvera Hoops Election judge 127.44 206782 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,493.59 206783 (L) Brian Jakel 27.5 reg hours 153.29 206784 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours 737.12 206785 (G) Kay Johnson Election judge 43.86 206786 (G) Lorraine Johnson Election judge 32.32 206787 (L) Loren Jones 11.0 reg hours 56.67 206788 (L) Martin Jones 16.5 reg hours 66.10 06789 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 629.07 06790 (L) Mark Karsten 29.0 reg hours 157.60 206791 (L) Sandra Klomps 16.5 reg hours 80.00 206792 (G) Mary Beth Knopik Election judge 251.51 206793 (G) Irene Kronholm Election judge 55.41 206794 (G) Elaine Larson Election judge 43.86 206795 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 835.34 206796.(L) Susan Latterner 31.5 reg hours 216.15 206797 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours -4 of 793.10 206798 (G) Jill Majestic Election judge 34.63 206799 (L) Russell Marron 33.5 reg hours 186.96 206800 (G) Judith McCuskey Election judge 47.33 206801 (G) Karen Miesen Election judge 71.57 206802 (G) Lawrence Niccum 80.0 reg hours -3 of 802.98 206803 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours -6.25 of 778.96 206804 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 937.92 206805 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 1,006.82 206806 (G) Nancy Peterson Election judge 116.83 206807 (G) Jeannine Picha Election judge 71.57 206808 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours -3 of 787.52 206809 (G) Pady Flaherty - Regnier Election judge 71.57 CONTINUED NEXT PAGE -7- CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR NOVEMBER 30, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HOURS AMOUNT CHECK REGISTER FOR NOVEMBER 17, 1992 PAYROLL 206810 (G) Mary Reutiman Election judge 83.11 206811 (L) Brian Roerick 6.0 reg hours 34.63 206812 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,040.02 206813 (L) Brian Rosenberger 44.0 reg hours 221.92 206814 (G) Susan Ryan Election judge 43.86 206815 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 410.47 206816 (G) Mary Schmitt Election judge 43.86 206817 (G) Carmelita Smith Election judge 38.09 206818 (G) Howard Stark 80.0 reg hours -5 of 706.36 206819 (G) Barbara Thibault Election judge 78.96, 206820 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 80.0 reg hours 563.31 206821 (G) Carla Wacker Election judge 65,85 206822 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours -1 of 610.19 206823 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 614.00 206824 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1,153.42 TOTAL GENERAL 15,940.92 TOTAL LIQUOR 3,320.78 TOTAL PAYROLL 19,261. -8-