The URL can be used to link to this page

071392 CC Reg AgP .' .. CITY OF SHORDOOJ) RBGULAR CITY COUNCIL KBBTIHG KULTI-PURPOSB ROOK/GYK KONJ)AY, JULY 13, 1992 HINlfBWASHTA SCHOOL 26350 SKITHTOD ROAD 1:00 P.K. AGBNJ)A 1. 99~E C~TY CO~~I~ ~ING A. Roll Call Gagne stover Daugherty Lewis Mayor Brancel B. Review Agenda 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. city council Meeting - June 22, 1992 (Att.NO.2A-Minutes) 3. CONSENT AG~NDA - ~otion to ApDrove Items on consent Aq~n4a a~d AdoDt ReSOlutions Therein ~. A Motion to Approve Appointment of Public Works Working Foreman - Larry Niccum (Att.NO.3A-Administrator's Memo) A Motion to Approve Amending the 1992 Sewer Fund Budget for Rehabilitation of Lift stations 7 and 11 (Att.No.3B-Resolution) A Motion to Approve a Resolution Accepting the Preliminary Plat for Spruce Hills - 25110 Yellowstone Trail lB. I i i Ic. (Att.No.3C-Resolution) D. A Motion to Approve a Reduction of Letter of Credit - Shorewood suburban Estates (Att.No.3D-Engineer's Report) E. A Motion to Approve an Extension for Recording the Final Plat of Gideon Cove P.U.D. (Att.No.3E-Applicant's Request Letter) F. A Motion to Approve payment Voucher No.6-Old Market Road Intersection (Att.No.3F-payment Voucher) G. A Motion to Approve payment Voucher NO.3-Pine Bend watermain Extension (Att.No.3G-payment Voucher) C. OUNCI*, AGElIDA PAGE T1'0 I I ~ I AI ~ I ~ 4. 5. - JULY 13, 1992 A Resolution Amendinq the 1992 capital Improvement 8udqet - Silverwood Park (Att.No.4A-Administrator's Memo, B-proposed Resolution) I f~IijG I AI. I Report on Planninq Commission Meetinq of July 7, 1992 I B. A Resolution Approvinq a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Waterford III (Followinq discussion, table until after consideration of Item SC) (Att.No.5B-Planner's Memo and Resolution) C,. 7:30 pm - PUBLIC HEARING ON CONCEPT STAGE (POl)) AMmJDXENT I - WATERJ'ORD III I ! 01. Motion Directinq Staff to Draft a Resolution Reqardinq Concept staqe (POO) Amendment I EI. A Resolution Approvinq a Simple SUbdivision/Combination Applicant: Londo/Kinqhorn Location: 22695 Murray Street (Att.No.5E-Planner's Resolution) Report and ~ RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT - REZONIN~ UPPE~ LAK~ MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB (Att.No.6-Resolution) A. I I I ~ RESOLUTION APPROVlNG A FI~AL ~LAT FOR B09LOERRIOG~ ES~AT~S I (Att.No.7A-planners Memo, B-Enqineers , Report, C-Proposed Resolution and D-Development Aqreement) ~ RESOLUTION SETTING A DATE FO~ A P~LIC HEARING TO CONSIQER ~ P~1IAL STREET VACATION - NOBLE ROAD I (Att.No.8-proposed Resolution) I l1ATTERS FROM THE FLOOR I I 10. .~TAFF REPORTS I 6. 7. 8. 9. Attorney's Report ~. I Enqineer's Report , I I ! I ~. I ~. I I 1. 1992 Project Update Planner's Report Administrator's Report COUNClt AGENDA - JULY 13, 1992 PAGE THREE I i 11. ~U1iC:J:L R~PQllT~ I A ~ Mayor Brancel B~ Councilmembers . 12 . At>JO~ SUBJECT TQ~P~OV~ OF c~:rM:S i (Attachment-claims) i JCH.alVsn 7/08/92 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA w- MONDAY, JULY 13, 1992 AGENDA ITEM 3A - Attached is a three page memorandum explaining the Public Works Foreman selection process in detail. This process was discussed and explained in detail with the Union during our last negotiations. I hope any further questions can be handled by telephone before the meeting. It is important that management be supported on the appointment. I would be happy to meet with the City Council at an appropriate time to discuss future employees selection processes. .1 ~. . ~ : l . -, { . " J , 4 . ~ ... ~ , AGENDA ITEM 3B - This is the resolution amending the Sewer Fund Budget, transferring the appropriate funds to cover the cost of rehabilitation of lift stations 7 and 11. The bids were accepted and contract awarded at the last meeting. AGENDA ITEM 3C - This is a resolution granting the preliminary plat approval for Spruce Hills plat. At it's June 8 meeting the Council directed staff to prepare this resolution subject to the conditions outlined in the Planner's May 31 memorandum. AGENDA ITEM 3D - This motion would approve an 85% reduction in the Letter of Credit amount requirement for Shorewood Suburban Estates. This is recommended by the City Engineer.~- AGENDA ITEM 3E - This motion would approve an extension to June 30 for the recording the final plat of Gideon's Cove P.U.D. AGENDA ITEM 3F - This motion approves paYment of Voucher No.6 for the Old Market Road intersection project in the amount of $56,297.47. PaYment will be to Hardrives, Inc. AGENDA ITEM 3G - This motion would approve paYment for Voucher No.3 for the Pine Bend Watermain Extension in the amount of $14,479.47. The paYment would be made to Widmer, Inc. AGENDA ITEM 4A This resolution amends the 1992 Capital Improvement Budget regarding Silverwood Park. It increases the amount of the budget from $55,200 to $63,500. If these additional funds are needed this resolution authorizes them to be taken from the General Fund if the Park Fund cash balance is not sufficient. Those funds then would be repaid to the General Fund upon receipt. AGENDA ITEM 5A - Planning Commissioner Janet Leslie will be present to explain the rational of the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the Waterford III proposal. AGENDA ITEM 5B - We suggest if possible that this item be discussed before the 7:30 pm Public Hearing. The Council should among themselves discuss the wording of the Comprehensive Plan Amendmentfor Waterford III. Is this the wording the Council prefers? We would suggest tabling any action on the resolution however until after the public hearing. ~ . " .? ~ .. r >> ~ r:$ {J ~J t ..~ .. AGENDA ITEM 5C - PUBLIC HEARING - Staff will give a presentation to the public addressing three areas. (1) Give a brief history of Waterford III comparing the proposal which has been accepted to the proposal which is now being considered. Further steps in the process should also be explained. (2) Ways of addressing traffic concerns on Vine Hill Road, Shady Hills Road, Radisson Road and Waterford Place. The Engineer has done a memorandum which discussion by street the impact of Scheme C, various options, costs, advantages and disadvantages. This was requested by the City Council at the last meeting. (3) We will try to give the Council preliminary indications of MnDOT's response to Scheme C. MnDOT will not be able to give us a formal response because they have not met internally on the issue and will not until after the public hearing. The Council has directed staff to pull together information and attempt to make the preferred alternative (Scheme C) work. The Police Chief and Fire Chief want the City Council to be aware of their concerns. Their memorandums are attached. The Fire Chief wants you to be aware of his concern for reduced response times and the Police Chief is concerned with routing traffic through the Vine Hill Road intersection. . AGENDA ITEM 5D - It may be very difficult for the City Council to direct staff on the concept stage PUD amendment without official communication from MnDOT. Staff will need ,specific directions. It is worth noting at this point that several".. people will be on vacation the weeks of July 19 and July" 26. If 'two Council members are absent for our July 27 Council meeting you might. like to change ~ that date to Monday, August 3. AGENDA ITEM 5E This is a resolution approving a simple SUbdivision/combination at 22695 Murray Street. The recommendation is for approval contingent on any further subdivision being done by formal platting. Further contingencies are listed on the resolution. AGENDA ITEM 6 - The resolution denying a request for rezoning variances to the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club was tabled to this meeting previously. Representatives from the Yacht Club will be present to discuss this with the City Council. AGENDA ITEM 7 - This resolution approves the final plat for Boulder Ridge Estates. Further it approves the Development Agreement which is attached. There should be an understanding that the City Attorney will be responsible for any technical changes or additions to the Developers Agreement. AGENDA ITEM 8 - This resolution established 7:15 pm August 10, 1992 as the time for a public hearing to consider a partial street vacation on Noble Road. . JCH.al . . CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1992 COUNCIL ClD\HBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 PM MINUTES 1. CONVl~ 9~TY COUHC~L MEETING The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 PM. A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Daugherty, Lewis, Gagne and stover; Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane, and Planning Director Nielsen. C. REVIEW AGENDA stover requested removal of Consent Agenda Item A. Gagne moved, Stover seconded, to approve the Agenda with the removal of Item. 3A. A Hotion to Approve Appointment of Public Works Working Foreman - Larry Niccum. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. City Council Work Session/Meeting - April 27, 1992. Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve the minutes of the April 27, 1992 City Council Work session/Meeting. Motion passed 5/0. B. city Council Meeting - June 8, 1992. Gagne moved, Lewis seconded, to approve the minutes of June 8, 1992 City Council Meeting. Motion passed 4/0. stover abstained. 3. CO~SEHT AGENDA Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for June 22, 1992. Gagne moved, stover seconded to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Item A, and to adopt the Resolutions and Motions therein: B. RESOLUTION NO. 58-92. itA Resolution Awarding the Contract for Lift Station Modifications 7 & 11." C. Motion to Approve Pay Voucher - Old Market Road D. Motion to Approve Pay Voucher - pine Bend cZA . . SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1992 - PAGE TWO E. Motion to Approve Pay Voucher No. 1 - Public Works Facility - Rochon Corporation CONSENT AGENDA CONTINl,JEI> F. Motion to Consider Change Order No. 1 - Water Treatment Plant - A & K Construction G. RESOLUTION NO. 59-92. itA Resolution Appointing POlling Places for Future Elections." H. RESOLUTION NO. 60-92. itA Resolution Adopting No Parking Designation - Old Market Road (both sides)." Motion passed 5/0. stover requested that in connection with Consent Agenda Item A., she would like to have an addi tional . detailed explanation of how the selection process worked to fill the position of working foreman in the Public Works Department. She noted that all the candidates were internal and she wished to be assured that the process was fairly administered. Mr. Hurm reviewed the selection process noting that the Council has approved the job description. The position was opened and posted at the internal promotion level in the Public Works Department. The method of selection included a 45-minute written examination of 16 questions proctored by the Deputy Clerk. The examination consisted of true/false, multiple choice, essays and arithmetic problems. The highest possible score for the written examination was 48 points. The oral examination consisted of a 13-question interview of each candidate conducted by Shorewood's Public Works Director, Minnetonka's Public Works Director and Administrator Hurm, each of whom independently scored the answers. An average of the three scores became the final oral examination score. The highest possible score for the oral interview/examination was 52 points. The individual with the highest total score was offered the position. Hurm stated the process was conducted in a fair and professional manner. stover moved, Daugherty seconded to table action on this matter for three weeks to the Council's meeting on July 13, 1992. Motion passed 5/0. 4. ~ A. Report on Park Commission Meeting - June 9, 1992 Park Commissioner Mark Laberee reported briefly on the Commission's meeting of June 9, 1992. He noted that the commission is continuing to review the Park's capital Improvement Plan. He informed the Council that a warming house design requiring a Code change will be presented to the Council for its action at a future meeting. 2 . . SROREWOOD REGULAR CZTY COONCZL HZKUTES JUNE 22, 1992 - PAGE THREE B. Request of VHS for an Increase in the service Contract Amount - Silverwood Park Hurm briefly summarized two requests for additional reimbursement received from Van Doren Hazard Stallings, Inc. (VHS): 1) Payment of $1,789 over the budgeted $3,500 for the trail plan, and 2) Increase of the budget for Silverwood Park engineering services from $5,000 to 4. PARK - CONTZNUED $8,500. Hurm recommended that the "not to exceed" amount for silverwood Park engineering be approved at $6,500 based on VHS's timely request for payment for additional services over and above what was contained in the agreement. He recommended that the request for the additional $1,789 for trail costs be denied because during the two year length of the project, VHS did not indicate additional costs were being incurred. Gaqne moved, Lewis seconded to approve payment of an additional amount not to exceed $1,50'0 to VIIS for silverwood Park enqineerinq work and to deny payment of the requested $1,789 additional payment for trail work. Hotion passed 5/0. 5. PLANNZNG Nielsen reported that the Planning Commission continued discussion on the Water ford III - Ryan Construction Company proposal at its June 16, 1992 meeting. Action taken by the Commission included recommending to the Council that Old Market Road remain as it is and not be changed to any of the options presented in Ryan'S proposal and recommended that the Council deny approval of Ryan'S proposed Waterford III development which would require amendment of the current Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. 6. EAGLE SCOUNT PROJECT PRESENTATZON - Chris caDesius. 6120 Club Valley Road. Excelsior Chris Capesius informed the Council that he is working to attain an Eagle Scout badge. After consultation with Mr. Hurm, Capes ius agreed to paint 55 fire hydrants in Shorewood in conjunction with the Boy Scouts and the Public Works Department to fulfill his public service requirement. After the project is completed this summer. Capes ius will report back to the Council. 7. LHCD PRELZHZNARY BUDGET REPORT - Gene strommen Mr. Gene Strommen reviewed the LMCD 1993 proposed Budget. He noted the budget is reduced about 4 percent from 1992. This was accomplished by increasing various user fees and reducing the administrative operation costs. He noted that funds budgeted for milfoil control remain the same. He stated that following approval of the final budget by LMCD, there will be a 90-day comment period. 3 . . SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1992 - PAGE FOUR 8. ~P~ ~EOUI~EMENT fOR ~IG~-OF-WAY PERMIT AD\?licant: Loca1;;.ion: Richard Bake.r 5235 Howard's Point Road Nielsen explained that the City halted construction on Mr. Baker's mail box and paper holder because it was deemed to be in violation of the City'S Ordinance restricting its size. Mr. Baker has appealed the City'S requirement for a right-of-way permit as he believes mailboxes do not require a permit. Nielsen reported that the consensus of the staff is that the structure is far in excess of a mailbox and is more accurately described as a wall. In recommending denial of the property owner's request to build the structure, Nielsen cited serious concerns wi th the structure including safety to snowplow crews, potential damage to City equipment and the potential liability of allowing man-made structures in the public right-of-way. stover moved, Gagne seconded to deny the appeal of Richard Baker, 5235 Howard's Point Road, regarding the requirement for a right-of-way permi t to construct a masonry structure to support a mailbox and newspaper holder. Motion passed 5/0. 9. CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING EXTENSION TO RECORD SUBDIVISION ADDlicant: Location: Tom Doherty 20575 Kanor Road stover moved, Lewis seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 61-92.. "A Resolution Extending the Deadline for Recording a simple Subdivision for Thomas Doherty". Motion passed 5/0. 10. CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONCEPT STATE (PUD) APPROVAL - WATERFORD III (Ryan Construction) - DIRECT A RESOLUTION TO BE PREPARED Staff Presentation Nielsen informed the Council that an amendment to the P.U.D. requires a public hearing at City council level. That meeting/hearing is scheduled for 7:30 p.m., Monday, July 13, 1992 at the Minnewashta School. Stover, Council Liaison to the Planning commission, reviewed the June 2 hearing and June 16 discussion held by the Commission and reported it's actions on the Ryan proposal. Ryan/ByerlY's Presentation Mr. william McHale, vice President, Retail Development, Ryan Construction Company, (Ryan) addressed the council. He stated that in addition to the recent pUblic hearing, Ryan has conducted neighborhood 4 . . SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1992 - PAGE FIVE meetings and numerous studies. He pointed out that Ryan has been sensitive to the questions raised by the public and the Planning commissioners on issues including aesthetics of its planned structure, an expanded buffer zone, elimination of a fast food restaurant from its proposal and has developed alternative traffic/street plans. He stated that the proposed development would be beneficial for Shorewood and that Ryan is prepared to fully cooperate with the City and its residents for a mutually beneficial development. McHale introduced Mr. Tom Harberts, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Byerly's, who addressed the Council on behalf of Byerly's. Mr. Harberts stated that quality and service are primary components of Byerly's corporate philosophy. He noted that consideration of a Byerly's store in Shorewood began several years ago based on customer requests for such a store in the western suburbs. Requests from this community continued even after the Ridgedale store was built. He emphasized that Byerly's is an outstanding corporate citizen in the communities it serves. council Discussion and Action Mayor Brancel stated that this meeting does not include a public hearing thus discussion of this agenda item will remain at the council/staff level. The Council members asked questions about the Ryan proposal. Council members participated in a wide ranging discussion regarding the current P.U.D. (Trivesco) and the Ryan proposal. They asked staff for procedural clarification of their current authority to act on the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. They considered developing a conceptual plan for public reaction and/or declaring a position on approval or disapproval of the Ryan proposal. However, it was pointed out that the Council cannot take any action regarding the Comprehensive Plan or P.U.D. amendments until a public hearing is held in accordance with City regulations. It was acknowledged that many questions regarding land usage and transportation under the P. U. D. remain to be answered. Council members acknowledged with appreciation the receipt of telephone calls and other communications from residents concerning this issue. Stover moved, Lewis seconded that the council table action on this issue to the next council meeting following the public hearing. Motion failed 3/2. Daugherty, Gagne and Brancel voted nay. Daugherty moved, Gagne seconded to direct the staff to prepare a resolution for the council's consideration and action amending the Comprehensive Plan to expand the commercial portion of Waterford III, to eliminate the multiple family housing and to realign Old Market Road incorporating "Scheme C". . Motion passed 4/1. Stover voted nay. 5 . . SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JUNE 22, 1992 - PAGE SIX The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. Mayor Brancel reconvened the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 11. HATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Brancel called for matters from the floor. There were none. 12 . STAFJ' REPORTS A. Attorney's Report. None. B. Engineer'S Report. 1. Report on Lilac lane - City of Chanhassen Meeting 2. 1992 Project Update Dresel briefly commented on his attendance at the Chanhassen public hearing regarding the upgrading of Lilac Drive at which he presented Shorewood's concerns related to the road's geometric layout and future maintenance. He briefly reviewed the current status of pUblic works projects in Shorewood. C. Planner's Report. None. D. Administrator's Report. 1. Proposed Ordinance in Orono to Eliminate the Use of Unprotected Bead stYrofoam for Dock Flotation. The council unanimously directed the staff to prepare an ordinance for its action to eliminate the use of unprotected bead styrofoam for dock flotation. 13. COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Brancel reported that the SLMPSD union agreement included an annual 2-1/2 percent increase. B. Council members A. 1. Request for signage at Trail/street Bob Gagne Crossings Gagne suggested that in the interest of safety, motorist warning signs similar to that on county Road 19 be installed on other City streets where the hiking/biking trail crosses. Hurm noted the cost of the street signage plus signs on the trails identifying the cross street is approximately $1,000. Gagne moved, Daugherty seconded to approve RESOLU'l'ION NO. 62-92.. "A Resolution Amending the 1992 Budget Appropriating Funds for Hiking/Biking Trail crossing signage. Motion passed 5/0. 6 -. . . SHOREWOOD REGULAR CITY COUNCIL KIHtrTES JUNE 22, 1992 - PAGE SEVEN Gagne commented on the resignation of the Fire Marshall and expressed concern over the lack on continuity in that position. Hurm indicated he has expressed concerns to the City Manager of Excelsior and has made some suggestions to that City that could alleviate turnover in that position. Gagne asked about the current status of the left turn to Christmas Lake Road. Dresel suggested petitioning the City of Greenwood to take action. Lewis expressed concern over the apparent lack of traffic control related to excessive speed following the opening of Old Market Road and asked that the Police Department emphasize patrol in the area. Daugherty and stover. None. 14. ADJOURNMENT 8UBJE~T '1'0 APPROV~ Oll' CLAIMS Daugherty mmoved, Gagne seconded to adjourn the City Council Heeting at 9:30 p.m. subject to approval of claims. Hotion passed 5/0. RESPECTll'ULLY SUBMITTED. Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services (retyped by sn) ATTEST: Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor James C. Hurm, City Administrator 7 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 MEMO TO: Mayor, Council and city Employees t FROM: James C. Hurm, City Administrator . DATE: June 30, 1992 RE: Working Foreman Selection Process The intent of this memorandum is to explain the working Foreman selection procedure in detail to prevent any miscommunication or misunderstanding. The overall goal of the process was to select the best candidate for the position. Although neither veterans preference nor seniority resulted in extra points, I feel there was an unavoidable bias toward seniority in interview questions, specifically those related to "experience". . The position was first "posted" and process explained with the attached notice of clarification (dated December 9, 1991), distributed at the time of bargaining unit negotiations when the position and wage were incorporated into our agreement with AFSCME. The process as described was followed very closely because an individual was to be promoted from within the department. Testing was done very carefully to ensure that integrity could not be questioned. The written Test Questions were written by Engineer Joel Dresel, Minnetonka Director of Public Works Lloyd Pauly and myself. Public Works Director Don Zdrazil and myself agreed upon the final exam to be administered (16 questions): 3 true/false, 3 multiple choice, 2 essay, and 8 problems. Questions related to lift stations, fire hydrants, sand/salt mix, right-of-way width, patching, supervising, plowing, sizing, costing, calculation of amounts, scaling distance and tree trimming. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 3A . . Page Two - Memorandum Mayor and Council- June 30, 1992 Working Foreman Selection Process The written test questions were kept by Deputy Clerk Anne Latter who administered the test. The four applicants were given 45 minutes to complete the test. The tests were given Tuesday June 16 at 2: 15 pm in the Council Chambers with Anne present. Anne assigned a number to each test, placed the list of the names correlating to the numbers in a sealed envelope and gave the envelope to the Administrator to be opened only after the tests were scored. The Administrator scored the tests. Up to 3 points were given for each question for a total of 48 points. The Public Works Director scored one 3 point essay question relating to snow plowing response. When I scored the tests they were identified by number only. Interview Process The oral interview questions were written by myself or taken from material supplied by Lloyd Pauly, Minnetonka Director of Public Works. Don Zdrazil and myself agreed upon the final exam of 13 questions. . I determined that the four candidates would be interviewed at 3:30, 4:00, 4:30 and 5:00 pm immediately following the written exam. Their time selection was determined by my selecting their names out of a container, the first name drawn being assigned 3:30, etc.. Lloyd Pauley and I each asked four questions, Don Zdrazil asked five. Each of us individually scored the answers from our own perspective. Four was the highest possible score for each question. When the process was completed we added each candidates individual score and divided by 3 to determine the average, which became the final score. The questions dealt with: Experience - sewer (1) - supervisory (1) - define (1) - handling problem employees (2) - handling bad feelings from the selection process (1) - public relations (2) - decision making (1) - personnel (1) Leadership (1) - strong and weak points (1) what can be improved (1) supervision situation The written test score and the average oral interview score were added together (100 points max). There was a significant difference in scores between the top scorer and the remaining candidates. Therefore, the high score was selected to be appointed Working-Foreman. Hopefully this clears up any questions regarding the process. Please feel free to contact me if any questions remain. JCH.al Dec9;7;- _. r 9, 1991 {~ f?\\ '- !QJ~r CITY OF SHOREWOOD PUBLIC WORKS FOREMAN POSITION J The foreman is a working member of the Public Works crew and is scheduled to work assignments alongside light equipment . operator/laborers. This position shall be responsible, when the Public Works Director is-not immediately present, to schedule work assignments when needed, to respond to questions from the crew and the general public, and to perform general supervisory duties. The incumbent is assigned specific supervisory functions by 'the Director of Public Works as needed and is included in the on call rotation. . A wage for the position will be set following negotiation with AFSCME. The position opening will be posted internally. The most qualified person will be selected following a testing and interviewing procedure. The Selection Committee will consist of the Director of Public Works, the City Administrator and a qualified person from outside Shorewood City Government. . . RESOLUTION NO. -92 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 SEWER FUND BUDGET FOR REHABILITATION OF LIFT STATIONS 1 AND 11 WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council has awarded a bid to rehabilitate sewer lift stations 7 and 11 to Schmitz and Sons in the amount of $66,319, and, WHEREAS, it is general practice to include a contingency in project cost for unforseen construction obstacles, and, WHEREAS, the amount budgeted for such rehabilitation project for 1992 was $60,000, and, WHEREAS, it has been the practice of the City Council to amend the budget for such expenditures to reflect the actual cost of the project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the City of Shorewood that the 1992 Sewer Fund Budget for rehabilitation of lift stations 7 and 11 is hereby amended as follows: Expenditures Amended Budqet $ 66,319 3,316 original Budget $ 60,000 -0- Purpose Construction Contract Contingency Net Expenditure Budget Amendments Account Number 61-8263 61-8263 Difference $ 6,319 3.33l $ 9,650 Beginning Sewer Fund Budget Plus: Net Budget Adjustments Amended Sewer Fund Budget $ 532,051 9.650 $ 541,701 ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of July, 1992. Barbara Brancel, Mayor Attest: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ~8 . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR SPRUCE HILL WHEREAS, Paul Kelley (Applicant) has an interest in certain land within the City of Shorewood and has applied to the Council for preliminary approval of a plat to be known as Spruce Hill; and WHEREAS, Applicant's request has been reviewed by the City Planner and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission dated 31 May 1992, which Memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 2 June 1992, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. approved. That Applicant's request for preliminary plat approval of Spruce Hill is hereby 2. That such approval is subject to the recommendations set forth in the City Planner's Memorandum dated 31 May 1992 attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A and the terms and conditions contained in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of 2 June 1992 on file at City Hall. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of June, 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ~c. . , MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCIl.. KriSti Stover Bob Gagn. ROb DaU9hmv Daniel L.ewis . CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOO, MINNESOTA 55331 · (612) 4;4-3236 ," MEMORANDUM "_: -"" "" TO: " FROM: Planning Commission, Mayor _~d City CounCil Brad Nielsen . DATE: 31 May 1992 RE: Spruce Hill - Preliminary Plat ""FILE NO.: 405 (92.11) BACKGROUND Mr. Paul Kelley owns approximately 7.5 acres of land at 25110 Yellowstone Trail (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to divide the property into seven, single-family residential lots as shown on Exhibit B. . The property is presently occupied by a home and three outbuildings. It is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential, as is all of the property surrounding it. ANAL YSIS/RECOMMENDATION Upon review of the proposed- plat and the zoning and subdivision requirements of - Shorewood's ordinances, following is how the subdivision complies with City requirements: A. Lot Size. Although the preliminary plat shows all lots to be 40,000 square feet or larger, calculations suggest that at least two of the lots (Lots 1 and 4) are slightly less in area. The discrepancies are considered slight, however, and it appears that some of the lots are slightly larger than 40,000 square feet in area. It is recommended that the applicant's surveyor provide exact lot areas with a final plat, demonstrating that the lots average no less than 40,000 square feet. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . . Re: Spruce Hill PreliminarY Plat 31 May 1992 The buildable area of Lot 7 presents some concern. Although 55 feet of depth is adequate to build a house, it is somewhat limiting. It appears that the depth of the . . buildable area could possibly be enhanced if the street was shortened and the cul-de-- sac shifted to the east. Such a modification should result in slightly lower improvement costs also.' " Also, relative to'buildable area, the setbacks for Lots 2 and 6 should be corrected. The northerly boundary of Lot 2 constitutes the rear of that'lot, while the west side of the lot is a side yard. This results in, more usable buildable area for the lot. The northerly lot line for Lot 6 is also a rear yard with a 50 foot setback. The proper - setbacks for all the lots are shown on Exhibit C. B. Proposed Street: Spruce Court complies with the width and cul-de-sac diameter requirements of Shorewood' s Subdivision Ordinance. The existing grade at'the south end of the proposed street is approximately 10 - percent. The detailed grading plan to be provided with. the final plat should achieve a maximum street grade 'of six percent. The construction plans for the street should also attempt to create as near to a 90 degree intersection with Yellowstone Trail as possible.' Plans for the street will be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. ( It should be realized that the road in its proposed location can serve future development to the east. At least one additional lot can be created on the parcel to the east, and more if the road is extended. C. Grading, Drainage and Utilities. Plans for these items are submitted with the final plat. Preliminary plat approval should, therefore, be conditioned upon the City Engineer's review and approval. One determination to be made is whether or not on- site pending will be required. The detailed grading plan must also show proposed building pad elevations. D. Existing House. The developer proposes to build a new driveway to serve the existing house. This should be shown on the detailed grading plan. The developer has been advised that the outbuildings must be removed or moved onto Lot 1, in compliance with zoning requirements. - 2 - e( Re: Spruce Hill . Preliminary Plat ~ 31 May 1992 Based upon the preceding analysis it is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved subj~t to the following: \- \. 1. The final plat must be submitted within six months of the Council's approval of the . preliminary plat. At that time the developer must submit an up-to-date title opinion for review by the City Attorney. " - - 2. . The final plat should include lot sizes.- The lots should average no less than 49,000 square feet in area. 3. The developer should consider shortening the street to increase the buildable depth of Lot 7. ' 4. Plans and specifications for the street, grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 5. Street plans should be designed with a maximum grade of six percent, and intersect with Yellowstone Trail as near to 90 degrees as possible. 6. A detailed grading plan showing building pad elevations must be provided with the - fmal plat. The grading plan should also show the new driveway for the. existing house. 7. The outbuildings must be removed or moved onto Lot 1 in compliance with . e applicable zoning requirements. 8. Upon approval of a final plat the developer must pay $4500 in park dedication fees ($750 x 6; credit is given for the existing house). 9. Upon approval of a final plat the developer must pay $6000 in local sanitary sewer availability charges ($1000 x 6; credit is given for the existing house). - 10. Upon receipt of the final plat, staff shall prepare a standard development agreement for the project. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane J eel Dresel Paul Kelley - 3 - l I - --- - ----- --- ~ ~ ,..; ... ...... ~ - S aJ - .- . '" :l":t 8 ... \.. a:: ... ~ , . ~ :~ ~1~=; ;/-----~~ I 3~ ~~ ::~ ...:; ... . ~ ~=- "'~ . ~~~ -a::... cr.=-'" zcn- ~~i o ...e~ "'~~ !:i! - ....""'u a:: V> ~ - w_'" a:l"'- _....0 it ;'1:; (,,:R ~... ..,.- .. ~ i '-.) ::. ~ :1 1/ V> en v \~ 901 I -.. I o , o , I I , I , 0... , t- o I I o , \...... j ~ , I I , I , , g'L'1 (J '" '-' ;:r;; ...... '" ; ,- "i ) \\.) " ~. I " "'-0 ~ 7Sl.29 111.. . ...... '" ...... '.. >.. ".-' ~ ,,; ~ ...--------- ... lIS ... ... v '-" Z I >r- S: , :r: .~ I ~: \\WI~1.,,\ ~- H- ;t ....h~.......,... f I ;Q I \a.. Sf ..~;. -, , I , ,I , --------..----- i I I I on I VI ~ I , I , I I , ,0 ~';t , I , I , , ~.h....~ 1 --'_ , . , '. . . . 10. \7''38.t 1:;= 6'3 ROllS ~~~- '" ".. 'y (\" ... ,....,. cD .~ ! -...~<~~ ."", , :.--~ .----" ........ .... '\ ,"-' "'- ......, ...... I,.r) 2:! ry.~ ...... ~.~ ~ ....... .: o , _'- -r ~ : \ . I I "\r ~!i ~-~-:;~~'~=------ f "':c 'i ~ ~ . \~ ... \ 1=\ ",. ,.,'1' '--J~-hl:h\h" tZ1oF---.-.~----~--------- 11 ......'~. ",-&1 .. , ~ -\ ,,~.~. ROllS ~ INK~ - ~::: i' '-' ~ ~ ,\ I --:-.' I ..' \ S'llN11 01 SOQlI 9t ~.... " ... 0 .... tf) .. ..... ... c:: ~ ... ... <C ~ I!> N --~--- (@ ...... ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1"3 ROllS 5 LINKS " , ~o 9~nv3S - - - - - TJ;~zr::. - - - -- ...-:.---- !' .... ... .... ... :,. '" ~ ~ ':: - ;:() ~ N ..: ...... ~ I I ... ,'" I ..J.>..ON ".: ~'S-., .:, '; 1.IO.t" "- S J!!' o ... -;:; ... , - ~ ...... N i. N . .. ... " '- ... .... i. ... S'LSI ~nx' " 9'i. 'SSI . ... ..... ?~";8~ .....~....... -^". . . . . "" wi" WI 4c.....,I-J II, . \ \ : : - - - - - " - - ~;~ ~..~O .... ..., ii1 ~ N ,,; .., N ~ \;f Exhibit A SITE LOCA nON Spruce Hill - Preliminary Plat :.. r'~"5; \0 ~ _ t .P' . ./ -:. ~. -;;::;::;-=-~-:-':"-=-~~~::-;:,- --~: -:--. ,.. .. ~ .'. 110" ~_...,..r-_...\ . r . -:=--';:"'---:-';"""'l .... ,ar /~_..._...... /.\.~--_._.....'t .... ..<~:..:....._~..; -'. .,,~- .,,~' ~- ------ '"' ';;U "', \ : > ~ \. \ ", ". ':"-::~: ;~ \ ~..' ~ -\~ '\ :'" }' . ". '. ~~ .~' ,,-- ~ :.\"\ S S> ...., ,........ ----.,. ' . I ~.~."\ I ~ t~' ':.. .~l-.,l """\ -"'- " :I:~:: ~; ". '\'fi'- -~' \ ~~~ ":"\" ~. ------,. ;..~ .. '. J'l..i \ / \ \ . f"'-.. ...i ". . ....... '-.. '. " '. . . " fJ~ \ \.. Y~'G ~;/ ) \__~~-t._:' .~ ". ..~\ - . '. "'" ~. 'e,.. ." """ " . ': ~ : \.?~ II I / .~", .' .' ~ \ r/' :~.I' ....~------- -"'-"". ','. ',:.. ' I ," . w 'oS ,~(&' . ..' I i7\~' ~ ---'-" .., J. -' . -t-" . ~. " -- """" '" ' L L. ~ \ ..' .~ CS\:- ."')...,;.......- I -t- '. '. - .-....../'-----.". -....., '-'", -'1 '0 ',~_""'\ ..' ~~ ',,- . ~----' "'. ", '-L r:::-.r- .\.___...1. Y'- .' ~. '" ,,~ _.~ . 'Not$ '" \\~~).. \\---\( >~~~ '-/ ';,~,\ ~ :....'--._ I'~~.i(l)' : \ '"....' ", ~ '-- -.--- " J> ( 'x-/ r. , ' , '.' ::'\, 04. . _,,-- ___ --, ~-. \ . . \ : . \ \ \ ~ \' ;t, ~ - ........., \ t,)~~~-::\---'}7<' -0--" \ ,~-.' '.--_/' ; --. j '-. \ f\ \:L ,///' \ 7; ,/"'- \ oS )\; /\\~.. ~, 11 ~ ~::......,__ -:.+....:! ~\ ........ ", \, ," ". .' " ,--.__'___.' '\~.c , '; \ ( . ~-. ' J ()' '. ~ ~ .,) ... ,".. oS) ..'.-._____ "1-"~ ' ~ t \ · j- -\, , ' D^0i.~' ," 1.- .- \ ....::..~---;-~----~Q \ ' ; \(', I --- L~~~~~.:--l '{~ -_/" / :v\. I / , . . _ '- _ _~ \ \ ' ,/ " : 1\ 'Ii, I -'- .: ,~-_ -r ~-Dlt.. \. \ Ie - \ . '_/<~:"/,0.x>'''- /< I" -+- +\-L~' ~ . \' \,' \ . -' -- ." " ~ '\ - ...."',.'''' :v+-.::..\ ~m \ '~~" \, \N \,' ~\~ ],/'. --/"-. -.~~.:~.,~:>.~..:;J(~ \ ': ~ \' \1 ~\ \' ':i \ fJ~ ~ . \\. . ~ ;;'/.'. /'" /",~/' /.-..-. I " (_ , \ t.::..J',.' , ~ ~ '\ . -.i. . ...~,. ....-- /",.' -,.-...-' : -..J, : ,\ t 'L.-' A : . ~1 ~ . ".. I' ,/ .....": .... ." I < '.. ",,\1$' I ~"'""""''-~~ . ,.- .. '" ..,.., ...'/ ,-:/:' ~o //' : : ,~' \ ~;' ! \ . \ ' '. ~ // "./ .-;.:.' ~ /{ /.--- ' \ "~ I '-l_ __ - .' / I ..' ,.','. / ..' ---11,1 \ \ "':"';"---:" ., .... /' '. ..~' ", ':..__.......; ',----:~' / '-":":,",. '.:'>':,/ .,,/':;.-l . ~.'" ;, . I I I I' I ,o'.,. "." t:,. ./. 'V . .i : " ' 'Goo" "/ /~'/'" .;.. J:: (I '" ..\.- ,"'; , ,', ,/ ..,....".. P1 ~.;/ I . .. t ;' /..v ",'" - I . /' "/ ,...... j~: . \ ~. - -,' ".../ ".' ~ /", ,'/ '\ :..' .-;= . -c,"-.' / ~ ....-::,: ,...~...<li.~ /,;' ,L -r.' \ \ . 'A~ ..;.' '~:: ./" I . ,_ ,~---;5::' ..' )- \" ...-:':--<'- ;,~~;r." .,.r;;':::;:;' . " . .' / ' , .. - -'_ ,k~"--/" \ ;""/ .....~ -/. l' .. ~'.. \ .. '" _ '. -', --.--...' {/ . -!/:..'", ,,:;." ..<., >.~:. . .. t - . - - --..- .-:- :l- " ~ -', , -<" ,. . " \..........-:.......... o_-'l....:.....,.-J-..........;.,.."~ . 'Lr::IV~.i / i '\ . - I _ -..:-'"-~',:;../ .,.,. ....-: ,,' \ ~ '. - . ~ __ ~_....:.:;;____ - .~ -... I ~~ - . -' -- --- -- -;..---. ,p- ,,,. . ':~..-..-:.:::=-..~. . -. -~-? '..,s/.' . / .,:: . I \: ~ .:::-:::~ ~.,..---? ./ --?: . . ------. --' ...:.'!:.}-~-~:'v-o--- ._------:.~~/. - ..;........ - .. '.-. -.-:::~~.,' - .,' -~~==~~:~;;-_:.:-:~~..-~.~'~ ,,' .. -... ....... _--.....,c......~ -"" . .~,. .. - ,". ."' .."'. .. '. - , " . l '. I . . , ! i I / " . , i ! i , i 1 ! I ;' , . -".. i , I \ , '., \ \, ~ .. \, \i : ~ \ " '", \ \ \, , , \ , \ I' , . I. , I ! " I I I , . .. , . i ."3if........i.~ i;-=:D:~& :w r....s c~-..-ll ... . :-.... i -~~ ;t:! ""_~n!."i": aD- ..--.tJ::i..o g s: r: 2'::1. ~__...._ Exhibit B PRELIMINARY PLAT Spruce Hill -~j7:--s'- ;7~~~_ ~~':~':~:.o;',::~.:_~\. ': - ",U < . _. /~ \ '. " _:~>~-';' i 1$"\ \." .~ I ,."~' ~ ".. +~ -'C, \~;. I I . : ~~ :1 ~~ ~ ~~ ",,: ..\ ~'" .. " "--,-~:~~ --. " "--...- ~: :::::2~-~'-::::': :.:: : '- ----~.-.. ......, ..... ....... "-"-~.4......... ....... ..... ... " ".- --..._- ". -" '. '. ...", "', ", ", ---:---.. (..:'1 '..... \, . ; . ....: < \ \ \ \ \. , ! \" ....... i I I \ .'\ \ \. \ \ \. ; \ i ~ \. . , , , , " I' i' ....: . i ;: ;; ..-" ~~ /~ 0:) '~'\: ,: .;:' ~ . 0- .~ i~:i~" . v\ i,~ ; !'\ X'' t , I ,i '( -\ ~.,' // ,.' .;~ \ i,- / .1.' \' Y "".''" ..,.... I I ,'\ /\ / :.,<',. /...<..' / \'(~' / ,./.......:>..' . ."'" ,,~, \, ." .,' , . ,,' ",'" - .. ",'" \ ..' ",." , '. . ,./,."".... ,/',/ .,,/..-/ , .. .' /' - ,- " ." ",,:' ..,. "" ~/. .. /' ....'..., ;'3 ~: ~.::.r;~f:.~ -:.;'=.....Q~ ~~ :...~ t:~iC3!~: :..~:~!:~r~i"" i i~ ;2;'~=!.tII! Exhibit C REOUIRED SETBACKS JUL 06 '92 12:36 OSM MPLS. MN P.l O\'4~~ 2021 Cast Hennepin Avenue Minneapolha. MN 55113 612-331-8660 fAX .3.31-3806 Engm~rs Architc:cts Pl<ll\ners Surveyors July 6, 1992 Mayor and aty Council Oty of Shorewood 5755 Country Cub Road Shorewood, :MN 55331 . Re: Shorewood Suburban Estates Letter of Credit Reduction OSM Comm. No.4590.11 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We have been asked to determine, based on the amount of work completed. if a 95% reduction in the Developer's letter of credit is warranted. Given the fact that the final lift of asphalt, final seeding and mulching, and signage have not been completed, we recommend an 85% reduction in the letter of credit. . A performance bond should be placed with the City to guarantee the completed work prior to final acceptance of the roadway. Since final acceptance will not take place until after this coming winter, please be certain that the bond is in hand, with the City named, prior to release of the letter of credit.' Please call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, QRR-5CHELEN-MA YERON &: ASSOCIATES, INe. r~Ui,u \.")rlf)U(~~(l~ty Empl',)'j'';C 3D 3!:.- Building Corporation 18283A Minnetonka Boulevard. Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 · (612) 475-2097 June 15, 1992 Mr~ Brad Nielsen City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 . Dear Mr. Nielsen, It has taken longer than expected to work out many of the details that need to be taken care of prior to filing the P.U.D. for Gideon Cove. We are for that reason reauestinq an extension to the filing de-adline- of June 30., 1992. it is our intent to file before July 30,. 1992. The following items need to be worked out before we file the P. U.D. : . 1. We need to get a financing package in place that is suitable to us. 2. I will be contacting you about providing a performance bond in lieu of the letter of credit requested in the developers agreement. 3. Gary Thompson is finishing the final draft of the restrictive covenants, etc. They need to be reviewed by you prior to filing. A copy will be sent as soon as possible. Please call.if there are additional unresolved issues that I may not be aware of. ~h '" Robert Boyer Y Boyer Buildi~g Corporation JUL 06"32 09: 55 OSM MPLS, MN P ~, .~ c.e..' osu=& t WI. ASSoda~ lnc. 2021 East Henneoin Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55413 612-351-8660 t:AX:nl-3M6 gngineers ArChitects Planners Surveyors July 1, 1992 Oty of Sborewood 5755 Country Cub Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Old Market Road-Intersection City Project 91-4, OSM Comm. No. 4705.01 . Pay Voucher No.6 Dear Mayor and City Council: Enclosed please find Construction Payment Voucher No.6 on the referenced project in the amount of S S6~297.47. Please make payment in the amount of $ 56,297.47 to Hardrives, Inc. - 9724 10th Ave. No., Plymouth, MN 55441 at your earliest convenience. SincerelYJ . ORR-SCHELEN-:MA YERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ;pU Joel A. Dresel, P .E., L.S. Oty Engineer Enclosure jjad 1009pay1.1et c: Hardrive, Inc. '"<.Jua: opp'x:unHy t::rnpl,)y~r 3F JUL 06 '92 09:56 OSM MPLS, MN P.3 , ~J.y 1, 1"2 Old MaJ:ket; Ao4d I.neuaectioll 91-4 4705.01 City of Shorewood, MIl !L'O . JlAR,DRIV2S, DJC. 9124 10U AVE. BO. l'~YW)U':1I, JaI 55441 110. . A. ORXGINAL CQB'rRAC!r ~. $1,044,615.70 4. ~ AI,ltlJ:'J!IOMS. $16,144.84 c. 'fO'J:lUt t)Z1)UC~IOIIS' $0.00 D. ~ PlDJ1)S ~J). 11. '.lIO'l!AL VALU!l or WOU CBUXI'DD 'J.'O 0A1".!. $1,060,760.54 $1,028,173.05 P. LBSS ~IDJ) p~. 5 , $51,408.65 G. LZ~ ~ l'REVIOUS PAnmB'lS. $920,4"." H. 'rOT.U. J;'A~S INCI.UDIRG !rats vooc:mnu U76,764.40 J:. ZHCUM8ERED i'OH1)S CAUIItD PORWAN). $83,996.14 J. API/ROVED 10R PAY~ ftX$ vooc:mm. $56,2n .n oaa.-SCDt.BIf-tlAYDO)I . USOCVo't2S, :me. 1>Ur8UAJlt to our field ob.ervation, .a perlor.aed in accordanco with our contract, we here1'1y ce~ity Tobat the ....tu141. u. Htj.afac:t:o~ and the work properly pe~o:caed in ACCo~ witb the pl41lS and spec1t:LcatiOllll II.Gd tbat dl. total. woe 98 \ coapl.tea as ot ~ly 1, 1992. we heJ:'eby n~Qd payaent of this 'IOQcber. Signecll PA,;/ ?;"'d~ ~ :7l'1tJ S.i.gned& ~~~ c:o~tnc~ion ObaU"l~ ~y En9 nee ~hi. is to cert~ tot to the b..t ot ray kslowJ.edg., infOnlAtion, and bel1ef, 1;he qu.m1:;!;ei.. a.a.d .aluea of WOR certified herein is a tAU apPJ:'oxiJDate value for the period covered by this voucher. ~R.I B4rdr1v.e, InC. SlG1mtl Ul DAD. '.rI~a Cl'fY 01' SJlQREWOOO AnROVBDa DIl.U. 'rl'l't.Z& JUL 06 '92 09:56 OSM MPLS, MN 1 " S . $ * 7 1 t 10 11 12 U 1. 1:5 1f 17 U a 3G . 2. 15 2' n 21 u 30 n )2 )) 34 S5 ;I' )7 U st 40 41 <12 4$ 44 U .<I~ ., U tt so n 12 53 54 55 $4 5' 51 lit *0 n '3 u '<I is " __ 11&.. IIto\ft. NlOnlC'h HOoJD:7 110. I ()all _. Bel.. POllI %tIIl ane. 110. ID'!lllIIIICS Z'IDt OJU.'U O"".'CIa 0544."2 ON4.*OS 2101..11 2104.'01 210<1.501 21".50$ 2104.50$ 2104.SU n05.S01 UU.U2. UOS.SU 2:tU.SO' UU.5U un.501 3331.510 2SU.S10 2331.'". U$'1.$02 UU.5OS :l5n.5C7 2501.5" 2501.$47 2112.401 UII4.5U 2501.501 25OS.5U U03.5U 25OS.541. nU.541 ..~ Sft4 .~ DIIC RO_ S'l.'ilan.;: .mallC: ''lID UIIIl: S'ID OK 2521.501 un. 501. 2S31.501 u;l1.501 21U.501 aut.50S 2"..5n 354'.5U. DIY ~% 25n.5U 25'5..GIS 2CU.5 :CU.5 2.11.5 2.11.5 U11.S DU.S 2'U.S :ell.S 2fU.5 1>%'1 n :'11.5 2'11.5 2Cll.5 DN U DN U DWU DW I: . ~y 1, Uta OW ...dIe, ...... _..-.lo_ '1-4 nos. 01 ~q. oC '1I'......c. lei ft~"'" CloalUi:Ol (ft&9lI nUl n; ..... - --...,.. w-_~ ~'aab - CQZb . _bill' (..,,1 ~l ...... .b. (ell -.u.. ... ~l --. aL~ ICMIka _Bi.~~ A&via9 Bi.~ JP_ ~ __ciAa CJ.u. S (10ft CWlU>od) ...~ <kuIIa1ar IIaaaw (LV) 'IJpe '" -_.iag c:oac.. ~ (ta'1) ~ 41 :r.Ml.u." _ ~ (ft7) ".. n w....ua. C4UM 1UIcCoI.. ".. 41 aJ.ocIH eoa.. (7117) :pp. 31 ........ _ l!ftle u .... c_ ~ aLt___ M&~W ,.. ".. __ co...... ..~ 1fIIll (Si1n.723) 12" ..C. __ v/v... ___ U.. 1Il.1:. .- v/ll..uIa ..-m 2.- LI:. ........ v/~uIa ....... .......... ~aQ" -c... ~ ..... ... CI1aaa U~ 2.. 1Il.1:.J1. 1:1__ IX% 1.. a.c... C1... I:: 15. ..I:.P. C~ %'I U. ..c... CltM :r:v a~ 4' ~. .lIAIIIoa1<o (0." _51) <:4ltolll ....4.D 1IUIlou. (0." -'1 -~_.._p ''lID a..CCIII lI&&ia ~j_. ~~ ....:1.... 1DWou..9 a..~ _ill ....j__ 1DWo~ GAt.e '1""_ 3" ~b lI&llc _11 ~.te CUI>> ... Gla&_ M24 __ c:uo . GtK.~~ lMit eoaopCol CUI>> {, Gla1:tell .u...-.:-. Q&Eb __ IIIId.iAD tKUio ~~ll ~ lua ~:z. ~. ~tecI 7. COateoJ. .,_ ....ua.,~. 7.... ...... tOO %apaoll ft_~ (J1i11e) .o.u.. 'fopaa.U (%Awe ~I BtA..~ ,. Qate 'l.J._ aDCI _ ." Gab Yal.... aDCI _ 12. GaY val.... . ... nt.~.. 1-~/a" ~.u.. '1:01> 1.1/2- t;a.,. ..... . _ 1-1/2" ClOtJper ~ IE :.Mlau.. C'. ~I l!:zN;... <:-..1 ,. D.:J:.JI. c1.... 52 ,. D.Z... ~ ~ la. ~.~... C~ '0 a.l_... 1I,ydx_ oJ"'" a~ toz U. v~ __.U.u.tJ.ooI Cl_._ _~110. 1 sunu:KDI'1'AlIJ' AoOllllI:MDIl' 110. 1 ~_1Ia.2 ~ AmIt\'XOIIa COUIIJ) 1O'UL maL l1li%" QCI.UInn' L.a. L.a. L.... L.a. I.... I..,. ro... . a.r. f.Y. 1..1I'. C.lt. ,.... <:.1'. ,... foil - 'I'OQ ftD ftD GAl. a.r. ..... ..... lSaah ...~ ..... c.r. L.J'. L.r. Ld'. 1..1". .... .... L.J'. -- .... lIagi& lI&U '.lI'. f..7. L.J'. Zo.'. f..I'. fl.'. L.7. L.a. ~ra - '.r. IrAGb .... SMa .... IolilII .... a.a/a f..F. ..7. ;'.P. l..lI'. 1..7. 1..7. c.oa Zo.J'. L.a. L.'. , , 1 1 I IS 1410 lUO 11142 au. tU:>>2 un $lilt uu 175 1W 8N 1417 5404 :au. tsO . 3 2 51 14 1.7 J.30 :a'1 335 131 . 14 , 10 4 a a 145 5U. :u.,o 575 370 ln, 300 1 C U ten 10 u 7 5 .040 , 4 to 1.1100 :&.000 244 "0 2UO 1 140 1 1 In. 000.00 '5.130.00 n.'50.oo ..,000.00 $10.500.00 $6.00 p,'O $01.20 11'.40 Ia.oo St. II 17.10 as.50 8"0." $;lS.:so $.10.60 'u." fU.U $u.'o $1.00 ~...oo 1300.00 Pall. 00 14'5.00 fIOO.OO u".oo Ma.oo .21.00 ,u.OO '17.lIO $1.4.30 "lIO.OO $8...00 >>05.00 J'115.00 ,150.00 '1$0.00 1150.00 $a.oo $5.00 ".40 $C.4O 13.00 no.oo $23.00 $"70.000.00 n.ooo.oo 11SO.00 $1.40 $1.1140.00 iJ7'.00 "00.00 "SO.OO n.n '121.00 ,aoo.oo $14.00 $2.011 n.oo I1C.50 $12.10 nc.so ,:1..000.00 $110.00 no.ooo.oo $.10.000.00 'EO. ClQIftID1! \IIIZ, toQZ. - ~ $20,000.00 85,720.00 f2.C50.00 ...ooo.G' $14,500.00 $425.oe $S.25..GO .s,ua.oo $2a.Ut.iO 14..2..00 "'.&.16.20 tlo.na.to 52'.'oa.oo asa.S12.7. u.on.50 nO,..,.20 $17,542.'0 $21.71'.45 110a.lIfO.00 13 ,485.00 WI.OOO.OO n,aoo.o. "'5.00 "".00 $5,'00.00 $4.~60.00 ,",14.00 ...au.oo $' .aD. 00 85,"'.00 $10,453.30 ':>>.840.00 .13.>>0..00 1525.00 ".150.00 uoo.oo ')00.00 $300.00 $2tO.oo $2,..,'.00 $11. ".. 00 n.1SI.OO ""0.00 OZ'l.700.00 $C.'oo,oo $70.000.00 ".000.00 82.250.00 $15.71'.10 no,400.0Q Jot.W.oo $3.500.00 sa.S'O.oo $'."'.00 ",".00 UOO.oo n.2et.00 P,015.00 02.000. 00 54.0211.00 $,.a..oo ...,,3,725.00 $1.000.00 $15.600.00 '20.000.00 $20,000.00 fl.ll44,nS.7o f11.'U.OO ,:a.100.00 $1.U:I.... 111,144.... n.o,o,7CO.54 ~,~. '714 lOW AlIa. 110. ~. _ SS4u P.4 C!CtCPI.RlI to _ 1OIU. QlWtIlft' ~ 1 1 :I, :I, :I, lei "'~C 1052 1U14I 2'IM soon &toc '6' 157'.0 US.7 Ja.2' u: 1000 6573 aus 525 4 S 2- " 1. U.7 211 345 u. :z.ou 4 14 5.' . . 1 J ,oat "'3 '5C 1':17 ." 1llS7 322 1 . t 11100 :z.o 11 , 3 11790 .. . t. 1504 un uo 10n 24... 1 120 1 0.7$ $20.000.00 ".720.00 $2.C50.00 ..000... '10,500.00 ,.,0.00 OS.....I. ....u.... $17,7U.60 15.!t08.00 $'.,55..20 ut.an.n $S.n.... '..,OIJs.U AZ.34a.01 till". 10 " .1"." m,no.oo ,",'U.,. 02.>>5.0. hU. GOO. 110 $1."04.00 '.'..00 "'4.00 .,,'00.00 ",a40.oo 14....0 .....31.00 if.su.oo " .00..10 $14,'''.50 n.'60.00 ';1,2.320.00 14".00 tc.UI.oe "00.00 ':JAG.00 MSO.OO tu.U'.oo $3'."S.00 $C,1;I.',,0 nO,730.20 '1.U'.00 $33."0.00 J'1.4...00 '71. GOO. 00 14.000.00 $1.350.00 $U,SIO.CUI OI.O,4CU1.00 $1.125.00 113,000.00 A.5lIO.OO no,54'.oo .....00 .'00.00 $1..'0.00 A.OQ.ao '2,274.00 p,US.oo .U.a4..,o "o.nc.oo $1.000.00 $13.200.00 1a0. 000. 00 tU,ooo.oo Il,Ol2,02l..u 'l1.U~.OO I:J. 100. 00 ':I..nl." I1C.1....4 $1.021.173.05 JUL 06 '92 09:57 OSM MPLS, MN P.5 OS\\ ~b>o 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis. MN 5S-l13 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 e~.' July 1, 1992 Engine.letS ArchiteCts Planners Surveyors City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 . Re: Pine Bend Watermain Extension City Project 91-11, OSM Conun. No. 4775.01 Pay Voucher No.3 Dear Mayor and City Council: Enclosed please find Construction Payment Voucher No.~on the referenced project in the amount of $14,479.47. Please make payment in the amount of $14,479.47 to 'Vidmer, Inc. at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. .pU Joel A Dresel, P .E., L.S. City Engineer " Enclosure c: Widmer, Inc. ~\,..."l OpfluttunllY Em;:1lu,c:r 30 JUL ~b F~~ ~~:~~ OSM MPL~, MN P.6 3 JUly 1, 1992 PDIB UBD ~ bDBSZOK U-ll 4715.10 ei.t:y ot S~ewood, JOI :0. wttlHZa, :tHe. P.O. Sox 2U St. 8OIlLtAciua, _ 55375 RO.I . ORIGIHAL CCNftAcT ~~J n17,.fl.1S . ~ Al)DX'1'IOIISt $0.00 . 'JlCnAL ~OHSI ~.oo . ~ I'QRZ)S DICUMBltlUW. . ~OB or WOlQC CZRTIPIZD ~ DA!ft:. . US$ RB'1'AIH2D fUCD1!AG8. $117 ,49J.. 75 $119,499.17 1 , $1,194.95 . uss :o'1'At. l'il.IVIOUS PJ\YMEB'rSJ $1Q3,824.11 . ~AL PUMn'l'S I'HCtm)DlG '!!Its VOUCB!RJ $118,304.18 . 2H<:tnt8IRBD PUBDS CARRRD 1rORWAaD. ($812.43) . APPROVE!) FOR PArMEH'l' mIS VOUCDR. $14,.79.47 RR-seDBI.BH-MAYJtROtl , ASSOCIADS, IHC. rauant to OUr field obaerva'tion, 4a penoD\ed in aceont.Ulce wJ;th OUr c::ont~4C1t, We b"eDy certify that tlw ...terial. J:e sAtiafac:toqr 411<1 the ~k properly perfcu:mecl 1ll Accordance w.ith the plAn. 4l1<l specificAti.OIUl 4114 thAt the totAJ. rk 1. " , cOIllpleter:l IlII of JUly 1, U92. We bereby reCOllllIMu2d p4~Qt ot this voucher. ignelhJ! ?;",r.d ~-I ~p Si.911eds 4-7 J J CcmatructiOQ Obsen=;;t- eit~lUll!lr' his J.a to certUy that to the beat O'l lIlY Imowledqe, intClJ::1lllltion, ADd bel.1ef, the qQI1IltitJ... aact va.lllea o.f wwk ~Hied here.1ll 1a a faiJ: &pproJeilu.te value fo;:- the period c:overed by th,i./iJ vOllCher. Bardrivu, Inc. SIGN2J) BY. n2'U: . APPROWO. !l!I'1!L3. JUL 06 '92 09:58 OSM MPLS, MN P.? __ 110.1 ) 101 lIUIIla. _. DASI J"41y 1. 1".1 ..0. _ ;au ~. .na: _ WAftNCUlI ZXftIIalCll e. ...u........ .. 543" _ 110.. ,J.-u oeM C-. 110.1 ..,,5.10 J<lal C.l.tr of ..~. _ ~ COIIIPI.IID .. .. !Q!DI'. QUUlftft' - 1_ ....... .... ~ Oai.-. ~w1llai..- ftU4 1. !)X9. U lIaI:lUJ.iUlU4a z.... ;I, n,SH.oo ~.:$OO.OO ;I, $1,500.00 Z 1lW. 1:1: ~ I.... I A. 000. 00 n.o"o.oo I. $3,000.0. ;& 2101.5U d.oMe , 0lNII0 t.... 1. $1,000.00 $1,000. GO ;I, $1,."0.00 . 2104.SCl1 --. Pi;. (dS 0.1.- ..... 1lJPN1 L.t'. 40 $'.00 hoo.OO .0 AOO.OO 5 n....5OS - _...... ~J... a..r. 3' no.oo $;&50.00 31 n",oo , 31M.S05 ...,... ti .-1 ~. ~........-. 1.1'. Uoo A.OO n ,000.00 <1500 ..,,000.00 , U04.S.. ___ ""* ...u. .... :I $200.00 MOO. 00 2 .....00 . n....sn ...iat 1Ii~ ~ 1..1'. COo n.oo HOO.GO 533 $AS.oo , :n.....S33 la.ly_ I:4I.ItUAp IIMla a Us.oo $50.00 J ,",5.04 10 nos.s~ - ....-.uoa c.:r.( 3000 ".00 $',110O.00 30n $U,i.>>.04 11 :l:2S1.'01 c1.ua S (100. ~ __I .,.... 13$0 fr." $10.360.00 13:1.1 ~.2'0.01 u Ul1.SOI. ~ 5 tUO~....... _1<) tlU 7S ".'0 1720.00 14 $730.00 ,.. 1lcJ.__ . un.sOI 'IWII u -:iat CGQ.. "- :l00 $n.so ".$SO.OO 214.3 ".tu.1. un.sOl ~ u lIeariav eou_ .... 50 ",.00 n,'so,OO $4a.GO fl. oso. 04 &. _J.-.ye :z.s :SU.'l' ~ n....~..~ .,.... ..0 fl'. 7$ ".'00.00 na $_.",.10 1S 2357.503 u___ ..~WJ. f= ~. 175 $1..7' .30f.U 215 '..1..., ~_. 1.7 3501.$1$ 15- Ill::. ..-.. "Iorr.... ~ ~ 1 "7$.00 "'5.00 1 "'5.00 U 3503.541 lS- _, c1.... w. Dot.t.. SOOf 10.1'. 1n 12..00 13,1A".oo lU $3.1-'.00 11 2506.SM CloaaUQa1: C&tlatl aut. .....l. .... 1 USO.OO '150.00 1 $t50.oo 30 3506.507 e-~ CMa ....... IlAOla 1 $7S0.00 ,.,50.00 1 ,7:S0000 :1 2$OC.Sl1 ~~ I..... 2.0 '2.00.00 ,x, 000. 00 1 '100.00 a2 a5IM.5U Wiuc h_ . Il..I.A9 ~ .... . '1".00 ...0.00 , ,"0.00 33 3Ul.S01 ...... U. .... en-. :r:u C.lt. 11 $40.00 H'O.OO 11 "10.00 2. un.S1S -.cu. r.uu. flIpe rY 1.11'. UG 03.00 $320.00 H $112.00 .u 35U.S07 1611 ~.... ca.d> & GQ.~ L.P. 1t20 $$.00 ",:'00.00 uu ",015.00 2f 25n.50'7 ,- __ DJ:;LV_67 ~ '.1'. 25 U'7.OO U1S.00 :If $713.00 27 1:S7&.1I05 IIod v/.- -..oi.1. (1_ tnal 1.1'. 2200 ,".7S $3,'50.00 :LISa $S,an.so 3. DlY. :t1 ~. '.n. .. .. ~u Mr. 0.2 n.loo.00 $.100.00 0.1 ,UO.GO U 2'1:1.5 12" ~D Cl... 50 :r..... no no.OO ..,&00.00 3U ....."0.00 )0 3411.,s ." ZlD c:1_ $3 L.r. n'" n..)O ~,23..00 u.. tU,3U.40 n :ui:&.1..5 ,- DB CUM 52 1..' no $1:1.111 $1,732.50 U. tx,...... 32 2'11.5 ." ..w vu_ , _ IAA ) $4".00 $1,&.,.00 2 $1,il4.00 JJ 2'1.1.5 ,. kCot V&l_ & __ SM. , $395. GO U,an.co II $1,"5.00 2. UU.S .,u- ..... .. ".000.00 ",000.00 . ",004.00 :as :Cll.s 1- ~.Uoa .~ IlaQJa 13 ~.oo $COO. 00 13 $COO. 00 eu 26U.5 :''' c:aa lCoDpa & -... ..... 12 '$0. ClO "00.00 u MOO. 00 )1 26U.S 1.~r t..r. 350 '10.00 'S.5oo.00 J311 U,UO.oo n :leU.' ..1~ 1M. ~500 $1.15 $4,375.00 341$ U.011.2. __ ma.r. nU,'.:!"7S '1SP,'''.:'' MAYOR Barb Brancel COVNCI L Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rob DaughertY Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 .. (612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council Tf FROM: James C. Hurm, City Administrator DATE: July 10, 1992 . RE: Agend~ Item No.4A - Silverwood Park Project When grading the western portion of Silverwood Park the contractor ran into a significant amount of very good top soil where the tennis courts are to be located. This additional top soil needed to be removed so that it could be replaced by clay and prepared for the tennis courts surface. This additional work along with additional fencing, required by the Watershed District, resulted in an overage in the grading budget. The specifications were written such that if the City so chose upon such overage the size of the park pond could be reduced to make up the difference. A second and better option, in the eyes of majority of the Park Commission (through informal discussions with the Administrator), is to leave the size of the pond the sa~e as planned and increase the budget from $55,200 to $63,500. . The proposed pond is about the size of the pond in Manor Park. That would be about four tennis courts in size. This pond would have to be reduced to about three tennis courts in size in order to make up the difference and additional costs. We are still projecting the Park fund balance to be sufficient to cover the original budget amount in 1992. Depending upon further development this year there is a potential for up to $13,000 more dollars which would more than cover any overage. However the attached proposed resolution amends the budget increasing it by $8,300, and authorizes the use of General Funds on an interim basis until the Park fund balance is sufficient to repay. It should be noted that it may be possible to negotiate the price downward some in negotiations with the contractor. JCH.al Attachment A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 4A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET - SILVER WOOD PARK WHEREAS, Resolution 39-92 established the 1992 Silverwood Park Project Budget at $55,200 and resolved that "should authorized expenditures for said project occur before anticipated Park Fund revenues, the General Funds will be utilized until Park Fund revenues are sufficient to repay the General fund. In such case no other expenditure may be made from the Park Fund until the General Fund has been reimbursed in full"; and WHEREAS, increased quantities of top soil removal has raised the project budget to $63,5.00; and . WHEREAS, current projections show a year end surplus in the Park Fund at the current project budget expense of $55,200; and WHEREAS, Park Fund revenue is not likely to be sufficient for said amended budget in 1992. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the 1992 Silverwood Park Excavation and Grading Project budget is increased from $55,200 to :$63,500. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any expenditures in excess of Park Fund revenues in 1992 City General Funds will be utilized until Park Fund revenues are sufficient to repay the General Fund. . BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that upon using the General Fund for said purpose, no other expenditures may be made from the Park Fund until the General Fund has been reimbursed in full. ADOPTED BY THE CI1Y COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of July, 1992. Mayor Barbara Brancel ATIEST: James C. Hurm City Administrator 48 . MAYOA Barb Brance! COUNCI L Kristi StOver BOb Gagne ROb DaughertY Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOO. MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 414.3236 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council . FROM: - Brad Nielsen DATE: 7 July 1992 RE: Waterford ill - Ryan Construction - Comprehensive Plan Amendment FILE NO.: 405 (92.02) Per the Council's direction at its 22 JUne meeting, the attached draft amendments have been prepared to the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibits A and B are the proposed text and map change to the hmd use plan. Exhibits C and D are proposed amendments to the text and graphics of the transportation plan. . With regard to the text, existing text proposed to be deleted is shown as strikeouts and text proposed to be added is underlined. If there are any questions regarding this draft, please contact me on Monday, 13 July. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Bill McHale Dick Koppy Planning Commission A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 58 . Pg. 77 (Land Use Plan) "The area in the vicinity of the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection is primarily neighborhood and convenience type commercial. DepeBdiRg 6ft the City's aBility to Since the new inter~uonat Old Market Road/Highway 7 enhances access to the area south of Highway 7, the property along the highway frontage road could possibly support additional limited community-orient~ commercial land uses, especially if done as part of an overall plan of development for the area." and Pg. 120 (Area Plan - Planning District 13) . "While the overall residential density of the District has been proposed as low density and low to medium density residential, the City recognizes that property adjacent to Highway 7 is not appropriate for such use, Given the aiOOtlRt of l:l1'loovclopeEllaRd quality of residential development which has occured in the area and assuming the proposed circulation pattern contained in the Transportation Plan can be implemented, the area lends itself to development as a planned unit development within which the concept of land use transition (see Page 58) could be applied. . StartiRg at High'.vay 7 the fITst tier of lan6 use coukl BC a limited form of eommcrcia:l activity. The Twenty-three acres south of the Highway 7 service road and east of the Old Market Road intersection could be develQped as a community-oriented retail center. While specific activities would be addressed as part of the zoning of the property, the City should concentrate more on design (architecture, landscaping, signage, etc.) to create a reflective of the residential character fer and quality of the ~ea. . CofttiRuiRg the laRa use traflsitiefl southwB:l'd multiple family resideRtia:l A significant open s'pace buffer would separate the commercial area from low density residential areas in the interior of the planning district. " Exhibit A . I 0 Semirural residential (0-1 uni t per acre) CD rr1 DIill Low density residential RO.I....J.J (1-2 uni ts per acre) \ 8 Low to medium density residential (2-3 units per acre) " " *:0 ~rc.~...: ~~re. ":~oo.,,~~tl onds :""p ~ ~-r~" I . I I . :! ~.. ~ ~ ~./~~ ~~-~~. ~\). ~ - - - . -.-.... ... <o\..; ~ ~. . ,....~:.:?.,~.::. ,: . ~ 0-."\ 1"-=",;,>,-...0', ~ :.--. --' ' . ~,.p~ ~ ,...... " .r \..; ./ ~ ~+v ./ " ./ ."~' v/' ~~-{. k~ ' ,~' ~~"<\~ .... ..". """- ,,~ 0.1>> 'j,Y. ~ ~ -~! \ \ ) _ ~en __:::!/ --- - Space. ~ U ~I II /~ [/ ~ ~~~~/ -~ ~~\ ~ ~~~. ~~ \ vV'> " ~ ~ '/ 1\ > ~/~ " . sY~~ ~~~~/ /: t~~~~.~~ \ \~ \ 1\ r1 >-k tJ_', I /-- \~: ,-~ \ '\ ~r-. ~ '<.' ~~\~-~-..:- I;:"~ ~ \~~I~$ ~'-o"'~ "77 ~ II~ J I ~-~-->~ . , ,~___ 1\ Proposed Land ~ :.:..:1 Designated wetland* << ~r , Use fm Medium density residential (3-6 units per acre) ~ Semipubl ic .. ~.t"'t+\ -#- :0 ~ W. 2: z --4 ~ . . ~:~ c:~>",:"J C ~ : .' /... I . ~oo . VALLEY V .. .' - --~. ,y , I -"-'~ ~~::,' : :~ ..lo.. --_ ~.~ If-@j Publ ic . Commercial 'J --tr--- LIJ Z :> 1 \ o . --- '-J ./ ./ ./ / ~7./ -- ./ ./ /". 4' .-... of 0 . ~~~~_::Z:"7~~;i ~rl---- :a.::'-:-,-:-.,,~~.' .--:4,'\ ! -..- :;..... ".-'. . -..... :-." ...~. . ~~;t~~~;s;~~~~:~I~~:-~ · /-"."" -..'... "M -..'N:~:t~~j11 : KINGSWe -~ ~ i 111::1 )/(r III I 111I \ I II I I ;! I i\ I I IIIII : < ~,~U~s ~ J '- ~ ~y/ ~ "'0/ .......~ > K' \ I~ ~~~ d~ I ~O ~ I\~ 1\ \ I / I '*(IT~.' ~!-, I . . Pg. 91 (Transportation Plan) . '" l' H'B: R: d h . . 100 1 6a. as previOasly BeeR plat'lBed for fitttlre apgfildiag to collector staNS tEl serve as a desirable flBk betweeft High'J.'QY 7 ane! Higlr,vay 10 1. There are a ft\:lffiaer of pfeelems .JIith trying to \:tf)gmee the exisriftg street te eaHeetor staWs, fttOst Ratably the iftterseetiOft at Highway 7. Althoagh the City h8:8. re...iewed 8evemlplafts for impfO"oog the iRterseetioa, aoae of them. preseRt a teUtl aeooss solution for the s.rea 8ftEl all af them are quite eXpel'lsiy.-e to implement. Exhting dC'Iclopmcftt 8:l0ftg Vme Hill Road 8:ftd relatively steep gmeesmtly also preseftt Eliff1Cwtics in apgradiag the existing street. Instead of Viae Hill R-oati bciag the primary Berth.' soath eoUecwr for the area, it is proposed that a ae'N collector meet sftookl be bailt throagh tlBScveleped property to the v..est. The ftC',V eolieeter woald re<t1:1rr-e a ~N mterseeUea at Highv..ay 7. The etlrrEmt Yiae Kill RQad ifttcncetlea eaafigtlmtioR sh:ouidbe smdied far its relaaaRship with the BC',V proposed mtcneeti:oft. As SftOWROB page 93a. the collector street .....auid extefl8 southW8:f6 toW8:fe! CoviRgtOB R-oaa thoo bmd CflStw8:fd into Co'AngtOft, bendiBg southWMS iBto Vine Hill R()ad ana akimB:tely caftftcetiag to State Highv..ay 101. Covingtoa R-oad ...'oaid be turned ftortftv/8::fS, teeiftg iBto the ftew street. Simile:rly, Viftc Hill Road ',vol::lld be ttlmed westwaffl er~ftg a "T" at the ftew eollceter r-cad. This '.voule! pro\ide a eont.in1:lous, ftoastop cOfl:eeetion bet\vooa HiglP.vays 7 aile! 101. Teciflg Viae Hill R-oad Me! cO".-iagtOfl R-ea6 iftto the ac'.v collector street ',y.-ill discoarage flofllocal traffic from llSiag those streets, thereby pfoteetmg existiag acighborhoods. One of the first steps ift plMniag the ne'N iatersectiofl is to prep8:fc a traffic sttlay for the Depmmeflt of Tfaflsporte:tioft. This study will verify the Reed for the mtcrsecooft ane! determine its l:lltim8:tc desiga. Possible fl:lBdiag soar-ees 'I.-ill also ee explored withifl. th~ study." "Although Old Market Road had previously been designat~ as the collector route for the southeast area of the community. De.partment of Transportation plan~ for upgrading the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection will enable the collector function t9 be split by Qld Market Road and Vine Hill Road. resulting in two "minor collector" streets. To ensure that an appropriate balance Qf traffic is established between the two streetsf Old Market Road should be realigned at its nprthern end to intersect with the Highway 7 service road awroxim~tely midway betw~n the Old Market Road intersection and the Vine Hill RO<;ld intersection. Vine Hill Road should be ineOI:porated into the (:ity's Municipal State Aid system and the City ~hould work with the City of Minnetonka to upgrade it to a minor collector status. T~ffic patterns in the area should continue to b~ monitored until after the Vine Hill Road/Highway 7 intersection has been upgraded. Traffic control measures should be explored in the vicinity of Radisson Road and Covington Road. Shady Hills and at the Covington Road/Vine Hill Road intersection." Exhibit C II' .11 ~ j! : .' I \~' ~.... --.. " ,.... \ .-- \ -- , --" l{ Mi'l'\6Y'" CoIl<<..-TOl"" Local Street Area of Further Study UA""C Ii IF bit 0 . . RESOLUTION NO. -92 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WATERJ'ORD III WHEREAS, the procedure to amend the city's Comprehensive Plan has been completed; and WHEREAS, the city council is desirous to amend the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the proposed Waterford III Development. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibits A and B (Land Use Plan) and Exhibits C and D (Transportation Plan) of this Resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 13th day of July, 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator . . JUL 1219 '92 16: 34 OSM MPLS, MN P.l July 8, 1992 O\U=& t WI. AsSociateS, Inc. 2021 East Hl:nn~pil'l A'I~nue Minn12polis. MN 55413 612.3.31.a66Q FAX 3,31-3806 Engine:ers Architects ?lann~rs Surveyors . Mr. James C. Hu:rm, Oty Administrator City of Shorewood 5755 Countzy Cub Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Traffic Impacts - Scheme C Old Market Road OSM Comm. No. 4705.01 Dear Mr. Hutm: As requested, we have reviewed some of the poSSible impacts to the surrounding roads resulting from the adoption of "Scheme C" We have also tried to come up with some options to these impactS, along with the advantages and disa~tages of each alternative. Following a meeting with the police and fire marshall, we believe the following roads will be impacted the most: 1} Vine Hill Road 2) Shady Hills Road (and alley) 3) Radisson Road (and Covington west of Old Market Road) 4) Waterford Place We have listed these areas separately on the following pages. Please keep in mind that the cost estimates shown are very preliminary in nature and should be used accordingly. As a general comment, the options available include blocking One direction of travel (Le. one-way, no left turn, etc.). The fire marshall has stated that these options can be expected to increase response time to the neighborhood involved. Please call me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES /f /~ c Joel A. Dresel P~ City Engineer JUL 09 '92 16: 35 OSM MPL5, MN P.2 VINE HILL ROAD I According to the traffic report prepared by Barton.Ascbman (May 1992), the implementation of Scheme C will divert about 7S0 daily trips back to Vine Hill Road. 'Ibis would, effectively. make both Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road Minor Collector routes. ImpKt: The vertical alignment aild sight distances along Vine Hill road are not conducive to collector-type traffic loads. Upgrade the alignment df Vine Hill Road Option: . Cost: Advantage: $1,12&000 Improved vertical; alignment in this area is desirable regardless of what is done with i Old Market Road. Disadvantage: The high cost involved. No detailed studies have been done, but it is likely that additional right-of.waywill have to be obtained from the adjacent owners for slope easements. Also, Minnetonka will have to agree to whatever plans for upgrade we come up with. This could lead to a lengthy political process. . . . j UL l:;J':; . '::'c. J.o'~:> V:;'j"1 ITIl"'L:;', ITII'i ~.,;) SHADY HILLS ROAD Impact: OpdOD: Cost: Advantage: Disadvantage: Option: . Cost: Advantage: Disadvantage: Option: Cost: Advantage: Disadvantage: Creation of a "shortcut" route through the Shady Hills Neighborhood on low-volume roads. Signage ("local traffic only," etc.) Minima 1 Low cost Will likely be ineffective. The police chief would like to mini""i?,e the use of ineffective signs. No left turn at Vine Hill with the use of a concrete median combined with a one way north bound on Shady Hills Alley. $25,000 Would also stop cut-through traffic from the apartments in Minnetonka. Inconvenience to the Shady Hills residents. Creation of a cul-de-sac at the north end of the Shady Hills Alley. $10,000 Effectively stops all cut-through traffic. Cost is relatively low. The fire marshall has serious concerns with a single access to so many homes, and the fire rigs are very difficult to maneuver in cu1- de-sacs. . . JUL 09 '92 16:36 OSM MPLS, MN P.4 RADISSON ROAD AND COVINGTON ROAD WEST OF OLD MARKET R.OAD Impact: Instead of using the intersection at Old Market Road, traffic may be encouraged to use the Covington-Radisson..christmas Lake route to reach west bound T.H. 7. Option: Create a one-way east bound on Covington Road from Radisson to Old Market. Accomplished with the use of signage and enforcement. Minima} Low cost. Inconvenience to the residents regularly using or living along this route. Requires additional police patrol until established. Cost: Advantage: DisadvuCage: Option: Bloclc north-bound traffic on Vme Hill from turning left (west) on Covington Road. $25,000 Reduces potential for traffic accidents at Vine H111/Covington intersection due to turning movements on relatively steep grade. Also reduces cut-through traffic potential from Vine Hill. Inconvenience to local residents. Cost: Advantage: Disadvantage: WATERFORD PLACE Impact: Once the new intersection at Vme Hill/T.H. 7 is in place, residents in the Covington/Old Market vicinity may choose to use Waterford Place as a cut-through to the Vme Hill intersection to avoid the commercial traffic at the Old MarketjT.H. 7 intersection. Option: Make Waterford Place a one-way west bound. Cost: Minimal Advantage: Low cost. Disadvantage: Inconvenience to residents along Waterford place. Requires additional police patrol until established. . . MAYOR Barb Brancel CO UNCI L Kristi Stover Bob Gagne Rot) DaughertY Daniel Lewis CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 . (612) 474-3236 MEMO TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: James C.Hurm, City Administrator DATE: July 9, 1992 RE: Meeting with MnDOT Thursday, July 9, 1992 The morning of July 9th I had a meeting with Dennis Carlson, MnDOT state Aid Engineer, Elmer Morris our MnDOT state Aid Representative, Joel Dresel, City Engineer and Dick Koppy Engineer for the Developer, at the MnDOT Office downtown St:. Paul. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Scheme C and how it might affect our municipal state Aid designation and funding. It should be noted that there is a se.cond track of inquiry to MnDOT. That is with transportation planning regarding approximately $360,000 worth of special agreement funds for the intersection project. I hope to meet with Bill Crawford, District Director on Monday about this issue. Mr. Crawford is not here this week. It is my understanding that he has called a meeting of his staff for sometime the week of July 13th, therefore, we would not receive official word from MnDOT until after that meeting. The following is a received at this Department: summary of the preliminary indications I mornings meeting with MnDOT's state Aid . It is likely that Scheme C will not affect the Old Market Road/Covington Road MSA designation as long as their criteria continues to be met, which seems likely. . Because of the question of the MSA route continuity criteria, the service road, from the intersection around the new development to Old Market Road will need to be designated eligible for MSA funding. . The funding issue of the Highway 7 intersection can be separated from the Municipal state Aid (MSA) route designation/funding issue. . They feel that the cooperative agreement funding (the other track) should not be affected if the traffic needs do not change at the intersection as a result of Scheme C. I will have to verbally report to the City Council Monday evening if I learn anything further from Mr. Crawford during the day on Monday. A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore CITY'OF SHOREWO00 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD . SHOREWOOD, MINNE:SOTA 55331 ~~/ ";'~T--- --- I 1_ . ' / ""- ) -I ~ " ,.... /'" MEMO. '- \' -~ / '- Mayor and City Council e>TO:' .- FROM:___- . DATE: James C. HUrm, City Administrator July 8, 1992 RE: ,_ Planning Commission Recommendati~ns MAYOR Batb Brancel COUNCIL Kristi Stover Bob Gagne ROb DaughertY Daniel Lewis i . (6121 474-3236 , -.<<'\:: . The Complete J1.ily 7;1992 Planning Commi!\sion draft minutes are not complete. Attached is the portion of those draft minutes relating to the Planning Commission's rationale for ,their .recommendations.relarlD.g to Watenord Ill. . The City Council did not have a copy of the June 16 Planning Commission meeting minutes when they met on the issue June 22. They felt this brief summary explaining what was considered in making their recommendations would be of help to the Council. ,- ./ A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore PLANNING COMMISSION ME5TING JULY 7, 1$92 - PAGE 2 5. MATTERS FR9MTHE FLOpR DRAFT - JULY 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE EXCERPTS Rosenberger suggested that the Commission reiterate to the City Council its actions taken at the June 16. 1992 meeting In connection with the Waterford III - Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment presented to the City by Ryan Construction Company. . Following discussion, the Planning Commission took the following actions. Bean moved, Rosenberger seconded to clarify the Commission's reasons it voted 7/0 at Its June 18, 1992 meeting to recommend to the City CouncIl to leave Old Market Road as Is and not change It to any of the Options presented in the Ryan Construction Company Waterford III proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and P.U.D. and In particular not to change it to Scheme C: ' .1. 2. 3. . 5. Scheme C reduces the buffer at least the width of the road rlght-ot-way and grading. . Wlthout completion of the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7lnteraection, Scheme C will have an adverse Impact on the cut-through traffic problem on Shady Hills Road. Scheme C is not consistent with the Highway 7 Corridor Study and Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan.. 4. Scheme C creates a potential adverse impact on MNOOT fundIng of the Highway 7 and Old Market Road intersection and Old M~rket Road MSA status. Adoption of Scheme C will have impact on more homes that have direct access on Vine Hill Road than would hav$ bee" impacted on Old Market Road. Motion passed 7/0. Been moved, Borkon seconded to clarify to the City Council the main Issues the Commission took into consideration at its June 16,1992 meeting when it voted 5/2 to recommend to the City Council that it deny approval of the Ryan ConstructIon Company WaterfQrd III proposal to amend the Comprehen$ivG Plan and P,UIO: 1. Traffic considerations. 2. Economics of development. 3. Neighborhood input 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 7,1992 - PAGe 3 4. Community needs. 5. Pertinence to Comprehensive Plan. 6. Land use evaluation. 7. HIstory of developer. Ryan Construction Company. 8. History of proposed anchor tenant, Byerly's. Motion paned 7/0. In addition, Leslie agreed to make arrangements for Planning Commission representation on the agenda of the Councl1"s July 13, 1992 meeting. .6. BEPORTS - None. 7. AQ,JOURNMENT Hansen moved, Borkon seconded to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED . Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary Northern Counties Secretarial Services . . June 30, 1992 Mayor Barbara Brancel 25785 Sunny Vale lane Shor~wood, MN 55331 # " ~ Mayor Brancel, During the last three months, the Shorewood Planning Commission spent many hours' working on the recent application for a change in the Waterford III P.U.D. After reviewing hundreds of pages of material on traffic projections, noise levels, neighboring resident comments and opinions, and, holding one public hearing and devoting the better part of one of our own meetings to public expression, the Shorewood Planning Commission made two recommendations to the City Council. First, the planning commission realized early on, as has everyone else who has been interested and knowledgeable about the issue, that there was a separate feeling clouding the entire new P.U.D. application. The Old Market Road intersection and its function are still on the minds of many Waterford residents. The Shady Hills area residents are also concerned with the traffic situation. A careful review of traffic studies and projections, as well as consideration for the nearby resident comments, led the planning commission to vote seven (7) to none (0) to not change the current Old Market Road intersection and function. Second, the commission voted five (5) to two (2) to deny the new P.U.D. for the Waterford III development. The City Council has apparently decided to totally ignore either of these recommendations. At the council meeting on June 22, 1992, there was not a question raised by the Councilpersons nor the Mayor about the foundation for these recommendations. A council that operates in this manner is, at the least, misusing the commission as set forth in our city code. Currently, the planning commission is concerned about the potential response of the council to its recommendations regarding the comprehensive plan. We have spent, and, are planning on spending many more hours on this plan to set goals and develop the basis for ordinances for our city. If we are to be ignored. in our efforts, we wonder about the need for a planning commission. To date, the city's staff has spent time and money supporting and informing us on our planning decisions. That time and money seems wasted currently. ~)l;L . Mayor Barbara Brancel June 29, 1992 Page 2 With these questions in mind, the Shorewood Planning Commission requests a joint meeting with the City Council to discuss our future relationship. We would like to meet at your earliest convenience. However, we would like to meet no later than our already scheduled joint meeting on July 27, 1992. Very Sincerely, . cc: James C. Hurm Brad Nielsen SOUTH LAKE MlNNETONKA PUBUC SAFElY DEPARTMENT 810 Excelsior Boulevard Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 RICHARD A. YOUNG of Police (612) 474-3261 Chief HEHORANDUH To: City Administrator James C. Hurm Fram: Chief of Police Rick Young \ Date: July 9, 1992 Subject: Old Market Road The police department has no major concerns about the proposed rerouting eOf Old Market Road around a proposed grocery store. As far as response time is concerned to the residential area to the south and east of the proposed site, it would only add ten seconds or so to our response. This is not normally a significant amount of time. However, we do have some minor concerns. Such a route would subject the police vehicle to the traffic entering or exiting the grocery store parking area and, therefore, the potential to more automobile accidents. Of course, the same is true to all traffic using the route. This will result in more police time on accident calls at this location. Secondly, we are concerned that there may be problem with traffic exiting Highway 7 and backing up at the stop sign at Broms Boulevard. It is very hard to make an accurate prediction on this potential problem, however, until it is actually in operation. These concerns, or lack of major concerns, are based upon the premise . that the Vine Hill Road intersection has been updated and completed prior to any traffic pattern change at the Old Market Road and Highway 7 intersection. To make any changes relating to traffic flow in the area, without reconstruction of the Vine Hill intersection, could route substantial traffic through this very dangerous intersection and onto the substandard Vine Hill Road which is not designed for that traffic. Serving South Lake Minnetonlal Communities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Shorewood and Tonka Bay JUl - 9 1992 ~t~iBir ~itt ~qirlnmaf 339 THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 (612) 474-5364 MEMORANDUM TO: Shorewood City Council FROM: Dana George, Fire Chief . DATE: July 8, 1992 Traffic Alternative - Waterford III Area RE: I attended the traffic alternative staff meeting for the Waterford III area on July 7, 1992. I would like to point out a couple of major concerns the Fire Department has with Scheme "C". The Old Market Road exit from Highway 7 has greatly reduced response times to Waterford and other area's accessed from Old Market Road. If a curve is added to Old Market Road unnecessary delays in response may occur due to the following reasons: . Sharp curves as proposed in Scheme "C" make it very difficult to maneuver fire apparatus; Also near the entrance and exit to the Byerly's store traffic may become very congested, adding to response delays. For the above reasons this section of Old Market Road may also present a dangerous area to maneuver fire apparatus during an emergency response. I feel by adding the curve around the Byerly's store would be a great step backwards from a fire protection standpoint. It would also be an injustice to the citizens being accessed from Old Market Road because of the possible response delays that may occur. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. SERVING THE SOUTH LAKE AREA SINCE t 889 DEEPHAVEN . EXCELSIOR. GREENWOOD. SHOREWOOD · TONKA BAY MAYOR S.rb Srancel COUNCI L K,risti Stover Bob Gagne ROb Oaughenv 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: 6 July 1992 RE: Lon~o/Kinghorn - Simple Subdivisio~ .and Combination FILE NO.: 405 (92.12) BACKGROUND Bob and Kathy Kinghorn, 22785 Murray Street, propose to sell approximately .23 acres of their property to Tom and Karen Londo, 22695 Murray Street, in order to resolve encroachment problems which have occured in the past. The properties in question (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached) are zoned R-IC, Single-Family Residential and contain 5.43 acres (Kinghorn parcel) and 3.74 acres (Londo parcel). . As can be seen on the applicant's survey (Exhibit B), the proposed lot line rearrangement is intended to accommodate the Londos' existing driveway and a small area used by the Londos over the years for recreational purposes. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Ordinarily there would be some concern over the gerry-mandered lot line which is being proposed. However, both parcels are very large and the portion of the Kinghorn property abutting Murray Street is unbuildable due to drainage, topography and width, making it usable only as access to the buildable area to the south. The lot line rearrangement brings the Londo property into conformance with R-IC setback requirements, whereas the garage is currently too close to the lot line. It is recommended that the division/combination be approved subject to a condition that any further subdivision of either of the two parcels be done by formal platting and that the resolution approving this request should be recorded within 30 days of certification thereof. cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Bob and Kathy Kinghorn Tom and Karen Londo A Residential Community on Lake Minneronka's South Shore 5E c::::=: c::= < 11",'..7 Exhibit ~ AnON \\ r; ,--- OO'Z'H ~ Of,gl.O~ I.ll 'lC ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 'l: , -' .,.'........ I' -', ,"'-' "....-l S" "/ .. E.r ~~ t~ W\ !'\ '~ " '.. .~, ~~ " ~I " .... '10, ~ ~ ~ ~ I\) lI\ ... . t- o t.l ~ ~ oJ' () ..... .... {/' .' ;,,:;..' " .' 00'$"" ......,.. / '"",' .,......" , ..., t '-' .~ ....~ ""'/61 , l 2 \C\ ~ .. - -a . '::>... ~ v l i e \:: ~ ~ 'III ~ ~ ~ .. b ~ 0; '" ~ " ~ V ~ , "" ~ ~ ", .., ~ &'\ () ... lie t"'"" ~ lI\ \Ii 1 ' . ~ -w ,....., , .' , , . ~. .'~-' '.-' 4- ~ . .. - '. .?.s: ,/ <b . ~s '. ;:;, 0........ _., Qc -1- . , ,. , ' ,'"' ,. -, l ~' , ..'> ,.. , ~.~ I , . , . 1 , ,. 403.~ 1 "'...... to'" 2.' /. "'-.. ---- - ~ @ r- Exhibit B PROPOSED DIVISIQN/COMBINA TIQN RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION OF REAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, Robert and Kathy Kinghorn (Kinghorns) are the owners of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit A: . WHEREAS, Tom and Karen Londo (Londos) are the owners of certain real property in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in Exhibit B: WHEREAS, Londos have applied for a subdivision and combination of said properties to form Parcels A and B, legally described in Exhibit C and illustrated in Exhibit D, attached hereto and made a part hereof; and WHEREAS, the subdivision and combination requested by Londos complies in all respects with the Shorewood City Code; and WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 7 July 1992, the minutes of which meeting is on file at City Hall; and . WHEREAS, the application was considered by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Council held on 13 July 1992, at which time the Planner's Memorandum was reviewed. WHEREAS, the subdivision and combination eliminates the nonconformity of Londos' lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: 1. That the two parcels of property legally described in Exhibits A and B be subdivided and combined to form Parcels A and B, legally described and shown in Exhibits C and D. 2. That the City Clerk furnish Londos with a certified copy of this resolution for recording purposes. 3. That any further division of either parcel be done by formal platting. 4. That Londos record this resolution, with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar. of Titles within thirty (30) days of the date of certification. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of July, 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: . James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ~ . . Le;:aLDes~ription - Kinghorn Prc>perty: Lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot; thence South 28 degrees 10 minutes 30 seconds West, and along the East line of Shakopee Road, 242 feet to a point; thence South 62 degrees 13 minutes East, 473.7 feet to a point; thence North 26 degrees 31 minutes 20 seconds East, 470 feet to a point on the South line of Murray Street; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning. The foregoing bearings are based on assuming the said South line of Murray Street to be due East or West. EXIllBIT A . . Lezal. Description - Lond9. Property: Lot 87, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part thereof bounded by a line described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Lot 87; thence West along the South line thereof 310 feet to the Southwest comer thereof; thence North along the West line thereof 132 feet; thence East parallel with said South line a distance of 33 feet; thence northeasterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 87 distant 165 feet north of the Southeast comer of said Lot 87; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. EXlllBIT B . . Le~al J)escripti9n - Parcel A OOnl:h9m): Lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except that part thereof described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot; thence South 28 degrees 10 minutes 30 seconds West, and along the East line of Shakopee Road, 242 feet to a point; thence South 62 degrees 13 minutes East, 473.7 feet to a point; thence North 26 degrees 31 minutes 20 seconds East, 470 feet to a point on the South line of Murray Street; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning. The foregoing bearings are based on assuming the said South line of Murray Street to be due East or West. ALSO EXCEPT That part of Lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the most northeasterly comer of said Lot 86; thence southerly along an easterly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 355.00 feet; thence west parallel with the most northerly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 54.00 feet; thence northerly parallel with the most easterly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 100.00 feet; thence northerly, deflecting right 27 degrees a distance of 72.00 feet; thence northeasterly to a point on said most northerly line of said Lot 86 distant 1.00 feet westerly of said most northeasterly comer of Lot 86; thence easterly to the point of beginning. Lel:al Description - Parcel B (Londo): That part of Lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described a follows: Beginning at the most northeasterly comer of said Lot 86; thence southerly along an easterly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 355.00 feet; thence west parallel with the most northerly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 54.00 feet; thence northerly parallel with the most easterly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 100.00 feet; thence northerly, deflecting right 27 degrees a distance of 72.00 feet; thence northeasterly to a point on said most northerly line of said Lot 86 distant 1.00 feet westerly of said most northeasterly comer of Lot 86; thence easterly to the point of beginning. ALSO Lot 87, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT that part thereof bounded by a line described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 87; thence West along the South line thereof 310 feet to the Southwest corner thereof; thence North along the West line thereof 132 feet; thence East parallel with said South line a distance of 33 feet; thence northeasterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 87 distant 165 feet north of the Southeast corner of said Lot 87; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. EXHIBIT C ~~ :t~ ... ~ 'to. ,.. ~ ~ ~ '" II') III 'I .' "....~ ~ .. I' - "', ....... ,-'-",,' - \ " -.' dl ~ , .- . oo.Z'" ~ flI,9/.0g- ~ '" ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ I( v ... " -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . EE S' "" . .( 2 ~ ~ .. ... -.I) >... ~ tt ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... 5 ~ " .. :'<.l.:..- -~_ ~ ~ .; \c\ ~ ~ , ~ ~ '" ~ "t .... ~, ~ ~ 0 ,. lit t-"', ~ " lit } , . ~ . -~ ,...., - .' , . ~. ~. ,,"",,_I '-.' !'\ .~ " '\;.. ~t ~\ . : l- e;:) ~ ~ ~ \It () ..... '" , . ,- ,"' ...... ... , . , ..., , "'.' -, " ,") I oo'$f# ............ oo'(1#-/ I ~ \ I ~-~ ,.. ; f ,. .. ' ,~. ...... \ I.. .' ... ",,> , <- ~ . .. - " cts: ...o,~ r .:::> 06... '. .., c".. . , I '. ..... '" b z.t 403 , S'S . .' 1 ............. -- , ~ ...h .. .. EXItIDIT D ", - ----- 1 . . RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR REZONING AND VARIANCES TO THE UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB WHEREAS, the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club (Applicant) desires to construct a clubhouse building on property located at 4580 Enchanted Point, said property legally described as: "Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Enchanted Park"(the Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the subject property currently exists as a nonconforming use in the R-IC zoning district in which it is currently located, and is subject to the requirements of the "S", Shoreland (overlay) District; and WHEREAS, Shorewood' s zoning regulations prohibit nonconforming uses from being "enlarged, extended, or structurally altered"; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a rezoning from R-IC, Single-Family Residential District to L-R, Lakeshore-Recreational District in order to eliminate its nonconforming use status in order to construct a clubhouse structure; and WHEREAS, the subject property does not comply with certain requirements of the L-R District and the applicant has requested variances to those requirements; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan for low density residential use; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission on 21 April 1992, and, after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested rezoning and variances; and WHEREAS, the Applicant appeared before the City Council at their regular meeting held on 11 May 1992; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the material submitted by the Applicant, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the memorandum of the City Planning Director, dated 15 April 1992. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Upper Lake Minnetonka Yacht Club exists as a nonconforming use in the R -1 C District. 2. That the L-R District requires a minimum lot area of 60,000 square feet and the subject property contains less than 48,000 square feet. (Q 3. That the L-R District ordinance standards limit the number of boat slips for the size of the subject property to 19 and the Applicant proposes 30. / 6. That the L-R District requires a 35-foot parking lot setback from the street and the Applicant's plan proposes a 15-foot setback. 7. That the Applicant's request for rezoning and variances is not consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. CQNCLUSIONS . 1. That the variances requested by the Applicant constitute a significant deviation from the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code. 2. That Applicant's property can be put to a reasonable use under the conditions imposed by the Shorewood Zoning Code. 3. That Applicant has not met the criteria for the grant of a variance under Section 1201.05 of the Shorewood City Code and has not established an undue hardship as defined by Minn. Stat. Section 462.357, Subd. 6(2). 4. That Applicant's request for the variances set forth above are hereby denied. 5. That the street accessing the subject property is inadequate to safely serve the proposed use. . 6. That the Applicant's plans do not comply with the minimum requirements of the L- R District. 7. That the Applicant's request for rezoning from R-1C, Single-Family Residential District to L-R, Lakeshore-Recreational District is hereby denied. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 26th day of May, 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk . . UPPER. LAKE MINNETONKA YACHT CLUB P.O. BOX 358 EXCELSIOR. MN. 55331 July 7, 1992 To the City Council of the City of Shorewoodi We appreciate that the Council has given the Yacht Club the opportunity to address the findings of fact. By way of this brief letter, we outline the Yacht Club proposal to meet your concerns. This is not the time to remove a family activity from our community. We will be happy to expand on our comments at this council meeting. Letts not stamp on one of the few lake acti vi ties that promotes a wholesome and total family environment, for not only the lake shore residents but the entire city. Respectfully, $full A.H. (Skip) Jewett Commodore . . 1. No response required 2. The L-R district may require 60,000 square feet , however, the council twenty years years ago approved the site for a Yacht Club, and found there were no adverse effects on the surrounding property and our use has substantiated that we do have adequate property for the yacht Club. There has not been, and there are, no plans that will change the use of the land. When the council approved the L-R district they knew the size of the Yacht Club property and there has been no adverse effects of the surrounding property over the twenty years. 3. The formulas set forth would allow 82 slips based on 600 square feet of Harbor area/slip while the more stringent standards based on lot size alone, would reduce slips to 19. The L.M.C.D., however, has always been comfortable with 30 slips and has found no adverse effect on the surrounding property or shore line use. 4. There is a 25' deeded road set forth in the plot. The Yacht Club will at their expense, provide a 25' gravel road consistent with the existing road and the neighbors stated desire. The existing road is now 24' to 17' wide, contrary to the council's findings. Snow may be stored on the road bed as the Yacht Club has no need for club use during winter months. 5. The Yacht Club has attached a proposal which will comply with the requested set back of 50 feet. 6. The Yacht Club will provide landscaping to conform with the neighborhood. That should eliminate this item of concern. 7. We are surprised that the council has raised the comprehensive plan as an objection. When the L-R district was established, the council was well aware of the Yacht Club and obviously felt the club was in conformity with the plan. The neighbors all purchased their property knowing the Yacht Club to be in existence, and the uses are consistent with the community and neighborhood. . . CONCLUSION The Yacht Club requests for the rezoning does not change the use of the property or make it more offensive to the surrounding homes. It can not be forgotten that the club offers additional amenities of the lake community and has provided hundreds of children of this city with a opportunity to experience and enjoy sailing as a sport. This is a lake community and the petitions signed by your residents establishes that this club is a desired use that should be supported by the council. PETITION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUBHOUSE /. We are residents of the City of Shorewood and request the City approve the building permit for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. This Club is an amenity to our City, providing a school for sailing and wholesome activity for our children and residents. The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club has existed for over twenty years as a supporting member of our community. The Council ruled in 1969 that the Club does not have an undue, adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. This finding has not changed and the Club's activities have proven the Council's findings to be correct. . This City needs to support the wholesome use of the lake and education for our children. We must not thwart the few recreational activities for the residents of our City. Name Address Date J!I. 1-t-!1J .t::J .. ..,L_j . ........., - ''''''',-"'' .-" t.- ".'" -...r' I I PETITION REQUESTING APPROVAL OFTHE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUBHOUSE We are residents of the City of Shorewood and request the City approve the building permit for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. This Club is an amenity to our City, providing a school for sailing and wholesome activity for our children and residents" The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club has existed for over twenty years as a supporting member of our community. The Council ruled in 1969 that the Club does not have an undue, adverse effect upon ad/"acent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, uti ity facilities and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. This finding has not changed and the Club's activities have proven the Council's findings to be co rrect. . This City needs to support the wholesome use of the lake and education for our children. We must not thwart the few recreational activities for the residents of our City. Name Address Date . . . PETITION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUBHOUSE We are residents of the City of Shorewood and request the City approve the building permit for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. This Club is an amenity to our City, providing a school for sailing and wholesome activity for our children and residents. The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club has existed for over twenty years as a supporting member of our community. The Council ruled in 1969 that the Club does not have an undue, adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. This finding has not changed and the Club's activities have proven the Council's findings to be co rrect. This City needs to support the wholesome use of the lake and education for our children. We must not thwart the few recreational activities for the residents of our City. Name Address Date 7/, lq '"L b )-1191: 7/ / -7 { J . . PETITION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUBHOUSE We are residents of the City of Shorewood and request the City approve the building permit forthe Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. This Club is an amenity to our City, providing a school for sailing and wholesome activity for our children and residents. The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club has existed for over twenty years as a supporting member of our community. The Council ruled in 1969 that the Club does not have an undue, adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. This finding has not changed and the Club's activities have proven the Council's findings to be correct. This City needs to support the wholesome use of the lake and education for our children. We must not thwart the few recreational activities for the residents of our City. Name Address Date <:::..-- . . . . \~ . .f\~ '\I '- \ PETITION REQUESTING APPROVAL OFTHE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UPPER MiNNETONKA YACHT CLUBHOUSE We are residents of the City of Shorewood and request the City approve the building permit for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. This Club is an amenity to our City, providing a school for sailing and wholesome activity for our children and residents. The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club has existed for over twenty years as a supporting member of our community. The Council ruled in 1969 that the Club does not have an undue, adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, tra:fic conditions, utility facilities and other matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. This finding has not changed and the Club's activities have proven the Council's findings to be correct. This City needs to support the wholesome use of the lake and education for our children. We must not thwart the few recreational activities for the residents of our City. Address Date 7- -<;; /7--, ~:-:;<:- )-l-YL '7 ) 6i ') ).., . . PETITION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE UPPER MINNETONKA YACHT CLUBHOUSE We are residents of the City of Shorewood and request the City approve the building permit for the Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club. This Club is an amenity to our City, providing a school for sailing and wholesome activity for our children and residents. The Upper Minnetonka Yacht Club has existed for over twenty years as a supporting member of our community. The Council ruled in 1969 that the Club does not have an undue, adverse effect upon adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, utility facilities and otner matters affecting public health, safety and general welfare. This finding has not changed and the Club's activities have proven the Council's findings to be correct. This City needs to support the wholesome use of the lake and education for our children. We must not thwart the few recreational activities for the residents of our City. -'.. Name Address Date -- ",. 1,....... /. . " " f): I ... t' f ~~ , , .~ , il- I , , '. " I I I ,- .' - (It't "'0 ooQ <.. - ~ "i: O.l.! r~C' tr .lI\ ....... ,.. ~ C1 J,. ....,.. lI!1... "!J"" or ~ "- 4 ~ ~! ~ .t~,'<', ,'" ,}~~(, 't,~ ~~~t '!'i.e. .... .:rt".~' ~\- :'~.'r .." '~lP'YI...r . J ?:'.:l'~':' '"..~ I . (....., ,. . ' f ~.' w ' ... . ~ . AI 5801 . %....: ,(03"0;" oK \ ,s-;( ~;- :.s'c.- ~ O,.,r o.../" ~ .s:: ~ <"'" r::~.q"x ~ <:";.. .......::~.... ~ ...... x ~ " .,.. ;<,y~ 0-6 ..;;. ...", " ""b..... ~ ~l t;. ~ ~ c;;>>? 0 /. ~ -:L ~C" q..::::' ... <: ~~_ ~ ~ e O,OC"' . <;>, S. >f, ,~, ...- I I 0\ .J 4. MAYOR Barb Brancel COUNCI L Kristi Stoller 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: 30 June 1992 RE: Boulder Ridge Estates - Final Plat . FILE NO.: 405 (92.03) In April of this year, the City approved a preliminary plat for L and M Properties. The approval listed a number of conditions, mostly having to do with storm and sanitary sewer service. Since then the site has proven to be even more difficult to develop than originally anticipated. Provisions of the Wetland Conservation Ace (WCA) result in very large lots, some of which have limited buildable area. . In order to comply with the WCA, the developer has to create a sedimentation basin on Lot 5, south of the street. In addition he will acquire Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition, in order to create a mitigation wetland area. Despite these problems, the plat is consistent with Shorewood' s zoning requirements and the approved preliminary plat. A development agreement for this plat should address the following: 1. The developer must construct a temporary cul-de-sac at the west end of the street. An easement for the cul-de-sac must be provided. 2. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition should be incorporated into the plat. 3. Plans and specifications for grading, drainage and utilities shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer (these items are addressed under separate cover). A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore 7).. ., . . Re: Boulder Ridge Estates Final Plat 30 June 1992 4. Grading and drainage plans (including wetland mitigation) must be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 5. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer must pay the following fees: a. Park dedication: $750 X 11 = $ 8,250 b. Local Sanitary Sewer Availability Charge: $1000 X 11 = $11,000 6. The developer must provide a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee completion of the improvements. The amount of the to.c. is 1.5 times the estimated cost of improvements. 7. The developer is attempting to acquire an easement across property to the west of Lot 6, rather than construct a long, expensive driveway. This should be encouraged by the City. 8. The developer must record a deed restriction on Lots 4 and 5 on the north side of the road and Lot 5 on the south side of the road, putting future buyers on notice that although the lots are quite large, the buildable areas of the lots are quite limited due to the protected wetlands. 9. The development agreement must be executed and the fInal plat must be recorded within 30 days of the Council's approval thereof. BJN:ph cc: Jim Hurm Tim Keane Joel Dresel Ron Miller Jim Parker - 2 - BOULDER RIDGE ES tv.r;,{ .J; ~, v 01/ , :.n t.d 1-, ;::r: j..... ,.. F?l[)(;~ .- $. ea"!.'oo"E.. ,- 4?6.'l6- . r I I I.. I:; r ,J! I tAlA I ~::iL \:~ ~_i iin.., r I \ \ I: \ I 1 ~ \ \ ~r... I :t .. 1- ~J 'PI'::i '.' ~. I 2 ~\ ~ 3 ii ~\'~... 4. z I "1 \ /. z.\ I \ \ ~~~/ I }il 1.. ..,'...\..... \ I \ \ ....... l~ ~ ia,...!\..:..: - \ \ \ \ \; ~l r--'.,.~..' \ ..... I .. z\ II"" \ \ ..JI L t~V l: ~iot1.9"T t:~~tJ 1..-_ ~C!.C!C!....J L- I~OO -' ..J !'to 54J.t4&:!:. 0:0 So ,A-I003.''T \ N' aBLE. ROA :'" " I . . Q: &"5..a~\""'W' .........~.,.w.. 0-"."''1' J. ... -;.,:; ,".! ir.:- .n.4lf."'l: ,r l..a.mi:'"1;Ii'fG:"OO \\ r' 0.00 1'.\ i - . : .' '\. \ 4-6"'''' li\ :'< \ \ \ .\.- I ."::"'\ \ 'J-. \, \.\ ....:).y \ \: .'. ..,',' . 7'; . Z/ :' ,f'.J .fI- q, '!.oi 6 .( ~. ~ "1 /.7 ..# S ;-'......l i .J::...IlI"all'IG'L"\..... .: At W '.'.54 \. I' \ '-t.J , .'~. ~x\ (:.:: :'"1 .:::; ...a, ;'.... ilAar ....... : ~ '-.,' ~./" , t'Z.o.10~: \, " : .' .. ,. -'l: / r'~':) .. I i I. ~.. / :1 ..... ,~. ,<~{ll .' "~'. I I ..' ';..:::.\ I I L--T' I I .....:.~..i:~::;... ". I I' . . .' ,-,: c'/:l ~"..t-. ". . ~ I "q~. ......... I I ::.::-........ '<:' ~ I v' ../-'./ ....... '$>o"'l ......- - I 11(-' ...... (;. ~ ' {/ )'" / - T- ':';'l..r: I "}' c',!.;' I I 3 P' I I ';'" <) (:: ~ ... .. .-S..."5n1~. - '1.~&.oo- L "" /"/.. '..::<" \,,;~ ".1' '..J . . .... / /-- /. 2. t'S .64 h_. '~) -r ..::.. t'tO.3& t'20.'36 ')''Z.306 , 4H- 'T~'" -.... '_N.B'll"~Sf.-W. DRA'_ ANO UTlUTY UlICMCltTS SHOWN THlIS' II.. I I 10_.... (:;~?y '- \1 .00 ~OD 1 100 G ~....'V'J 5CAI..l!. 'N FEItT . DEMOTItS .RON MOHUNPT BCARINGS SHOWN ARE BAllED ON ..,.. AS!>lIMED DATUM KING In M FCE.T IN wtDT'M "ND AI "Pt' ..." I... "ft,." ~\^A \ ~4--r July 2, 1992 'Q j5' '.M' .'. ~~elen .... - .' . ~ .. Maveron & . .." . AsSociates, 1m:. 2021 East Hennepin Avenue Minneapolis. MN 55413 612-331-8660 FAX 331-3806 Engineers Architects Planners Surveyors City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Attention: Mr. Brad Nielsen, City Planner Re: Boulder Ridge Estates Plat Review OSM Project No. 4590.00 . Dear Mr. Nielsen: As requested, we have completed our review of the plans and specifications for the referenced property dated June 8, 1992. Prior to final plat approval, we recommend that the following items be addressed. SANITARY SEWER A gravity line from approximately station 4 + 00 to station 10 + 00 should be considered, with flow to the west. A temporary lift station and force main would then need to be constructed to pump sewage back to the existing stub at 0 + 60. This would allow for a future development connection and continuation of the gravity line north to the Edgewood Drive system. Upon completion of development to the west, the pumps could be salvaged and the lift station abandoned. As lift stations are expensive to operate and replace, this is attractive from a City standpoint. A detailed plan and specification for the proposed lift station is required. . An 8 foot inside drop manhole as shown at station 4 + 23 is unacceptable. Services need to be provided for the two lots in Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition. STREETS The Developer should be aware that City ordinance requires, essentially, the construction of a 7-ton road per MnDOTs design manual. While the road section shown in the plans is sufficient in theory, recent experience in the area has shown that it is often necessary to sub cut up to two (2) feet with a geotextile/clean sand replacement. We will rely on an independent soil engineer's recommendation during construction to obtain an adequate section. 7t> EyU:il Opportunity E:~lploYt'r . . GRADING AND DRAINAGE The walkout elevations for Lots 5 in both Blocks should be above 935.5 to maintain a 3 foot separation with possible high water. Separate "as-builts" detailing the storm sewer system are required. Details for turf establishment need to be supplied. LOT 6, BLOCK 2 The proposed driveway for the lot is shown through the wetland. This will have to be approved by the watershed. Deed restrictions for the lot should include provisions for a right-of-way permit on Northgate Circle and for the long sanitary sewer service between lots 2 and 3. GENERAL We require 22" x 34" or 24" x 36" size paper for as-built purposes. Because of the broad nature of some of these recommendations, an additional review will most likely be required. Please contact me at 378-6370 with any questions you may have. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON #C1A'~ Joel Dre$el, P.E., L.S. City Engineer dad RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF BOULDER RIDGE ESTATES WHEREAS, the final plat of Boulder Ridge Estates has been submitted in the manner required for the platting of land under the Shorewood City Code and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota Statutes, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder; and WHEREAS, said plat is consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of the City of Shorewood. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: . 1. That the plat of Boulder Ridge Estates is hereby approved. 2. That the approval is specifically conditioned upon the terms and conditions contained in the Development Agreement attached hereto and made a part thereof. 3. That the.Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk are authorized to execute the Certificate of Approval for the plat and the said Development Agreement on behalf of the City Council. 4. That this final plat shall be filed and recorded within 30 days of the date of certification of this Resolution. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the execution of the Certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Administrator/Clerk shall be conclusive, showing a proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and the Shorewood City Code. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 13th day of July, 1992. BARBARA J. BRANCEL, Mayor ATTEST: JAMES C. HURM City Administrator/Clerk 7G. \) \\~~1 DATE: TIME: 7-JUL-92 13:08:32 TJK:IE1S . CITY OF SHOREWOOD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this ____ day of , 1992, by and between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and L & M . properties, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer." WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner in certain lanqs legally described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, which lands are hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"; and . WHEREAS, the Developer has Subdivision Ordinance for City family residential development plat to contain approximately and 1 outlot to be known as Boulder made application under the City Council approval of a single- plat of the Subject Property, said acres divided into 11 lots, Ridge Estates (the Development); and WHEREAS, the City Council by its Resolution No.;I~~~ adopted on April ~7, 1992, has approved the preliminary plat of the Subject Property subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Developer has now submitted its final plat for the development of the subject property, which plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B; and 1. 7D WHEREAS, the City Council by its Resolution No. ___ adopted , incorporated herein as Exhibit C, has approved the final plot of the Subject Property subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City to be allowed at Developer's expense to construct all surfaced streets, curbs, gutters, required landscaping, storm sewer and surface water drainage facilities, street signs, sanitary s.ewer facilities and underground electric, gas and telephone service lines (the Improvements) to all lots within the plat approved by the City. . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and acceptance by the City of the final plat of Boulder Ridge Estates, the City and the Developer agree as follows: 1.) I~provements Inst~lled by D~veloper - Developer agrees at its expense to construct, install and perform all work and furnish all materials and equipment in connection with the installation of the following improvements: (01) Street grading, stabilizing and bituminous surfacing; . (02) Concrete surmountable curbs and gutters; (03) Sanitary sewer mains and laterals; (04) Storm sewer and surface water drainage facilities; (05) Street name signs and traffic control signs; (06) Water mains and laterals; (07) Required landscaping (hereinafter "The Improvements"). 2. 2.) Pre-cone4ructio~ Meetinq - Prior to the commencement of construction, Developer or its engineer shall arrange for a pre- construction meeting to be held at Shorewood City Hall. Such meeting shall be coordinated with the City Engineer and shall include all appropriate parties specified by the City Engineer. 3.) Stancjards of Construction - Developer agrees that all of the improvements set forth in paragraph 1 above, shall equal or exceed City standards, shall be constructed and installed in accordance with engineering plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer and the requirements of applicable City ordinances and standards, and that all of said work shall be subject to final inspection and approval by the City Engineer. . . 4.) Mate~ials and Labo~ - All of the materials to be employed in the making of said improvements and all of the work performed in connection therewith shall be of uniformly good and workmanlike quality, shall equal or exceed City standards and specifications, and shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the City. In case any materials or labor supplied shall be rejected by the City as defective or unsuitable, then such rejected materials shall be removed and replaced with approved materials, and rejected labor shall be done anew to the satisfaction and approval of the City at the cost and expense of Developer. 5.) Schedule of Work - The Developer shall submit a written schedule in the form of a bar chart indicating the proposed progress schedule and order of completion of work covered by this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that the work shall be performed in one phase to be completed by Upon receipt of written notice from the Developer of the existence of causes over which the Developer has no control, which will delay the completion of the work, the City, at its discretion, may extend the dates specified for completion. 3. 6.) Streets, Sanitary Sewer ;;ind Storm S~wer fq,<;:ilities - (01) Plans a~d Specificatio~s. The Developer agrees to cause its engineers to prepare all plans and specifications necessary for the construction of the Improvements subject to the final approval of the City Engineer. The plans and specifications prepared by Al>II,Aoriu ~~.. ~" dated on file with the City are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement. . (02) As-Built Plan~ Within sixty (60) days after the completion of construction, Developer shall cause its engineer to prepare and file with the City a full set of "as- built" plans, including a mylar original and two (2) black line prints, showing the installation of the Improvements within the plat. Failure to file said "as-built" plans within said sixty (60) day period shall suspend the issuance of building permits and certificates of occupancy for any further construction within the plat. . (03) Easements. Developer, at its expense, shall acquire all easements from abutting property owners necessary to the installation of the sanitary sewer, storm sewer, surface water drainage facilities and watermains within the plat, and thereafter promptly assign said easements to the City. (04) Pr~-e~istin9 Drain Tile. All preexisting drain tile disturbed by Developer during construction shall be restored by Developer. 7.) Stakin9, Surveyin9 an~ ~nsp~ction - It is agreed that the Developer, through his engineer, shall provide for all staking and surveying for the above-described improvements. In order to ensure that the completed improvements conform to the approved plans and specifications, the City will provide for resident inspection as determined necessary by the City Engineer. 4 . 8.} Gra~inq. DraLnaqe, a~Q Erosion Cout~ol - Developer, at its expense, shall provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Said plans shall provide for temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and practices, including seeding of graded areas, as necessary, to prevent the washing, flooding, sedimentation and erosion of lands and streets within and outside the plat during all phases of construction. Developer shall keep all streets within the plat free of all dirt and debris resulting from construction therein by the Developer, its agents or assignees. . 9.} Street Siqns - Developer, at its expense, shall provide standard city street identification signs and traffic control signs in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 10.} Access to R~~iden~es - Developer shall provide reasonable access, including installation of all underground utilities and grading of all roadway base material, to all residences affected by construction until the streets are accepted by the City. . 11.} Occupancy Permits - The City shall not issue a permanent certificate of occupancy until all Improvements, except the final lift of asphalt, set forth in Section 1 are completed and approved by the City Engineer. 12.} Final Inspection - Upon completion of the Improvements set forth in paragraph 1 above, the City Engineer, the contractor, and the Developer's engineer will make a final inspection of the work. When the City Engineer is satisfied that all work is completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and the Developer's engineer has submitted a written statement attesting to same, the City Engineer shall recommend that the Improvements be accepted by the City. 5. . . 13.} CQPveyance 9f lmprpvements - Upon completion of the installation by Developer and approval by the City Engineer of the Improvements set forth in paragraph 1 above, the Developer shall convey said improvements to the City free of all liens and encumbrances and with warranty of title, which shall include copies of all lien waivers. Should the Developer fail to so convey the Improvements, the same shall become the property of the City without further notice or action on the part ,of either party hereto, other than acceptance by the City. 14.} ~eplaGement - All work and materials performed and furnished hereunder by the Developer, its agents and subcontractors, found by the City to be defective within one year after acceptance by the City, shall be replaced by Developer at Developer's sole expense. Within a period of thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the said one-year period, Developer shall perform a televised inspection of all sanitary sewer lines within the plat and provide the City with a VHS videotape the reo f . 15.} Restoration of Streetsr Public Facilities and p~ivate Properties - The Developer shall restore all City streets and other public facilities and any private properties disturbed or damaged as a result of Developer's construction activities, including sod with necessary black dirt, bituminous replacement, curb replacement, and all other items disturbed during construction. 16.} Reimbursement of Costs - The Developer shall reimburse the City for all costs, including reasonable engineering, legal, planning and administrative expenses incurred by the City in connection with all matters relating to the administration and enforcement of the within Agreement and the performance thereof by the Developer. Such reimbursement of costs shall be made within thirty (30) days of the date of mailing of the City's notice of costs to the address set forth in paragraph 23 below. 6. . . 17.) Cl&~ms for Work - The Developer or its contractor shall do no work or furnish no materials not covered by the plans and specifications and special conditions of this Agreement, for which reimbursement is expected from the City, unless such work is first ordered in writing by the City Engineer as provided in the specifications. Any such work or materials which may be done or furnished by the contractor without such written order first being obtained shall be at its own risk, cost and expense. 18.) Su+etyfor Imp+Qvements - Deposit Qr Letter of Cr~dit - For the purpose of assuring and guaranteeing to the City that the improvements to be constructed, installed and furnished by the Developer as set forth in paragraph 1 above, shall be constructed, installed and furnished according to the terms of this Agreement, and to ensure that the Developer submit tot he City as-built plans as required in Section 6(02) and that the Developer pay all claims for work done and materials and supplies furnished for the performance of this Agreement, the Developer agrees to furnish to the City either a cash deposit or an irrevocable letter of credit approved by the City in an amount equal to 150% of the total cost of said Improvements estimated by the Developer's engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Said deposit or letter of credit shall remain in effect for a period of one year following the completion of the required improvements. The deposit or letter of credit may be reduced in amount at the discretion of the City upon approval or acceptance by the City of the partially completed Improvements but in no event shall the deposit or letter of credit be reduced to an amount less than 125% of the cost of the Improvements to be completed. At such time as all of the Improvements have been accepted by the City, such deposit or letter of credit may be replaced by a maintenance bond. 19.) Insurance - The Developer shall take out and maintain during the life of this agreement public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, including death, and 7. claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer's work or the work of their subcontractors, or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. This insurance policy shall be a single limit public liability insurance policy in the amount of $1,000,000.00. The City shall be named as additional insured on said policy and the Developer shall file a copy of the insurance coverage with the City. Prior to commencement of construction of the Improvements described in paragraph 1 above, the Developers shall file with the City a certificate of such insurance as will protect the Developer, his contractors and subcontractors from claims arising under the workers' compensation laws of the State of Minnesota. . 20.) Laws, Ordinances, Requlations and Permits - Developer shall comply with all laws, ordinances, and regulations of all regulatory bodies having jurisdiction of the Subject Property and shall secure all permits that may be required by the City of Shorewood, the State of Minnesota, Watershed Districts, and the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission before commencing development of the plat. . 21.) Sewer Asses~ments - The original assessments against the property for sanitary sewer are in the amount of $ of which $ remains unpaid. Developer shall pay $1000 per for local sanitary sewer access charges pursuant to Shorewood City Code. Developer agrees to accept and pay all such charges to the City in accordance with Shorewood City Code, together with all previous assessments against the Subject Property. A schedule of such charges is set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 22.) Water Connection Ct}.arqe - Extension of Muniqipal Water~ain - Developer agrees at its expense to construct, install, and perform all work and furnish all materials and equipment necessary to extend the watermain from the municipal 8. . water system to the Development. Property owners within the plat of Boulder Ridge Estates will not be assessed for said watermain and will not pay the $4,000.00 per lot hook-up charge to the City for connection to the municipal water system. A property owner outside of the plat of Boulder Ridge Estates may make a direct hook-up to the watermain installed by Developer outside of said plat upon payment to the City of the hook-up charge prescribed by Shorewood City Code. Upon collection of said charge, the City shall thereupon remit the sum of $2,000.00 to the Developer so as to allow the Developer to recover a portion of his cost in constructing the watermain outside of the plat. The right of the Developer to receive said remittances and the obligation of the City to remit same shall be limited to direct connections to the watermain by property owners adjacent to the watermain and shall cease upon either of the following events, whichever first occurs: (1) Such date as the Developer has received remittances totalling the sum of $ (2) December 31, 1999. . 23.) Park Fund Payment - Developer shall, prior to release of the final plat by the City make a cash payment to the City in the sum of $8,250 ($750 X 11 lots) for the Park Fund. 24.) Notices - All notices, certificates and other communications hereunder shall be sufficiently given and shall be deemed given when mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, with proper address as indicated below. The City and the Developer by written notice given by one to the other, may designate any address or addresses to which notices, certificates or other communications to them shall be sent when required as contemplated by this Agreement. Unless otherwise provided by the respective parties, all notices, 9 . . . certificates and communications to each of them shall be addressed as follows: To the City: City Administrator CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 To the Developer: L & M Properties 25.) Proof of Title - Developer shall furnish a title opinion or title insurance commitment addressed to the City guaranteeing that Developer is the fee owner or has a legal right to become fee owner of the Subject Property upon exercise of certain rights and to enter upon the same for the purpose of developing the property. Developer agrees ,that in the event Developer's ownership in the property should change in any fashion, except for the normal process of marketing lots, prior to the completion of the project and the fulfillment of the requirements of this Agreement, Developer shall forthwith notify the City of such change in ownership. Developer further agrees that all dedicated streets and utility easements provided to City shall be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 26.) Indemnification - The Developer shall hold the City harmless from and indemnify the City against any and all liability, damage, loss, and expenses, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or out of the Developer's performance and observance of any obligations, agreements, or covenants under this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that the City, the City Council, and the agents and employees of the City shall not be personally liable or responsible in any manner to the Developer, the Developer's contractors or subcontractors, materialmen, laborers, or any 10. other person, firm or corporation whomsoever, for any debt, claim, demand, damages, actions or causes of action of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the execution of this Agreement or the performance and completion of the. work and Improvements hereunder. 27.) Declara"j:ion Of CovenaI1-ts, ConQition~ ap.d Restri~"j:io~ - Developer shall provide a copy of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, which Declaration shall include the City as a signatory thereto, for review and approval by the City prior to recording. . 28.) Remedies Upqn Def9ult - . (01) Assessments. In the event the Developer shall default in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements herein contained and such default shall not have been cured within thirty (30) days after receipt by the Developer of written notice thereof, the City may cause any of the improvements described in paragraph 1 above to be constructed and installed or may take action to cure such other default and may cause the entire cost thereof, including all reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expense incurred by the City to be recovered as a special assessment under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429, in which case the Developer agrees to pay the entire amount of such assessment within thirty (30) days after its adoption. Developer further agrees that in the event of its failure to pay in full any such special assessment within the time prescribed herein, the City shall have a specific lien on all of Developer's real property within the Subject Property for any amount so unpaid, and the City shall have the right to foreclose said lien in the manner prescribed for the foreclosure of mechanic's liens under the laws of the State of Minnesota. In the event of an emergency, as determined by the City Engineer, the notice requirements to the Developer 11. prescribed by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 shall be and hereby are waived in their entirety, and the Developer shall reimburse the City for any expense incurred by the City in remedying the conditions creating the emergency. (02) Perform~nce GU9~anty. In addition to the foregoing, the City may also institute legal action against the Developer or utilize any cash deposit made or letter of credit delivered hereunder, to collect, pay, or reimburse the City for: . (a) The cost of completing the construction of the improvements described in paragraph 1 above. (b) The cost of curing any other default by the Developer in the performance of any of the covenants and agreements contained herein. (c) The cost of reasonable engineering, legal and administrative expenses incurred by the City in enforcing and administering this Agreement. . (03) Legal Pr9ceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the City may institute any proper action or proceeding at law or at equity to abate violations of this Agreement, or to prevent use or occupancy of the proposed dwellings. 29.) Headings - Headings at the beginning of paragraphs hereof are for convenience of reference, shall not be considered a part of the text of this Agreement, and shall not influence its construction. 30.) Severability - In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal, .or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such hold1ng shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, 12. . . and the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. 31.) Executiop of Count~rpart$ - This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 32.) Con~truction - This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 33.) Successors and Ass~qps - It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that the Agreement herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the day and year first above written. DEVELOPER: CITY: L & M PROPERTIES CITY OF SHOREWOOD By: ~: Its: Its: Mayor ATTEST: City Administrator/Clerk 13. . . -Ir , ' STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this ____ day of , 1992, before me, a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared and to me personally known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the and city administrator/clerk of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed on behalf of said corporation by authority of its City Council, and said and acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN On this day of , 1992, before me, within and for said County, personally appeared behalf of , who is its on , described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. 14. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING FOR VACATION OF A PORTION OF A PUBLIC STREET The City Council of the City of Shorewood does resolve: That on the 10th day of August, 1992, at 7:15 o'clock P.M. in the Council Chambers at the City Hall, the Council will hear all interested parties upon the question of vacation of a portion of a public street in the City of Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: . "That part of Noble Road as platted in Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies southerly from the following described curved line: Commencing at the northeast comer of Lot 3, Block 2, Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the north line of said Lot 3 a distance of 109.02 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, and having a central angle of 36 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds and a radius of 192.33 feet, an arc distance of 121.21 feet to the northeast comer of Lot 1 of said Block 2 and there terminating." and . "That part of Noble Road as platted in Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota which lies northerly from the following described curved line: Commencing at the southeast comer of Lot 2, Block 1, Oak Ridge Estates Third Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence on an assumed bearing of West along the south line of said Lot 2 a distance of 153.15 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence on a tangential curve, concave to the northeast, and having a central angle of 36 degrees 06 minutes 30 seconds and a radius of 142.33 feet, an arc distance of 89.70 feet to a point on the south line of Lot 1 of said Block 1 and there terminating. " That notice of said hearing shall be published two (2) consecutive weeks commencing the 22nd day of July, 1992, in the Excelsior and Shorewood edition of the SAILOR NEWSPAPERS, the legal newspaper for said City. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 13th day of July, 1992. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor ATTEST: James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk ~ B CK NO CRS;.", APPROVAL LISTING FOR JULY 13, 1992 COUNCI:L KEE'. [NG CHECKS I:SSUBD SI:NCE JUNE 17. 1992 1'0 WijOl1ISSUEQ ':;424 (G) 9425 (G) 9426 (G) 9427 9428 (G) 9429 (G) 9430 (G) 9431 (G) 9432 (G) 9433 (G) 9434 (G) 91 (G) 9 (G) 94 (G) 9438 (L) 9439 (L) 9440 (L) 9441 (L) 9442 (L) 9443 (L) 9444 (L) 9445 9446 (G) 9447 (G) 9448 (G) 9449 (G) 9450 (G) 9451 (G) .23 (G) (G) 9454 (G) 9455 (G) 9456 (G) 9457 (G) 9458 (G) 9459 (G) 9460 (G) 9461 (G) 9462 (G) 9463 (G) 9464 (G) 9465 (G) 9466 (G) 9467 (G) 9468 (G) 9469 (G) 9470 (G) Petty Cash Natl Camera Exchange US Postmaster Void Commercial Asphalt Wendy Davis Hardrives, Inc. Jerome Kroger Minnegasco, Inc. Northern states Power Rochon Corporation Shorewood Tree Services Widmer, Inc. Donald Zdrazil Bellboy corporation Griggs, cooper and Co. Johnson Brothers Liquor Mn Bar Supply Ed Phillips and Sons Quality Wine/Spirits US Postmaster void First State Bank First State Bank Commiss of Revenue PERA ICMA Retirement Trust City cty Credit Union Anoka cty suppt/Collect. PERA PERA Medcenters Health Plan Medica Choice Group Health Inc. League of MN cities Mn Mutual Life commercial Life Ins. Co. AFSCME council 14 Wendy Davis EOS Architecture Cellular Telephone Co. MCFOA Bradley Nielsen Northern States Power Joseph Pazandak Petty Cash US West continued next page pURPOSE Petty cash reimbursement Overhd proj bulb Postage for newsletter Street supplies postage/mileage Payment voucher #5 Building permit refund utilities utilities Payment voucher #1 Tree hauling services Payment voucher #2 Reimbursement for fixtures Liquor purchases Liquor,wine,misc purchases Wine purchases Misc and supplies purch Liquor and wine purchases Liquor and wine purchases Postage for public hearing Payroll deductions Payroll deductions payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions Payroll deductions July health insurance July health insurance July health insurance July dental insurance July disability insurance July life insurance July Delta dental section 125 reimbursements Contract billing Cellular phone air time Memb fees-Latter, Niccum section 125 reimbursement utilities Mileage and film processing Petty cash reimbursement Telephone svc/advertising -1- N"tO~'!' 67.78 28.53 404.91 1,932.33 37.01 223,699.15 51.00 266.45 2,728.18 11,509.25 2,020.84 29,251. 40 425.00 2,430.84 2,571.61 919.60 399.15 2,616.19 2,388.65 125.13 74.68 5,796.04 968.91 1,911.05 616.28 145.00 110.59 35.00 42.00 909.50 4,738.50 1,070.28 403.00 85.50 49.63 224.00 101.67 3,469.27 73.44 50.00 140.00 1,580.59 59.51 34.99 846.02 CK.NO CHECl( APPROVAL LJ:ST:ING FOR JlJ'LY 13, 1992 COUNCJ:L KBBT:ING CH~CKS JSSOED S:INCE JUNE 17. 1992 TO WHOM ISS~D 9471 9472 9473 9474 9475 9476 9477 9478 9479 9480 9481 9482 9483 9484 9485 9486 9487 9488 9489 9490 9491 9492 9493 9494 9495 9496 9497 9498 9499 9500 9501 (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (G) (L) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (G) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) Bellboy corporation Griggs, Cooper and Co. Johnson Brothers Liquor Harry Niemela Ed Phillips and Sons Quality Wine/Spririts Ryan Properties, Inc. Weekly News, Inc. US Postmaster Void Mn Department of Revenue Commercial Asphalt Finaserve, Inc. Floors Plus Floors Plus Northern States Power Terry Radik Superamerica US West Communications Waste Management Savage Bellboy Corporation Boyd Houser Candy/Tobac. Midwest Coca-Cola Btling East Side Beverage Co. Griggs, Cooper and Co. Hoops Truckings Johnson Brothers Liquor North Star Ice Ed Phillips and Sons Qualty Wine/Spirits Thorpe Distributing PURPOSE Liquor purchases Liquor,wine,misc purchases Liquor and wine purchases July rent for store I Liquor and wine purchases Liquor and wine purchases July rent for store II Advertising Utility billing postage Cigarette floor tax Street supplies Gasoline purchases Release of 1/2 of escrow Release of balance of escrow utilities Building permit refund Gasoline purchases Telephone services Waste removal Liquor purchases Misc and supplies purchases Misc purchases Beer and misc purchases Liquor,wine,misc purchases Liquor and wine purchases Liquor and wine purchases Misc purchases Liquor and wine purchases Liquor and wine purchases Beer and misc purchases TOTAL GENERAL TOTAL LIQUOR TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED -2- Al-iOUNT 2,242.59 2,996.39 1,634.14 1,564.00 2,667.23 1,182.47 2,200.00 262.00 379.00 67.10 613.44 233.98. 6,000.00 6,000.00 1,677.42 20.50 581.95 166.93 283.00 2,363.43 3,121.25 579.79 13,024.65 2,088.31 377.30 2,415.00 668.16 2,279.95 1,012.37 . 20.683.30 312,038.63 74.761.47 386.809.'-0 DATE 07/08/92 TIME 05:07 CITY OF SHORE WOOD COUNCIL REPORT CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JULY 13, 1992 COUNCIL MTG CHECKlt VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. ---..---------------------- ------------.------------ 9503 A.G. ELECTRIC DISCONNECT ELECT SVC PARKS & 9504 AIRSIGNAL, INC. BEEPER SERVICES 9505 EARL F. ANDERSEN, INC. STREET SIGNS STREET SIGNS *** TOTAL FOR EARL F. ANDERSEN, IN AMOUNT 35.0C 9.67 PARKS & 197.3~ TRAF CON 234.83 432..17 9506 APPLIED GRAPHICS ASSOC. NEWSLETTER PRINTING COUNCIL 9507 ARTWORK.S SHOP TOOLS CITY GAR 9508 ASPEN PUBLISHERS, INC. BOARD/ADMIN SUBSCRIPTION ADMIN . 9.509 ASSURED OFFICE SYSTEMS CITY HAl.L JANITORIAL SVC MUN Bl.DG 9510 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOC. INC TRAFFIC STUDY SERVICES 9511 BROWNING-FERRIS INDUS. SATELLITE RENTAL PARKS & 9512 BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, INC. ROCK SUPPLIES ROCK SUPPLIES *** TOTAL FOR BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS, STREETS PARKS & 2,347..27 9513 CHANHASSEN-CITY OF MAY ANIMAL CONTROL PROY INS 628.35 79.40 24.00 236.00 7 , 377 . 8:-:: 464.2(} 2,1.17 . BE 229 ~ 3S: 941.4t 9514 CHANHASSEN LAIAlN AND SPORT EQUIP MAItH SUPPLIES PUB WKS 4.3:> 9515 CH(4SKA PARTS SERVICE VEHICLE M(~INT SUPPLIES PUB IAlKS .1.40.3E . VEHICLE MAHH SUPPLIES CITY GAR .12.3.\C *** TOTAL FOR CHASKA PARTS SERVICE 152.70 9516 THE COLOR CENTER ADMIN OFFICE MAINT AD/1IN 9517 DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT CO WATER METER WATER DE 9518 DEKO FACTORY SERVICE, INC EQUIP MAINT SUPPLIES CITY GAR 9519 HAROLD DIRCK.S COUNCIL MEETING TAPING COUNCIL 9520 DRISKILL"S SUPER VALU PARK OPEN HSE REFRESHMTS PARKS & 9521 EDEN PRAIRIE FORD VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES PUB !,IlKS 9522 ESl COMMUNICATIONS PHONE MAINT & MAINT CONT MUN BLDG I::) t:.......7 :'.._IL0 EXCELSIOR-CITY OF NOXIOUS WEED NOTICE P{~RKS & 9524 FEED-RITE CONTROLS. INC. DEMURRAGE CHARGE WATER DE 9525 JIM HATCH SALES CO. SHOP TOOLS CITY GAR 9526 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MAY PRISONER EXPENSE POLICE P -3- 1.5.0:: 71.0E 15.9'-: 210. or: 58 . S~ 5.6~ 751.7' 12. ':?l 10.0r 15:2.6 964.7( DATE 07/08/92 TIME 05:07 CITY OF SHORE WOOD COUNCIL REPORT CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JULY 13, 1992 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT~ AMOUNT -------- ------------------------- -----~------------------ --.------ ---------- 9527 HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES 9528 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER HAl WASTE GEN LICENSE 9529 HOISINGTON GROUP INC~ PARKS & PARK PLANNING SERVICES PARKS & 9530 KNUTSON SERVICES, INC~ JUNE RECYCLING SERVICES RECYCLIN 9531 LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY~~~ MAY LEGAL-DEVELOPMENTAL MAY LEGAL-GENERAL MAY LEGAL-PW SITE MAY LEGAL-WATERFORD MAY LEGAL-CHURCH ROAD *** TOTAL FOR LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DAL 9532 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES CONF REGISTRATION-HURM CONF REGISTRATION-ROLEK *** TOTAL FOR LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 408 ~ 9( 76 wC)( 650~9E 3,677.1C -------- 876.4(: PROF SER 2,377~S( PROJECTS 283~4( -------- 867~1~ PROJECTS 2074IJ 4,612~20 ADMIN 180~O( FINANCE 30~0( 2.10~OO 9533 MTI DISTRIBUTING COMPANY SPRINKLER REPR SUPPLIES PARKS &' 9534 MAHONEY HOME SERVICES WEED SPRAYING 9535 MN SUBURBAN PUBLICATIONS PUBLISHING-SEWER REHAB 9536 MTKA PORTABLE DREDGING DIRT WORK-PW SITE 9537 NAVARRE AMOCO TIRE REPAIR SERVICES 9538 NORTHERN COUNTIES SEC SVC COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES PLANNING COMMISS MINUTES *** TOTAL FOR NORTHERN COUNTIES SE 9539 ORR,SCHELEN,MAYERON/ASSOC MAY ENG-DEVELOPMENTAL M(~Y El'-!G-ON-GOH!G MAY ENG-GENERAL MAY ENG-PUBLIC WKS SITE MAY ENG-OLD MKT ROAD MAY ENG-PINE BEND MAY ENG-SHADY HILLS MAY ENG-SEWER REHAB *** TOTAL FOR ORR,SCHELEN,MAYERON/ 9540 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CITY HALL SUPPLIES 9541 PITNEY-BOWES INC~ POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL 9542 POTTS, KENNETH N~ JUNE PROSECUTING FEES 9543 THE PREST COMPANY ENGINEERING SERVICES SAN I T /~~A PROJECTS .184 ~ 2(; 2,160.. OC 36 ~ 8' 3,983" 51 PUB WKS 41~0( COUNCIL. .120.. PLANNING 126~7~ 247~50 PROJECTS PRO.JECTS 365 ~ 6.: 3,691~ 7. 4, 500 ~ 5; 3 , 304 ~ 4~' 18, 790~1( 3" 396.4' SEWER DE 783~3i 35,8.54~71 .1 ~ 022 .. 3~. MUN BLOG l"iUN BLDG PROF SER FJFW.]ECTS 9544 SHORE WOOD TREE SERVICE TREE/BRUSH HAULING SVCS STREETS -4- 95.3 78.01 1,458.3 21S2 _ .:,f 3;~l~~ M .1 DATE 07/08/92 TIME 05:07 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL REPORT CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JULY 13~ 1992 COUNCIL MTG CHECK~ VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION DEPT. AMOUNT -------- -_._---------------~------ ------------------------ -------- ---------- 9545 SO LK MTKA PUB SAFETY DEP SIREN REPAIR POLICE P 430.00 9546 TOLL COMPANY SHOP TOOLS CITY GAR 69.44 9547 TONKA AUTO AND BODY SUPP VEHICLE MAINT SUPPLIES CITY GAR 42. T,5 9548 TONKA PRINTING CO. ENVELOPES-PU8 HEARING --------- 28.49 9549 TOTAL PRINTING SERVICES 8LDG PERMIT CARDS PROT INS 60.54 9.5.50 TWIN CITY HARD\1JARE CITY HALL DOOR t1~H NT MUN 8LDG 62.00 . 9.5.51 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICES UNIFORM LAUNDRY SERVICES CITY GAR 341.8Z, 9552 VAN WATERS AND ROGERS, IN CALCIUM CHLORIDE SUPPLY PARKS & 640.70 9553 VICTORIA REPAIR AND MFG SEWER PIPE MAINT SEWER DE 30.00 9554 DMJ CORPORATION STREET OVERLAY SUPPLIES STREETS 9~265.00 *** TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL 80~334.78 *** TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST 467,134.88 . -5- CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JULY 13, 1992 COUNCIL HBETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED H;OURS N{OWlT CHECK REGISTER FOR JUNE 30. 1992 PAYROLL 206329 Void 206330 (L) Scott Bartlett 13.0 reg hours 72.03 206331 (L) Matthew Brown 10.0 reg hours 46.17 206332 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 643.35 206333 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 773.65 206334 (G) Jennifer Eklund 79.5 reg hours 376.05 206335 (L) Kevin Foss 36.0 reg hours-retro 9.97 206336 (L) Cory Frederick 26.0 reg hours 129.66 206337 (L) John Fruth 7.0 reg hours 38.79 206338 (G) Jason Hansmann 24.0 reg hours 110.82 206339 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 681.78 206340 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,493.60 206341 (L) Brian Jakel 48.5 reg hours 233.62 206342 (G) Dennis Johnson 82.0 reg hours 752.52. 206343 (L) Martin Jones 16.75 reg hours 83.53 206344 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 629.07 206345 (L) Mark Karsten 57.75 reg hours 271.37 206346 (G) Jason Koerting 80.0 reg hours 302.53 206347 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 793.34 206348 (L) Susan Latterner 31. 25 reg hours 162.98 206349 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours 745.95 206350 (L) Russell Marron 38.0 reg hours 204.39 206351 (L) Kelly McKasy 30.75 reg hours 135.61 206352 (G) Lawrence Niccum 80.0 reg hours 693.70 206353 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours 654.72 206354 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 937.92 206355 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 960.46 206356 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours 745.60 206357 (L) Brian Roerick 18.5 reg hours 92.37 206358 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,060.02 . 206359 (L) Brian Rosenberger 16.0 reg hours 74.23 206360 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 385.04 206361 (G) Howard Stark 80.0 reg hours-2ot 664.59 206362 (L) John Stolley 22.0 reg hours 109.71 206363 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 79.25 reg hours 528.92 206364 (G) Ralph Wehle 80.0 reg hours 594.97 206365 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 588.59 206366 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.153.42 TOTAL GENERAL 14,667.91 TOTAL LIQUOR 3.267.13 TOTAL PAYROLL 17.935.04 -6- CHECK APPROVAL LIST FOR JULY 13, 1992 COUNCIL MEETING CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED HO~S ~O~ CHECK REGISTER FOR JULY 1. 1992 COUNCIL PAYROLL 206367 206368 206369 206370 206371 206372 Void Barbara Brancel Robert Daugherty Robert Gagne Daniel Lewis Kristi Stover Mayor Council Council Council council 187.10 26.92 142.50 138.52 1~.29 TOTAL PAYROLL 507.33 . . -7- CITY OF SHOREWOOD MINNEWASHTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 26350 SMITHTOWN ROAD TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1992 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Benson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Benson; Commissioners Bean, Borkon, Hansen, Leslie, Malam and Rosenberger; Council Liaison Stover; Administrator Hurm, Planner Nielsen, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane and Finance Director Rolek. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Leslie moved, Rosenberger seconded approval of the minutes of the Planning Commission's meeting of June 2, 1992, with the correction, on page 9, of the name of John Maschoff, and the deletion, on page 12, paragraph 5, line 9, of the word (Spri ngsted). Motion passed 7/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED - WATERFORD 111- RYAN CONSTRUCTION Ryan Construction Company 20095 State Highway 7 Applicant: Location: Chair Benson stated that at its June 2, 1992 meeting, the Commission tabled action, for two weeks, on the Waterford 111- Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment to allow for further fact finding and information gathering and to provide time for staff and others to obtain answers to the questions posed by the public and the Commissioners at that meeting. Questions and Answers The questions raised at the June 2 meeting and the answers provided were presented as follows: 1. How much buffer on the east side of project, adjoining Shady Hills? (answered but needs clarification) Mr. Nielsen stated that the buffer area on the south side of the project is 210 feet deep (230 feet from the paved surface of the loading area to the back of the 1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 4 addition, the developer would have to have extensive experience in this type of development and a proven track record of successful developments, have done extensive research for the project, attracted major tenants and obtained leases on virtually all available retail space. 13. Financial exposure to City if the approved plan can not be completed? Mr. Keane stated that the structure of the Tax Increment Financing as set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement dated March 6, 1992, provides that the City is protected from financial liability in the event that a development does not take place and the new tax increment capacity does not flow to the district. 14. Who will own the project? Who will manage the property once developed? Who will be responsible for capital improvements? McHale stated that Ryan Construction Company will own and manage the project and be responsible for capital improvements. In addition, should the maintenance of the center be unacceptable to Byerly's, Byerly's has the right to take over and maintain the common area up to its specifications and bill back the Landlord. 15. How does the tax base of the proposed project compare with the tax base of the approved project? Rolek stated that the tax base of the two projects differs in that the approved project is a mix of commercial and residential units while the proposed project is purely commercial. Commercial development is subject to fiscal disparities under which 40% of the market value is shared with communities in the seven-county area. The total estimated market value of the approved project is $13,027,500 and of the proposed project is $3,450,000. Total tax capacity of the approved project is $279,585 and of the proposed project $158,700. The total taxes generated at 1992 rates are $348,500 for the approved project and $197,818 for the proposed project. Based on Rolek's calculations, Shorewood's tax collections on the approved project would be $56,457 and $32,047 for the proposed project, a difference of $24,410, or 43.2%. 16. Capacity of the service road and the Old Market Road intersection with the proposed development? Marshall stated that analysis (conducted by Barton-Aschman) of P.M. peak hour capacity and levels of service for the traffic signals at Old Market Road and Vine Hill Road using projected future volumes for both the previously approved development and the proposed development and analysis of the frontage road intersection with Old Market Road for each case. shows that all intersections operate satisfactorily without significant congestion or delay. He noted that the frontage road and traffic signals have been designed to serve the volumes expected. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 5 17. Documentation on noise generated by the proposed project? Mr. Dick Koppy, Engineer, RLK Associates, presented data on existing decibel readings taken at 9:00 p.m. on June 14, 1992 at the proposed development site. Three locations monitored to record the background noise in existence included: 1) southeast corner of Old Market Road and frontage road, 2) southern property line of site and Old Market Road and 3) southern property line and 4th lot east of Old Market Road. Decibel readings indicated the existing background noise level from Highway 7 is in the average range of 54 to 58 along the south property line and 58 to 62 at the corner of the frontage road. State guidelines indicate that any decibel readings over 50 for night time hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) are in excess of acceptable noise levels. Based on these preliminary readings, Highway 7 already generates a high volume of noise. Koppy presented data on noise generated from rooftop equipment. A decibel reading at the Byerly's store in St. Louis Park was taken at roof top level at a distance 40 feet east of the edge of bituminous. A distance of 40 feet from the edge of pavement at the Shorewood site would be approximately 1/4 to 1/3 of the distance into the buffer area. The decibel reading of the 10 year old equipment in operation at St. Louis Park was 50 to 52 decibels. This level is below the Highway 7 background noise which suggests that the HVAC units would not be noticed vs. the highway noise. Koppy also stated that there currently exists 190 trees 611 or larger in diameter in the buffer zone. If Scheme C were implemented, it is estimated that 50 of those trees would be lost. That loss, however, could be mitigated by the use of retaining walls and by moving Old Market Road to the rear of the store to meet the standards and also to alleviate traffic concerns. Various traffic configurations were presented. 18. Effect of project drainage on Ron and Dee Johnson? Mr. Dresel stated that based on information available the proposed development will not increase the runoff to the Johnson parcel. Rather, there will probably be a net decrease in runoff due to the change in the watershed boundary. Public Hearing - Continued Chair Benson opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. He complimented each person participating in the discussions of this issue and noted that it has been a pleasure to work with everyone. He pointed out that at this continued Hearing, only new questions or new issues not previously covered will be heard. Supplemental questions and/or remarks made by residents whose names and addresses were not recorded are as follows: 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 6 - Would the "old plan" generate more tax revenue than the "new plan"? Yes, because of the fiscal disparity related to more residential development and less commercial development in the "old plan" vs. more commercial development and less residential development in thellnew plan". - Is it correct that Scheme C provides no direct access to Highway 7 driving north on Old Market Road and Covington Road? There will not be straight-through access to Highway 7 via those two streets under proposed Scheme C. - To make the retail businesses profitable, many customers must enter and patronize the various establishments proposed for the complex. Opposition to this proposal was expressed because a Plan has already been approved and promised; citizens have not asked for a new Plan; money is being spent on the research related to this new Plan and such expenditure is offensive. - Several residents expressed various concerns regarding traffic and about the proposed traffic control plan which would essentially not allow residents convenient access to their own neighborhood streets from Highway 7. - If a strip mall goes in, is there a difference in tax revenue if spaces are full? Has research been done to determine the feasibility of the City coming up with tenants to fill a mall? The value of the property determines the tax. No study has been undertaken to bring the City into the business of filling a strip mall. - Concern was expressed about the poor maintenance of the Ryan-managed Shorewood Shopping Center located at 41 and Highway 7. McHale explained the circumstances surrounding the Driscoll's store in the Shorewood Shopping Center. He made additional comments about the Ryan proposal reiterating Ryan's willingness to cooperate with the City and its residents to provide a unique project of which Shorewood would be proud. Chair Benson closed the Public Hearing at 8: 10 p.m. Discussion - Plannina Commission Bean asked whether the current tax base includes the eight-acre buffer to be deeded to the City. Rolek stated the eight acres was included in the tax base for his calculations. Nielsen stated the deeding has not yet been decided. Bean asked about the actual tax base. McHale stated that the value of the project including all the outlots is $7.5 million to $8 million. Bean asked about the status of the approved proposal and whether the developer is prepared to proceed. Nielsen stated that basically the project is on hold. It is not known when construction of the residential or commercial areas will begin, but at some point, default may occur. Trivesco will likely continue to market the property. Bean asked how far the Ryan proposed project could be reduced and still be economically feasible. McHale stated there is no possibility of down-sizing the project, 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 7 however, he noted that the fast-food restaurant has been replaced by a Jiffy Lube operation in the proposal. Rosenberger asked how many retail centers Ryan owns. McHale responded twelve are owned ranging in size from 75,000 to 375,000 square feet. Rosenberger asked how many employees would be estimated for the other stores in the complex. McHale responded that an additional 20% or 50-75 people would be employed. Rosenberger questioned Ryan's role and relationship to the Shorewood Center. McHale indicated that the Driscoll's store is currently being leased by Ryan. Malam asked whether Byerly's would hire employees from within the community. McHale responded that Byerly's is a good neighbor and was sure they would hire locally. Malam commented on the financing possibilities for a strip mall and for the planned twin homes. Hansen commented that although financing may not available at this time for a mall, circumstances are likely to change in the future to provide for a viable smaller project. Hansen stated that it is the ethical responsibility of the Commission to make decisions for all the residents of the entire City of Shorewood. He commented on the Traffic Study, questioned Shorewood's need for a Byerly's store and pointed out that this proposal is not close to what has been perceived acceptable for that location. Borkon asked what might happen if Byerly'slRyan would want to expand its property and development at Shorewood Center. McHale stated that Ryan does not own that property. Nielsen indicated the City avoids interfering in commercial competition. Borkon asked whether Trivesco has time limitations to develop its project. Nielsen stated the limits are generally at the City's discretion. Borkon asked if the Byerly's proposal could be cut by one-half. McHale indicated that was not feasible. Borkon commented on the market area, the operating hours and the Traffic Study. Leslie asked for further clarification on various aspects of the Traffic Study. Messrs. Dresel and Marshall responded. Action bv Commission Rosenberger moved, Borkon seconded to leave the Old Market Road intersection as is and not change it to any of the Options presented in Ryan's proposal. Motion passed 7/0. Hansen moved, Rosenberger seconded to deny approval of the Ryan Construction Company proposed Waterford III development (Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment and P.U.D. Amendment). 7 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 8 'i.! Remarks supporting individual viewpoints were made by the Commissioners as follows: Rosenberger stated he supports denial for the following reasons: 1) major traffic concerns, 2) major concerns about the operations at the Shorewood Center and 3) an obligation to honor the P.U.D. developed through a compromise several years ago. Leslie complimented the work of Mr. McHale and the staff in connection with this proposal. She stated that a Byerly's was basically against the philosophy of living in Shorewood. Residents that contacted her, for the most part, support the community's profile remaining low commercial and primarily residential. She found the development to be too large, very commercial, and threatening to the standards of living in Shorewood. Leslie defended the decision made for the current P.U.D. noting that approval was based on data that was available at the time. Acknowledging that times change, she supported the Ryan proposal as being a good location for a Byerly's store and that getting past the conceptual stage will provide opportunity for studying and working out the traffic problems. She reported that residents living on Smithtown Road uniformly would like to have a Byerly's in the proposed location. Malam acknowledged the views of residents who contacted him regarding the traffic issue and acknowledged the matter of ethics as pointed out previously. However, he pointed out that what has been approved previously doesn't necessarily make it right for now as things change. He indicated that residents living south of the proposed project have said that they know something will go in there and believe that Byerly's would be a good neighbor, a class operation and probably the best that could be gotten. He expressed his appreciation for the input received from residents to assist in the decision- making process. Hansen pointed out that few comments have been received from residents living outside the perimeter of the immediate area surrounding the project. He reiterated his concern that a decision be made to benefit all the residents of Shorewood. Benson stated that the project is too large, it will generate too much traffic and is too far a stretch from the current approved P.U.D. He agreed that Ryan does a good job, but stated that a Byerly's is not what is wanted in the neighborhood. Motion passed 5/2. Leslie and Malam voted nay. The Commission's action to deny approval of the Ryan Construction Company Waterford '" proposal will be forwarded to the City Council for its final action. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 16, 1992 - PAGE 9 2. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None. 3. REPORTS - None. 4. ADJOURNMENT Leslie moved, Hansen seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Motion passed 7/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Arlene H. Bergfalk Recording Secretary 9 ~~~ S7~-S ~~~J ~ ~ 5S3.:J/ h ~ I? '1:1- ~~a,,4~~.1 ?I~ ~ ~ ;;tXu tJ~? ~ ~ ;<k-y.7 f-tZU~. ~ ~) ~ ~-fiv~r_~-6~t?..z 1~~~.t:P~~ ~~~. ~~~~~~ ~~~.~.~~~ "~~'. ~S6'rr ~~~; ~~~'4<-~'r.~ ~ ~ ~ .z ..k-,.~~./ ~'~;I~~~J~~ ~~~~. JI-~ ~~.z; c!~.~~ (J~ ~J' ~~-I:~ (J-3)PLd ~ ..A~ .d-u ~7 ~~4~ ~ ~~f:/o/~~.~ -19 ~d ~~4.~ ~~ July 13, 1992 Shorewood City Council Shorewood City Office 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 JUL \ 3 \99'2. Dear Aa.n.1,. ~ We are 20 year residents of the Shady Hills neighborhood of Shorewood and have followed the development of Waterford properties with careful interest. It is our opinion that the current proposal of the Waterford 3 Byerly's/retail complex offered by Ryan Construction is contrary to the intent of the original PUD zoning, and will be detrimental to the residents of this section of Shorewood. We ask you NOT TO APPROVE this proposal. Many reasons can be offerred as to why this proposal should not be approved. The increase in traffic in an around this long term residental neighborhood is a concern. The loss of promised buffer areas to protect the Shady Hills neighborhood from the auditory and visual impact of Highway 7 and the commercially zoned land that is already part of the current PUD is a concern. The poor record of Ryan Construction in the main~enance of present property (Shorewood Shopping Center at 41 and 7) certainly is alarming. The persons representing this development have not been forthright regarding the long term impact of this suggested zoning change. Others have presented additional concerns which have been shared at public hearing. Again we urge you NOT TO APPROVE the Ryan Construction proposal for Waterford Phase 3. Sincerely, ~ t- ~ . 0~ John Dodson Susannah Dodson 19265 Shady Hills Road Shorewood, MN 55331 ~ #1" v' e..-I ;; I).--l, #"', , .../ If e,- C v t- t l,- .~" :,'-~.( FEIGENBAUH DESIGN.GROUP July 10, 1992 / Dear Shorewood City Council, This letter is from two outraged citizens who would here like to express their . VEHEMENT OPPOSITION to the p!anned "Byerly's" scam. My wife and I moved to Minneapolis twelve years ago from the Chicago area, to escape that city's sad decay and the relentless advance -of concrete and strip malls outward to the suburbs. - Welived in Minneapolis until five months ago, and-witne~sed fIrst-hand the beginning of a similar decay: the accelerated proliferation of violence and crime, a deterioration of, values and equally important, the greedy' overexpansion of commercial interests. Like refugees, we were again compe.lled to move. Now in Shorewood for only five months, we are again witnessing the same greedy bankrupt expansionist thinking, creeping slowly like a plague, out west - To the specific issue at hand, what rational-thinking citizen could possibly imagine such a vast commercial wasteland being wedged, shoehorn-like, into such a small area as the proposed Byerly's site, especially with more than enough retail choices already inundating the area??? - Beyond the poorjudgment of even considering such a project of this bloated magnitude, the City Council has recklessly swatted aside the recommendations of its own Planning _ Commission to veto the project; putting the Council on uncertain moral and legal groy.nd. One can only speculate as to the reasons why such an obviously inappropriate project has been allowed to survive for so long without being put mercifully to sleep. Perhaps as rumored, insider dealing and despicable self-interest have their place in this carnival of retail horror~ For this reason I shall be calling for the organization of an investigation into the history and development of this misguided project, with special inquiry of individual improprieties. I am sorry that my fIrst communication with the Shorewood City Council must be in such vociferous opposition, but we feel the issue at hand certainly warrants our very deepest concerns for today, as it will have implications for future policy decisions. s~ Dennis and S n Feige ba m 5845 Ridge Road Shorewood, MN 55331 S 12, W -.\11 "",,, E H A H A' r:\ R K WAY' \1]"" L\ PO Ll S. \1". -' S 4 19 . 612.823.2542 . TE L E FAX b 1-> S 23' 1650 , ~ FEIGENBAU~l DESIGN.GROUP '+' July 10, 1992 City of Shorewood ATTENTION: City Council Members WHO NEEDS IT??? ' ' Shorewood, a quiet residential community, .~ !1Q1 need more concrete, . noise, traffic cQngestion, trash and poliu~on. That's exactly what would result ifthe zoning at Highway 7 apd Old Market Road were to change to accommodate unnecessary, mega-scale commercial development~ HOW CAN THE CITY COUNCIL POSSffiLY APPROVE THIS ABOMINATION??? It would go against all advice of the planning 'commission and destroy the beauty and peace of the area. My husband and I are new residents of Shorewood. If you vote for this mess, you are selling your souls and the soul of the city of Shorewood to the devil of unnecessary, destructive development. Is this the kind of responsible, concerned leadership we can come to expect??? For Shorewood's sake, vote NO!!! Susan Feigenbaum 5845 Ridge Road ~ . Shorewo_od, MN 55331 512'\\,'<\1INNEH.-\HA'PARKWAY'.\llNNEAPOL:lS.\1N'55419 . h 12'.,23'2542' TELEL\X h 12.R23'1650 John B. and Kathy A. Grotting 5640 Covington Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 July 10, 1992 Mayor Barb Brancel c/o: Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Dear Mayor Brancel: We are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposed plan modification . involving the Byerly's development at the intersection of Old Market Road and Highway 7. Additionally, we want to express our specific opposition to the proposed road modification known as "Scheme CII in conjunction with the Byerly's development. We reside at 5640 Covington Road and have lived at this address for approximately one year, having returned to Minnesota after living in Oregon for eighteen years. Oregon, as you may know, has an excellent reputation for land use planning, and it was one of the factors we looked for as we returned to the Twin Cities. We were specifically attracted to Shorewood because of the beautiful residential areas and the appropriate concentration of commercial in specific designated locations. When we first learned about the proposed development changes, we attempted to get factual information to understand the impact on the neighborhood and to determine if this made good land use sense. In that process, we learned about the extensive discussion that occurred with the various neighborhood associations in conjunction with the Waterford development and the specific agreements that \"w'erereachedaround Old Market Road serving as a collector street and the neighborhood commercial development approved at the intersection of Old Market Road and Highway 7. Although all of us would probably prefer no commercial development and no additional traffic on area streets, the natural growth of the area necessitates that these things can and will take place. We accept this and understand the necessity of expanding the tax base to support the kind of qualities we want in a city. However, environmentally, the extensive Byerly's commercial development at twice the size of originally approved development, creates noise, light and traffic pollution well beyond what we consider to be acceptable for the residential character of this neighborhood. Page 2 Furthermore, the proposed realignment, "Scheme C," creating a circuitous route for Old Market Road around Byerly's will shift traffic burden onto Vine Hill Road in violation of the agreement among the neighborhood associations at the time Waterford was developed. Although we might personally benefit from having this traffic further away from our home on Vine Hill, we do not feel it is either fair or ethical to change this agreement reached by the various neighborhoods and which permitted the Waterford development to go forward. It is also our understanding that although the proposed Byerly's strip mall commercial development would create aggregate taxes that the net benefitJothe City of Shorewood would actually be less than the approved neighborhood commercial development. As the financial overseers of our city, I am confident you see the wisdom of staying with the existing approved development. We recognize that as elected Councilpersons, you are often faced with difficult choices as stewards of our City's future and we thank you for the time you contribute to this most important work. Your planning commission has wisely studied and recommended that the proposed changes in commercial development not be permitted. We strongly urge you to support this position and "VOTE NOI, Sincerely, ~4~ John B. Grotting K ~ ~Ofunann GroWng cc: Bradley Nielsen, City Planner ~~.~ ~ ~ ~='"'-- ~~at._~c0.'_ ~~~~~~ . ~~b). a..... .e. . 7t Il If I 0 IOCl? C . c. . uf" J/ ~ood V siJal( /"" ~/. L-/ /f ('/bel/-I . L. c... '- !?' / ;. ~ J5..! ~'-"t -:::u -- d..f- /f.).t . ~~) , 077 ~ha1l oi Il7If ~ ,..Q tVtnJ~ eu;l' ~ "lUit: to ~+ .zL ~'f- --:P tL. u . ~~~=L c..o ~t- oj d.t. ( <L. ~~~c , 'tL'u ~ ~~ rPd!-..t) ~~ ~"..~~~~~.~ ~ on~eap~_ p~~~/~~~d~( ~~~~~ ~~ ~ 0 ~ a.... ~~~ r~ ~ Iq1~ --4..',_.__.._......._._m__...~h.......,.............,. .... '---"'-'-"'---_h"""'''''''""", "J JUL \ 3 \992 5620 Covington Road Shorewood, MN 55331 July 10, 1992 Mayor Brancel City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor and Council Members: I am writing this letter to go on record as being opposed to the request by Ryan Development to have the City change the PUD involving the Waterford Development. I am also opposed to any change of the intersection of Old Market Road with Highway 7 as it currently exists. I am against increasing the size of the commercial area from approximately 45,000 square feet to approximately 98,000 square feet. This more than doubles the commercial space for which this area is currently approved. Once the increased commercialization is approved there is no turning back. I live in Shorewood because it is a residential area and because it has significantly restricted or avoided the type of commercialization currently being requested. The proposed development will not be an asset to the quality of life in Shorewood. It will most certainly result in increased traffic as well as noise pollution, air pollution as well as being a visual eyesore. There appears to be no reason to favor the proposed changes other than to further the self interest of a few parties who want to effectively disconnect Oldivlarket Road from its intersection with Highway 7. Unfortunately, the council appears to have seen fit to combine the issue of increased commercialization at this site with the issue of the Old Market/Highway 7 intersection. These issues should be considered separately. When analyzed separately, it is apparent that the increased commercialization is not warranted nor is a re-routing of Old Market Road. The analysis should not change merely because the two issues become intermingled. I am against the changes that are being requested in the PUD. It should remain as is and as it was agreed to by the owners of the #' Page Two July 10, 1992 property. Please view this matter objectively and vote against any change in the PUD. Very truly yours, \ ~~ ~~~. ~'-\.~ Louis R. Tilton LRT/kmb cc: Council Members Jl\l \ 3 \C;(~,) I'"" -../'- July 9, 1992 City of Shorewood Council Members City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: Byerly's New Store Dear Council Members: I am writing in regards to the proposed new Byerly's store at the new Old Market Road intersection. I have not been able to attend any ofthe previous meetings but have read the articles in the Sailor. My great concern as many others have noted, is the increased traffic. I realize that whatever does go into this space will greatly increase traffic on Covington/Old Market Road but was very impressed with Byerly's proposal to route the road around Byerly's to decrease traffic. This to me, seems to be a good compromise and is the only way I would support the proposed development or any other development. Byerly's has spent alot of time trying to come up with a solution to minimize traffic. 1 strongly support the proposed development with the reroute road only. I also believe the proposed development will have a much greater chance of succeeding versus the previously proposed strip mall and high priced townhouses, and as a result the City should benefit from the increase in tax income. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, ~CP,j Gary A~wanson 19535 Vine Ridge Road Shorewood, MN 55331 .. ., I ~ ,co? JU\" \ v ";'-' .July 9. 1992 Diane Bruce 6030 Ridge Road Shorewood. MN 55331 Mayor Barb Brancel 25785 Sunnyvale Lane Shorewood. MN 55331 Dear Mayor Brancel: As a Shorewood resident for 11 years, I feel compelled to write to the City Council for the first time ever. The subject is the Byerly's/Change-in-Old-Market-Road proposal currently before the Counci I. After extensive research into this proposal, and particularly its implications to the immediate neighborhoods and the city as an entity. I cannot comprehend how the Council could be giving this proposal so much time and attention. To many of us who have indeed studied the proposal (and its history) the implications and complications of the Byerly's proposal far outweigh any benefits to Shorewood and its residents. I can only deduce that its instigators were so consumed with their own goal that they did not clearly see that execution of this proposal would wreak more havoc on them and their neighbors and the entire community than simply leaving the current P.U.D. intact. as it was approved just one year ago by your same council members. Needless to say, I am not only strongly, but vehemently, opposed to any change in the P.U.D.. to the entire Byerly's proposal. and to any reconfiguration in the new Old Market Road. And, I dare say that anyone who studied the facts from an unbiased basis. looking for the good of the city, could only come up with the same sentiments. We need to be sensitive to the increased traffic on Old Market Road for the benefit of those residents affected by this traffic. but this is most definitely a separate issue and should be treated as such. I can imagine you are extremely tired of the whole issue. since. in one form or another, you have been dealing with it since you became mayor. However. if the P.U.D. is changed to accomodate the Byerly'S proposal, this issue will never go away; it can only get worse. I have great respect for you and the council and the contributions YOU make to Shorewood and the personal sacrifices yOU must make on our behalf. particularly what you must endure in "hearing from the citizens." l . 2 Thank you so much for taking time to read this -- Respectful! Y. Diane M. Bruce db cc: Shorewood City Offices ( t July 9. 1992 Diane Bruce 6030 Ridge Road Shorewood. MN 55331 Mrs. Kristi Stover 4755 West Lane Shorewood. MN 55331 Dear Mrs. Stover: I heartily concur with your negative vote on the current Byerly's issue. Shorewood does not need this mega-mall, or the problems it would bring, and I am strongly opposed to any changes in the P. U. D. Thank you for your stand on this proposal as well as the strength you have shown while serving on the City Council. We believe you always carefully study the issues and vote with integrity and truly with consideration of all the citizens of our community. For this we are indebted. Thank you -- Respectfully. Diane M. Bruce db cc: Shorewood City Office , ..f ,Julv 9., 1992 Diane Bt~uce 6030 FUdge POcld Shorewood. MN 55331 Mr. Robert Gagne 24850 Amlee Road Shot~'?-?h'oc)CJ. MN 5:5:331 :DE~.~t~ tl'lr"" tf (;F\\:tnE' ~ As a Shorewood resident for 11 years, I am compelled to write to the City Council with my personal sentiments regarding the Bverlv's/Change-In-Old-Market-Road proposal. In ~::;hc)t't" I am '5tt~on':;:1ly oppospcl to tht~ pt-'oPos.::;..l +c.t' the fo1Io~'\lin'3 r"\e~';,( SCJns ~ 1 " I (J 0 not !,'.' c:\ n t " not., d nIb ''31 :i. e v E~! i tis t' i g h t: 0 t' +.:::1,11'''',; tD c:h.:::\rlQf::'l thF::.' F11ltJf<[:!" ..FeJr'" .all t!,€~ r...F.~af:)CjnS \iOLt .3.1 t-.t::?2ci \/0 k nov.] " 2~ The Pt"'oP(Jse(j Bverlvls comple~< IS too big for that area nn which it would be built. Therp would be little benefit to the residpnts in having another grocery nearby. We appreciate Cub Fonds" and the Lunds at Country Village and the Bverlv's at Ridgedale are grpat backups. I am not willing to sacrifice the land to cement in order to save a IO-minute drive. 4" There would be no value to the City of Shorewood, ei"ther fr"'om an esthetic viewpointn or financialn Whatever we realized in revenue would be eaten UP by the financial penalty handed out bv MN DOT for any change to the alreadv approved new intersection or Old Market Road. ,:;' ....1,. TIle tt~affii: Pt~ob].ems Wa.tet~ford t~esidents ar~e experiencing will be comrounded ten-fold. even with .::l d:i.vPt's:ion of DIel t1::~t'kf.?t F.:c),"\d.. I believe these problems can be dealt with as a separate issue. 6" T~le rleqative :Lrnp2(:.ts on residel,ts close to 'this develoPffi8nt car')flo't he suffi.(:iently Pt~edi(:ted. I can 1.maq]j"~e the~'~e w(JuJ.d be many cOfniJ1S ft~om any 24-ho~_lr f ~:l. c: :j, t:i ]. } .J.. , 2 I could go on, but 1n fairness to your time and attention, my point has been made. I would like to thank you most heartily for the leadershin you haye personally given to the City of Shorewood and the integrity you have demonstrated while serving on the Council. Thank yOU verv much for giving me these minutes of your time. Respectfully, Diane M. Bruce db i / Shorewood City Offices / cc: 'It ..,. l -~ Paula B. Gregg 5320 Shady Hills Circle Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 July 12, 1992 Shorewood City Council Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 RE: Waterford III Dear Council Members, I want to thank the Council members and the Planning Commission members for their respect for our community and our quality of life. You have a difficult job balancing your responsibilities with the many interests and factions working within our city. The Waterford III project has taken a large amount of your time and consideration lately. I appreciate your commitment to making this a positive part of Shorewood. I support the proposed Waterford III development with modifications and sincerely hope that you will decide to work with Ryan and Byerly's and make modifications to their current plan to fit with what is in the best interests of Shorewood. I feel that their plan, with modifications, would be a more compatible land use than was the previous proposal which was accepted by Council. The Plan which was approved in 1984 for the Waterford III site is no longer viable. Times have changed and the vision for the site at that time is not appropriate in 1992. I support the proposed Waterford III development with modifications but do not support the realignment of Old Market Road. In speaking with Ms. Sobnosky, Senior Transportation Planner, who is coordinating the Minnesota Department of Transportation's review of the development, I've identified several concerns regarding the possible realignment of Old Market Road and its impact on this development and the surrounding residential areas. My first and foremost concern is the Council's fiscal responsibility to the whole City of Shorewood. The original funding of this intersection was through two different funds; a cooperative construction agreement with the State and with the state aid office funds. It is my understanding that it was funded to be another collector road and to relieve the congestion at the Vine Hill Road and Highway 7 intersection. If Old Market Road was realigned, it may not be considered a collector road as it would be considered a circuitous route. If it is a circuitous route, it would no longer be eligible to be a "municipal-state aid route"(MSA). Therefore, future funding for all MSA routes in Shorewood would be in jeopardy. Old Market Road was established as a collector road in the original plan for all of Waterford because it was obvious the need would be there.lt was on this basis that Mn DOT approved the signal light at the intersection of Old Market Road and Highway 7. If the alignment of Old Market . 7)() jel Z. .1\1\ \ 3 \90,2 . ~wJ ~q' !Jft;~: , , 11. r ~ :r ~l1x11V ~ L~f) ~ (). tDQ / ' ~ - ~ o.t~ ~() ~-/;;;" ~~. (iIJ~ ~~ .~ -.~. ~~!!.. j 1hM.AY Ii' . .... [() ').'. d...~.. '/ r~.! ;' ; '.f(j~~~ tuN ~.- ~ >>Vl~ . fu.'..- ~.~~t ~o~.~~C- lW! .~ iA,.. i.&t ~~J~ l!:: lMQ} awl (9.uA , . . >' . ~-tfu ~ _ ~ (L~' ~. vtu ~ ~ tIJ.e ~\d' ~~ ~ Steven J. Dzurak Gail C. Dzurak 19570 Vine Ridge Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Jut \ 3 '992 July 10, 1992 Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 Honorable Mayor and City Council: We are writing to comment on the proposed amendment to the Waterford Phase III Planned Unit Development which would allow Byerly's to build a small shopping center on the parcel in question. We urge you to approve the amendment. We believe that having a Byerly's on that parcel would provide the following benefits to Shorewood: 1. High Ouality Tenants. Byerly's and the other businesses operating on the parcel are likely to keep the property well maintained. In addition they are likely to be on the premises for a substantial period of time so that the parcel will not become an eyesore due to high turnover and vacancies. 2. Improved Tax Base. Byerly's and the other businesses operating on the parcel will add substantial value to the parcel. In addition, they are likely to have relatively low turnover so that the taxes generated by the parcel will remain high and stable. 3. Superior to Most Other Alternatives. Most other alternative uses of this parcel are likely to be less desirable with respect to maintenance, turnover, tax values and a variety of other factors. From the start, traffic concerns have driven Shorewood's development policy with respect to this parcel. With either the Byerly's development or the development contemplated by the current P.U.D., there will be substantially more traffic than there is now. At least with a Byerly's we would get something worthwhile in return for the inconvenience that the increased traffic will bring. There is significant opposition to changing the current P.U.D. from people in the Shady Hills and Christmas Lake areas, mostly on the grounds that any change will bring more traffic to their neighborhoods. The simple fact of the matter is that the Sweetwater, Covington-Vine Ridge Road, Silver Ridge and Waterford neighborhoods will bear the brunt of increased traffic under any alternative. If most people in these four neighborhoods want a Byerly's, as we believe is the case, then we should be allowed to have one as compensation for the increased traffic that we (and not the other neighborhoods) will have to deal with. Mayor and City Council City of Shorewood For the foregoing reasons, we urge you to approve the proposed amendment to the Planned Unit Development for Waterford Phase III to allow Byerly's to build a small shopping center on that parcel, and put this controversy behind us. S. cerely, Dzurak ~~b4-lL- - 2- 3 JOG? 11 11 "J"_ July 10, 1992 Mayor Barb Brancel c/o Shorewood City Hall 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor Brancel: While there are many issues and agendas relative to the commercial development of Old Market Road, my primary concern is with the .size and the scope of the development. Thirteen acres of commercial development is not compatible with the site. I'm grateful for this council's commercial development agenda and if we assume that a grocery store is an "appropriate concept" for Shorewood, then let's make sure it is "appropriately sited" at some other location than Old Market Road. aul Seifert JPS:tlt .: (a:psbrancel)tlt ..J Cheryl A. Samples !r rr - - 2 ICO? 19840 Sweetwater Curve Q..,.~ ~ / Shorewood. MN 55331 "d"'--7 fh;~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O~l ~ I~-d ~ S~,. ~~ ~ ~ 3A?/~ A ~~~~~ ~ A~ ~~ ~~/~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~,! a~ ~d~. II ~.~~f~ I ~~~ I ~~~(J. I ./"-- d I. i3(. ~~, i (~) ~.,~~~ ~--cA ~Q o--vvu' ~ -~ ~~- J - -, -~ - ~/ ~~~~~ tv~ u-J' ~ ~' ! c /A~r-- r u-.-J ~ {k v...~ O""-L \....\ ---8 aN ~ r cg ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ r .~~ ,o~.JJ... (r 'f-'~ 11 n - 2 /Y\~ 0- (}.D ~ u..\..ll. b ~ ~ '1 ~UL- ~~r, ~ ~~ ~o:r- + oJ...' ~C1 I....."€...~ . ~ ~t\.... l..Al'\. ~ rvv-u.:J;-( . - ~+ ~'W_-:::) C-I"" /O'~-.1'~ '+~~ ~ ~-10 I", ~~ v.J\."rl\ l-L.u..^- 3"( ~ 01"\ ~~, \ CJ\j \~\..t"\.'1 ( Fb~ c.v-d.. bz cu...\...rG../~ ~\' ~ f,-~ 0." ~ pCLJ ~ ~ '7 1f€ ..{}\--r'-P -O~0p? Or- /.J:;-~ ~ (j lcu..CLd ~. j ~ c..L-0 '\ -- ...~ 0-"- T ~ o.-,-,,.,..,,.<~,-,. ~(Sb ~~~ C:t-. lJ~r~ ~ 65331 f) ,r..'~1"'\ .". f- ' \1 " U/3C/9L ~.r a~WRY ~ J1/. ~~ o ~ - ." (J JJ ,;2, OS/) JJ?a~N /Z~d( e~~/ /?t-n... S.j-33/ ce' i/ , ..../ -' '--- ....-:;.-..,::.-;;f l11aY0J DCt-1/L /5 -~'7/-cL-e ...., N 0 I'.J / \) / 1 L-.. L.~v) r;(-4/f..:n2,-<.,-rrr:--rf /. (j (', ;1/l ;)) 1 51 ~-:) L<r.4~-UY ~~{/ ~., CJ j (. /l/J1 -4'Jt-o-z.J!-<"v-rro-dJ / /t-7\.... ~- S 33 I I /~,/.. '~. ! ! ,) \) .. '/ i! 11 _ ? lri""",:': MARILYN J. SPAIN. 19325 Vine Ridqe Road. Shorewood. HN 55331 June 29, 1992 17 11. /1('" ').1 LL _ ~Uv-t; \~/ i.._" (~ ~ .~) .. . / ..y( U-<:.!.--'.:::-/ RE: Proposed Shorewood Byerly's DEAR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: I am a resident of Shorewood. My home is north of Covington vine Ridge and east of New Market Road (within a one mile radius of the proposed Byerly's). As I am sure you are aware, most of us support issues through our acquiescence. Rarely do we voice our opinions unless we are in opposition. I am wri~ing to the city Council Members encouraging you to support the proposed Byerly's in Shorewood. I currently shop at Byerly's at Ridgedale or near Southdale. My husband and I have mentioned over the years that it was amazing to us that there was no Byerly's in our area as it would appear there is a market for a quality family restaurant and grocer. I suspect that some of those who oppose the Shorewood Byerly's shop at Byerly's in another neighborhood at least occasionally. As opinions and neighborhoods evolve in the continuing development of the western suburbs, I would welcome the economic impact that job opportunities for our young people and retirees alike would provide plus the convenience of not having to drive to another local. There are very few restaurants in our area and when we go out to eat we generally leave Shorewood. A family restaurant in this area would be a definite asset. Byerly's is a known enti ty . In the long range it would be far better to have a quality grocery store and restaurant at this time, than to ultimately develop this area at a later date with perhaps various discounters or less desirable entities. Many businesses in this geographic area have failed. The services that Byerly's provide would serve the area well. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, roads and businesses have to be someone's neighbor and at some point this area will be developed. Why not allow a responsible and respected business into the area? Very truly yours, ~. t"U . ~ ~~i~ MJS:me (! (2 ~M(j,J ~ctd Shorewood, t"'IN June 29, 1992 To: Barb Brancel, rvlayor of Shorewood Brad Nlelsen, Ctty Planner James Hurm.. Ctty IVlanager From: Resldents of Shorewood and Deephaven Re: Proposed amendment to PUD, 1984, to expand the square footage to 97,000 sq. ft. in the Waterford III subdivislon. We, the residents on the north sIde of Hlghway 7, across from tt-,e Waterford subdlvlslon, strongly oppose the proposed amendment to lncrease the square footage. The proposed supermarket and drugstore on thlS sHe are unacceptab Ie because of the mtensHy of the nOIse, slgnage, and 11gt!tmg thlS woulcl produce. ThlS 24-rlour assault from heavv-dutv truck dellVeries, , , unremltting garba~Je disposal vehicles, to say nothing of increased customer' traffic atvj giarmg iignts wlli In(jlsputably be (jlsrupt.1Ve to our neighborhood and our way of life. We have entrusted you, our representatives of this community, wah the responslbllity to protect our welfare and be respons1ve to our needs. We are sometimes, rlOwever, under the 1mpresslOn that we are l1v1n9 m a state of slege, each new proposal seemingly less acceptable than the prevlOUS one. For example, where is the berm, part of the orlgmal PUD, between the development and Highway 7'7 We strongly ur'ge you to reject trle proposed amendment at the l'",ear'mg on July j 3Ut In tt!e future (Jevelopment of tne sHe, please conSIder a Iternat 1ves Wh1Ch are i ess lntruSlVe. Respectfully submltted, b.A. ~ [ct{;70 ~J~t(/o{ '"'C. _ _ . _ . /, - ~~./,,:~o~p;! ~.,e'td..'tm2f;.whL 1'776-':; tfte",Lu.'l-~. ~AY~/J/.I)-rrt . .J < LJ/. IJ .>>~v?~ .-'~.~:"',JA'V- iVi);w._ f~?!y?1 170t~~J/~l g'/f~ ~~~LJ lqlo.~ ~.fA~ fl.. ... ~" I (/.J / f ...:-'" " ~~ I( ~ f().2)r()\i ~6J~~i t1.r;~{ rf'l.ViG~iiJN 6l-v), tp-L &g~~~ lj'5Sd~~ ~.e~ B!#f f6. ~ /1qOb V~ ~ ~~k~ ;)CJolo ~,~, 4" 0~ ~9~ .;)Ol</S c ~ f;6d. Juw.~ JOJ10 ~/!JP-- Q , I~ 'Z.-o]t90 (3"r~ ~ ~ 11-. --t~ ., ,. ' ~~ &ou) ~xv-Qs-),,,:- ~/-J vt JJcJ,J. ~ dJl,3o rA.wT~ ~, SM-rVNcwQ . ~ If . :r z vo;{J f5<r~H;")~lv)" ,5'h~)J "" - \ lr,O') June 30,1992 (2,(2.,- C-Oun ~L V Y f;rt CLd/ Dear City Council and other Citizens of Shorewood: I am writing to speak against the increase in size of the P.U.D. at Old Market Road. I strongly feel that such a large commercial area (in size and traffic density) is "un-Shorewoodian", We haven't as a city changed that much since the P.U.D. was well thought out. Did you ever consider there was some wisdom involved in the restrictions placed on the commercial development at this site? I would like to point out some things to consider: 1) The Waterford area residents tried to block the PLANNED intersection. Are some of them now really interested in Byerly's or destroying a brand new PLANNED road whose purpose is to allow for the hundreds of cars coming from the hundreds of new PLANNED homes? 2) If new Old Market Road is changed so as not to be a collector street where do non-Waterford residents enter or exit highway 7 since some of the accesses are closed due to PLANNING. 3)What of the petition signed by Waterford residents saying they would not patronize ANY commercial stores at Old Market Road? Have any of them contacted you for a Byerly's? Does Byerly's know of the petition? Were those signers now asking for this change not telling the truth then or now? 4)What about the tremendous traffic necessary to "pay the rent" for such a large project? The suggested businesses(plural needed as more than Byerly's included) need traffic. They aren't run over the phone. 5)What of the loss of tax revenue as reported at the Planning Commission meeting should the new proposal be accepted ? 6) What of the promises made to All of the citizens of Shorewood just a few short years ago? Please consider the long term affect a decision to place such a large commercial development in Shorewood would have on the personality of our city. There are many more like Ryan Construction waiting in the wings to turn the heads of those thinking Big. But is that really Shorewood? /:~..)f}-yJ~cer~eIY -.' 1/ I) / ~/~~ Michael Pierro. 5880 Christmas Lake Rd. Shorewood. Mn 474-7471 Please do not print my address or phone number. JUl - '? ! C(~'I _ i'-"-..i'- . I~I...- " If/'V{'j : ~V--- 0~. , ,,~I J J ~+d'. --' '._,,- I ,. .-.i ",,",,_'~c July 1, 1992 Mayor Barb Brancel Mr. Bob Gagne Ms. Kristi stover Mr. Rob Daugherty Mr. Dan Lewis city of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Dear Mayor and Council Members: We want to go on record as opposing the proposed PUD change to allow for a "general commercial" development (i.e. Byerly's) for the Water ford 3rd Addition. We, and I believe most the Shorewood residents, live in Shorewood for its rural qualities. We don't need to fill Shorewood with large shopping complexes, gas stations, rapid oil changes, etc. If people want these "conveniences~" they should live elsewhere. It continually amazes me the amount time we have to spend monitoring the council to make sure you stay in line with your constituents' wishes. We were threatened several times at the last council meeting: "Make no mistake. If Byerly's doesn't go in there, something else will." Just make sure that what does go in there, is in line with the current PUD. On another note. Why do we have a Planning Commission if you blatantly ignore their advice? ZlY~ ~ plJ Terrie and Ron Pitts 5980 Christmas Lake Road Shorewood, MN 55331 cc: Brad Nielsen