041293 CC Reg AgP
(u01:+nTOSa'H pasodo.:rd-:3:v 0 oN 0 :+:+'1) .. 3.
SO_oil E6/0t/E
:+aa.:r:+s PU<=9 :+saM. 0<=99<= 'apn.:r,Laa ;::a-~ 0 3. :\._oJll'e1.:r'eA ){::>'eq:+as
pU'e q:+P1M. :+0'1 f>U1AO.:rdd'1 U01+\ a. 'i\. .... e :+dop'1 0:+ u01:+oW V 0:3:
(u01:+nTOsa'H pasodo.:rd-avoO~' 0 ~
~ <; dU'e'1 ::>'eT 1'1 0 V L"[ <=
'aTqa'eU}l a:+ad/uosTaN aA'ea 0 ~ . ....eA ){::>'eq:+as f>u1Auaa
- :+::>'e,iI JO sf>u1pu1,iI q:+ T/Il.\ <.\. ~.~ ~ da'H 12 +dop'1 0:+ u01:+ow V 0 a
(:+.:roda'H sl.:raa~1f>U:3:-~vooNO:+:+'1)
s:+::>a~o.:rd af>'eu1'e.:ra .:rOJ 'e1.:ra:+1.:r~ f>U1AO.:rdd'1 u01:+oW V .o~
(u01:+nTosa'H pasodo.:rd-9vooNO:+:+'1)
DU1~eem E6/~~/E :+aa.:r:+s A'e.:r.:rnw ~gL<=<=
'a.:rnT~::>W UATo.:r'e~ .:rOJ u01:+'eu1qmo~/u01s1A1pqns 12 f>U1AO.:rdd'1
.:rOJ :+::>'e,iI JO sf>u1pU1,iI q:+1/1l. u01:+nTosa'H 12 :+dop'1 0:+ u01:+oW V og
(u01:+nTOSa'H pasodo.:rd-'1voONO:+:+'1)
DU1~eem E6/~~/E p'eO'H PU'eTSI Ap'eqS ~<=o~ '){a::>'eq::>ad )(::>1.:r:+'ed
.:rOJ :+0'1 a.:roqsa){'e'1 p.:r'epu'e:+sqns 12 uo PT1ng 0:+ Od.n.~ 12 .:rOJ
- :+::>'e,iI JO sf>u1pU1,iI q:+1/1l. u01:+nTOSa'H 12 :+dop'1 0:+ u01:+oW V 0'1
ul.e.:req~ suo1~ntosea ~aop~
PUl! l!pue.b~ ~uesuo~ uo sme~I eAo.:rdd~ 0+ u01+oH - '1aN:3:~'i .LN:3:SNO;) 0 v
(:+.:roda'H JJ'e:+s-g~
PU'e uass'equ'eq~ JO A:+1~ .:ra+:+a'1-'1~ooNO:+:+'1)
Ji~ 'H:3::3:a
i .
NOISIAlagnS
,iIO ,LS:3:nO:3:'H
~Nla'H'1~:3:'H
N:3:SS'1HN'1H~
,iIO
li.,LI~
:3:H,L
W-"-~
(sa:+nu1W-'1<=00NO:+:+'1)
~66"[ '<=<= q::>.:r'eW - sa:+nu1W f>u1:+aaw .:r~Tnf>a'H T1::>uno~ A:+1;)
0'1
S:3:.LnNIW ,iIO 'IVAO'Hdd'1
'epuaf>'1 /Il.a1Aa'H o~
.:raAO:+S
uosuag
Ta::>u'e.:rg .:rOA'eW
ST/Il.a'1
A~.:raqf>n'ea .
TT'e~ TTO'H
og
a::>u'e1f>aTT'1 JO af>paTd 0'1
~NI,L:3::3:W '1I~NnO~ li.,LI~ :3:N:3:ANO~ 0"[
'1aN:3:~'1
+l!m.:ro& u01sses ~.:rOM l! o~ eueAUOO tt1A
t1ouno~ A~l~ eq~ DU1~eem .:rl!tnDe.:r eq~ ~o ~uemu.:rno~pl! eq~ DU1AottO&
~('J:J
~~
-H-el OO:L
aYOR gn~~ AR~NnO~ SSLS
SR:[giNH~ ~I~N:nO~
E66t I~t ~IRelY IX~aN:OH
eN:I~:[:[H ~I~N:nO~ A~I~ ~~ne:[R
aOO~ROHS &0 A~I~
o ~
0<=
.."~
',f
.<'
~o~~~~s1u1mpv A~1~ 0:!I
~o~::>a~10 a::>u~u1d 00
~auu~Td A~1~ o~
~aau1.6U:!I A~1~ oa
AaU~O~~V A~1~ ,0v
S~~Od:!I~ ddV~S ovl
~OO~d :!IH~ WO~d S~:!I~~VW oCl
(uo1~nTosa~ pasodo~d-ZlooNO~~V)
~N:!IW~~Vd:!Ia S~~OM ~I~aOd :!IH~ ~Od :!IN~~
:!I~aI~a V dO :!ISVH~~nd :!IH~ ~NIZI~OH~OV NOI~~OS:!I~ V ~:!IOISNO~ OZ1
(uo1~nTosa~
pasodo~d '~~oda~ s,~aau1.6U:!I-l100NO~~V)
01 ~ 6 OON SNOI~V~S ~dI~ O~ S~~OM
~NVN:!I.r.~ddV ONV SNOI~V~Idlaow ~Od sala ~Od S~N:!IW:!ISI.r.~:!IAaV
~NI~:!IO~O aNV SNOI~V~IdI~:!IdS ONV S~d ~NIAO~ddV ~:!IOISNO~ 011
(uo1~nTosa~ pasodo~d
-a !uo1~1~ad s,~u~::>1TddV-0100NO~~V)
AOO~S A~I~IaISV:!Id ~~a~O/S~N~W:!IAO~dWI
dO ~NI~NVNld ~I~gOd ~Od NOI~I~~d ~~aISNO~ oaoOod SNOSV~S 001
(uo1~nTosa~ pasodo~d-~ ! ~~oda~ s I ~aauT6u~
-g !~~oda~ s,~auu~Td-V-600NO~~V)
T1~~~ auo~sMoTTaA
AaTTa~ Tn~d
~~IH ~~O~dS - ~V~d
:UOT~~::>O~
:~u~~1Tddv
~VNld ~~OISNO~
06
(a::>u~u1P~O
pasodo~d 'omaw s,~auueTd-8ooNO~~V)
~ao~ ~NISOOH ~V~N~~ ~NISIA~~ ~~NVNla~O NV ~~aISNO~ ~~08
:!I~~~~~IH~~V SO~ '~Hn:!I~ ~~IN
- ~~:!IEO~d NOI~~O~~SNO~ X~I~I~Vd S~OM ~I~gOd NO ~~Od~~ ~VNld OL
s.6u1~aaw u01ss1mmo~ .6u1uU~Td uo ~~oda~ - NOISSIWWO~ ~NINN~d 09
(omaw sl~auu~Td- S ~uamq::>~~~v)
asnoH .6u1m~~M ~~~d ~ou~W ~ ~o~
spaa::>o~d ~o aso pu~ A~~ado~d ~o aT~S uo u01~~puammo::>a~ ov
s.6u1~aaw u01ss1mmo~ ~~~d uo ~~oda~ - NOISSIWWO~ ~d os
014.L :If>Yd
E66t 'tt ~I~dY 'XyaNOH - yaN:If>Y ~IONnOO X.LIO
f.6/1..0/v
It?oH::>.r
SUOT~t?oTldmT aaJ ~o xt?~ sa~t?oTPuT ~~
NOISS:3:S IDIOM. IDffiO.raV 0 ~
(~uamqot?~~V)
s~oa~o~d uOT~on~~suooa~ ~aa~~s
~OJ s~uamssassv It?Toads uo AOTl0d pasodo~d t? ssnosTa ~~ 0 9
(omaw sl~O~t?~~sTuTmpv-~uamqot?~~v)
~~oda~ ~oa~o~d ~aa~~s (661 ov
uOTssas
~~OM. sTq~ ~t? ua~t?~ aq l1T~ uOT~oV ON - NOISS:3:S ~~OM. :3:N:3:ANO;) 01
NOISS:IS )lHOM.
(~uamqot?~~v)
SWI~;) dO ~VAO~ddV :3:H~ O~ ~;):3:.rgnS NOISS:3:S IDIOM. Oili IDffiO.raV 091
s~aqmamlTouno::> og
sq~UO:W:
ut?oT~amv ~apl0 JO uOT~t?~qala::> put? A~t?s~aATuuv
~a~ua;) ~oTuas a~oqsq~nos - .6uTPt?a~ uOT~t?mt?loo~d 01
laout?~g ~OAt?:w: ov
Sili~Od:3:~ ~I;)NnO;) oS1
:I:IHH.L :If>V:d
E66t I~t ~IHdV: IXV:ONOH - YON:If>V: ~IONnOO X.LIO
..
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
9{
MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1993
-"
r .J
!
i
~
!
The Chanhassen Mayor Don Chmiel and city Manager Don Ashworth will
be present at 7:00 pm. This is a courtesy to them because they
have a Council meeting that same evening. As you will see in
reviewing the enclosed material Chanhassen is looking for a
creative way to remain eligible for Hennepin County community Block
Grant Funds. Their request is for the City of Shorewood to
consider friendly annexation of one lot to Chanhassen.
staff Report will be sent under separate cover.
AGENDA ITEM 4A - This resolution with Findings of Fact approves a
C.U.P. for a substandard lakeshore lot for Patrick Pechacek, 5025
Shady Island Road. The resolution includes the direction given by
the City Council at the March 22 meeting. Page four of the 3/22
minutes summarizes the discussion.
I 1
"
AGENDA ITEM 4B - This resolution with Findings of Fact approves a
subdi vision/ combination for Carolyn McClure on Murray Street. This
resolution was directed to be prepared at the March 22 meeting.
.
AGENDA ITEM 4C - As funds become available from the storm water
drainage utility fee more storm water management will be able to be
undertaken. staff has prepared criteria which we would propose to
use to determine which projects would be given priority. If the
Council has any questions or concerns please remove it from the
consent calendar. If there are no concerns the action would be a
motion to approve the criteria for minor drainage projects funded
by the storm water management utility.
AGENDA ITEMS 4D and 4E - Has been postponed to a later meetinq.
AGENDA ITEM 5A - The enclosed. memorandum identif ies a vacant
property on Academy Avenue which could be sold as a residential
lot. The Park Commission has reviewed the memorandum and
recommends that the parcel be sold and the proceeds be used for the
building of a Manor Park warming house.
AGENDA ITEM 7 - Nick Reuhl, EOS Architecture, will be present to
give the final report on the Public Works facility.
AGENDA ITEM 8 - A revised Rental Housing Code ordinance has been
prepared incorporating the items raised by the City Council at the
previous meeting. It is being sent to you under separate cover.
-over-
AGENDA ITEM 9 - This resolution approves the final plat of Spruce
Hill. It includes six lots rather tnan seven which had been
previously approved. Approval should be subject to the engineer's
approval of revised plans and specs.
AGENDA ITEM 10 - The developer of Seasons P.U.D. is petitioning for
public financing of improvements. A resolution which orders a
feasibility report is enclosed. (This is the proposed development
of mature adults just west of the Excelsior Covenant Church).
AGENDA ITEM 11 This resolution approves the plans and
specifications and orders advertisements for the remodeling of Lift
stations 9 & 10. This a budgeted project out of the sewer fund.
AGENDA ITEM 12 - In 1992 the Public Works Director indicated he was
not prepared to spend $20,000 for a bridge crane to be installed in
the Public Works facility. The city Council directed that the work
bay area be built such that a bridge crane could be installed in
the future and directed Don Zdrazil to be looking for a good used
crane. Don has found one. This resolution 'approves the
installation of a crane for $9,235 plus the cost of wirin~.
The City Council meeting will then adjourn into a work session
format. This session will be specifically on street projects for
1993 and the proposal for special assessing street reconstruction
projects. A one page memorandum explaining the proposed 1993
projects is attached loosely to the special assessment material
which is located at the back of the packet.
.
JCH.al
4/8/93
.
i---
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MONDAY, MARCH 22, 19'92
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
5755 COUNIRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brancel at 7:00 p.m.
A PLEDGE OF AlLEGIANCE
B. ROIL CALL
.
Present:
Mayor Brancel; Councilmembers Benson, Daugherty, Lewis and Stover;
Administrator Hurm, Engineer Dresel, Attorney Keane and Planning Director
Nielsen.
C. REVIEW AGENDA
Stover moved, Lewis seconded to approve the Agenda for March 22, 1993.
Motion passed 5/0.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. City Council Canvass Meeting Minutes - March 10, 1993
.
Stover moved, Lewis seconded to approve the City Council Canvass Meeting Minutes of
March 10, 1993.
Motion passed 4/0. Brancel abstained.
B. City Council Work Session Minutes - March 10, 1993
Lewis moved, Stover seconded to approved the City Council Work Session Minutes of
March 10, 1993.
Motion passed 4/0. Brancel abstained.
C. Regular City Council Meeting - March 10, 1993
Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to approved the Regular City Council Meeting Minutes
of March 10, 1993, amended with the deletion of Lines 1 and 2, Page 6.
Motion passed 4/0. Brancel abstained
1
alA
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 2
3. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Brancel read the Consent Agenda for March 22, 1993.
Stover moved, Benson seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and to adopt the
Resolution and Motions contained therein:
A RESOLUTION NO. 31-93 "A Resolution Declaring the Observance of Arbor
Day to be April 30, 1993, and Arbor Month to be May 1993."
B. Motion to Approve Continued Agreement for City Hall Qeaning Service.
C.
Motion to Approve Agreement with Lake Restoration, Inc. for 1993
Inspection of Eurasian Water Milfoil - Christmas Lake.
.
D. Motion to Approve an Agreement with Northern States Power Company
(NSP) for Street Lighting.
E. Motion to Authorize 1993 Spring Clean Up Program.
Motion passed 5/0.
4. 7:30 PM - PUBUC HEARING - YEAR XIX (1993) URBAN HENNEPIN
COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
(CDBG)
Mayor Brancel opened the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Lucy McDonald, member of the Advisory Council of the Southshore Senior Center, read
a statement dated March 22, 1993, distributed to the Council, requesting $8,011 from the
City's Community Development Block Grant Program to support the Senior Center for the
1993-94 fiscal year.
.
Ann Martinez, a member of the Board of Directors of Sojourn, a community based adult
day program, requested a $1,000 contribution from the City toward a matching Federal grant
for the purchase of a van for use by the organization.
There being no further public comments Mayor Brancel closed the Public Hearing at 8:05
p.m.
Larry Blackstad, seniQr community development planner, Hennepin County, reported that
because of changes in the method of calculations for eligibility, cities which have
experienced substantial growth in the number of low income and elderly households have
seen increases in grant allocations while the moderate to affluent communities have received
2
.
Motion passed 5/0.
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 3
reduced grants. He responded to Councilmembers' questions.
Mayor Brancel suggested that funds remaining, which would have previously gone to the
housing rehabilitati.on loan program, be set aside for Senior Center planning.
The Council discussed allocation of the Community Development Block Grant Program
funds relative to the requests before them.
Brancel moved, Stover seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 32-93 "Year XIX (1993)
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program" allocating funds
as follows: $8,011 - Southshore Senior Center Operation; $1,000 - Sojourn; $6,689-
Southshore Senior Center designated for planning of the Senior Center building project
subject to the Council's approval of a budget prepared for that purpose by the Senior Center
Task Force.
5. PARK COMMISSION - Report on Park Commission Meetings
Steve Dzurak, Park Commission Chair, commented on the failure of the Park Referendum
and thanked the Council for allowing the.Commission to hold the referendum. He reported
the Commission will review the park improvement back-up plan outlined in the Capital
Improvement Plan; approved the proposed Badger Park/City Hall Parking Plan; and will
discuss the Silverwood Park construction management contract at it's April meeting.
6. PLANNING COMMISSION
.
A. Report on Planning Commission Meetings
Lewis reported that the Commission reviewed the E.A.W. prepared for the Gideon's Wood
project and unanimously agreed that an E.I.S. is not required.
B. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution with Findings of Fact -
Setback Variance
Applicant: Dave Nelson/Pete Knaeble
Location: 21740 Lilac Lane
Nielsen stated he haS been informed by telephone that the Applicant does not wish to
pursue this variance request. However, Nielsen recommended the Council consider the
request and direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution since a formal
withdrawal request has not been received from the Applicant.
Stover moved, Lewis seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution
to deny the request of David Nelson and Pete Knaeble for a 15' setback variance at 21740
3
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 4
lilac Lane.
Motion passed 5/0.
C. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution with Findings of Fact for
a C.U.P. to Build on a Substandard Lakeshore Lot
Applicant:Patrick Pechacek
Location: 5025 Shady Island Road
Nielsen stated that since the Planning Commission's meeting, he received additional
correspondence from the Applicant requesting consideration on the bituminous paved area
on the lake side of the lot and expressing concern about not having a dock during the time
the home is razed and an occupancy certificate is issued for the new home. He stated that
while this may be technically accurate, if a building permit is in force, the Applicant is not .
likely to be cited for using the dock while the home is being constructed. Nielsen stated
both the staff and the Planning Commission recommend removal of the blacktop near the
lakeshore and reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the requirement
related to the driveways be considered as a separate issue.
Patrick Pechacek referred to his letter dated March 15, 1993 outlining his position relative
to removal of the blacktop and requested the Council to consider the value of the aesthetic
and water control aspects of the path.
Stover requested clarification of the staffs recommendation relative to elimination of the
blacktopped area near the lakeshore. Dresel stated that while the Applicant desires to use
the blacktop for water and erosion control, a conforming solution, such as the use of riprap,
is preferred. Nielsen suggested that the path along the property line be allowed to remain,
but the black-topped patio area close to the lake made of blacktop be removed and .
landscaped. In addition, Nielsen stated that correction to the drainage at that point is
required because that area is a final filter for anything coming through.
Pechacek stated that subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, he learned that he
could update the existing home without bringing the entire property up to Code. However,
he preferred building a new home since it would be more desirable in terms of overall goals
of the City. He noted that the current drainage system is working and that considerable
additional expense is involved in changing the system. Pechacek stated that while he agreed
to removal of the boat house and the blacktopped patio area near the lake, he requests that
the path be allowed to remain to provide for continuity and keep the drainage problem
solved.
Nielsen explained that if 50% or more of the value of an original structure is maintained,
only the modified building is subject to Code enforcement.
Lewis stated that nonconformance is not encouraged 'and pointed out that nonconformities
4
Applicant:
Location:
Carolyn McClure
22785 Murray Street
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINU1ES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 5
are rectified when the opportunities arise. Stover noted a correlation between
nonconforming docks that have been allowed to remain and the nonconforming drainage
system.
The Council discussed the issue involving the path on the property.
Stover moved, Daugherty seconded to direct the staff to prepare a findings of fact resolution
to approve the C.U.P. subject to staff recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7, and
recommendation 6. amended to read: H the common driveway is eliTnin~ted, the resulting
driveway must be 5' from the property line.
Motion failed 3/2. Lewis and Benson voted nay.
.
Lewis moved, Benson seconded to direct the staff to prepare a findings of fact resolution
to approve the C.U.P. subject to staff recommendations 1 through 7 with recommendation
6 amended to read: H the common driveway is eliminated, the resulting driveway must be
5' from the property line.
Motion failed 3/2. Daugherty and Stover voted nay. (4/5 vote required)
Stover moved, Lewis seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Findings of Fact Resolution
to approve a C.U.P. for Patrick Pechacek to build on a substandard lakeshore lot at 5025
Shady Island Road, subject to staff recommendations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7, contained in its
February 25, 1993 memorandum, with recommendation 1. amended to read: The
bituminous strjp on the lot not to exceed 4' in width enhanced with landscaping may be used
for drainage purposes.; and recommendation 6. amended to read: H the common driveway
is eliminated, the resulting driveway must be 5' from the property line.
. Motion passed 4/1. Benson voted nay. (4/5 vote required)
D. A Motion to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution for a
Subdivision/ Combination
Nielsen reported that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Applicant's
request subject to the conditions contained in the staff report dated February 24, 1993. The
Applicant will provide a title opinion and legal description for the easements.
Lewis moved, Daugherty seconded to direct the staff to prepare a Resolution approving a
simple subdivision and combination request for Carolyn McClure at 22785 Murray Street
subject to the staff recommendations detailed in its February 24, 1993 memorandum.
Motion passed 5/0.
5
REGUlAR CITY COUNCll. MINUlES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 6
E. Review Comments on Gideon's Woods E.A W./Determine Needs for
Additional Environmental Review
Nielsen reviewed the background to the E.A.W. completed for the Gideon's Wood project.
He explained that the purpose of an E.A.W. is to review the environmental aspects of the
project to determine if further environmental review in the form of an Environment Impact
Statement was required. The project required completion of an E.A.W. because it involved
moving a house listed on the National Historic Register. Comments have been received
from a number of residents and agencies regarding the E.A.W.
Nielsen reported that the Planning Commission reviewed the E.A W. and agreed that based
on the guidelines there was not a potential for significant environmental impact and
therefore an E.I.S. is not warranted.
Mayor Brancel called for public comment at 8:25 p.m.
.
Maxine Dickson, President of the Minnetonka Historical Society, opposed the determination
because: 1) the National Historic Register status; 2) significant work of Peter Gideon; 3)
lack of following through and completing procedures by the Planning Department; 4) lack
of request to and approval of the Minnesota Indian Rights Council; 5) appropriate attention
was not given to the reports of the various agencies.
Doug Malam, Planning Commissioner, stated that the Commissioners dealt with the specific
question of whether an E.I.S. was required. He noted that because the home is listed on
the National Historic Register completion of an E.A.W. was mandated. He indicated the
Council must now decide whether an E.I.S. is necessary based on the comments received
from agencies and individuals. Based on comments from the PCA and DNR, and lack of
comment from the Historic Register, the Commissioners determined that an E.I.S. is not .
warranted. Malam stated that this is not the appropriate time to consider other factors
relative to the P.D.D.
Scott MacGinnis, St. Louis Park, president of the Excelsior Lake Minnetonka Historical
Society, and President of Donovan Research, stated he. was not here to stop the
development, but to present information to the Council so it may make an informed
decision relative to the heritage. He stated that the E.A.W. did not comply with Minnesota
rules in that it was not complete and accurate and therefore he requested that the E.A W.
be re-done or an E.I.S. be performed. MacGinnis cited a Minnesota Statute describing
"environment". He stated the Commission failed to acknowledge any historical aspects in
relation to this property and for that reason the E.A.W. is incomplete.
Fred Katter, Katter Development, developer of the property, presented and reviewed their
research of records and their conclusion that the Peter Gideon home was not built on this
site but was built 1/4 mile north of this location and through error the subject home was
listed on the Historic Register. Katter contended the home, built in 1910, is that of Charles
6
The meeting recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9: 10 p.m.
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 7
White. Katter discussed the issue of Indian burial mounds on the property. He stated that
Katter Development will retain the services of an approved expert to determine the location
of the mounds along with completion of an archeological survey to determine any
historically signific<;l.nt resources. The developer will adhere to the statutes related to the
Private Cemeteries Act, work with the Historical Society to arrive at an appropriate solution
to the historical value of the site and honor it's commitment to preserve the memory of
Peter Gideon.
.
Laura Turgeon, 24670 Amlee Road, stated that historical issues are environmental issues.
She stated that the Historical Society has not accepted Katter's assertion that the Gideon
home is that of Charles White and indicated that the issue involves that which was accepted
in 1974 for inclusion on the Historic Register and that whatever other evidence is submitted
at this time has no bearing on the current issue. She stated that a compromise would be
to save the house and the two acres as listed on the Historic Register in 1974.
George Harrison, 24710 Amlee Road, addressed a number of specific questions of the
E.A.W. and contended that the responses were inaccurate and/or incomplete.
There being no further public comment, Mayor Brancel closed the meeting to public input
at 9:10 p.m.
Nielsen stated that the Historical Society is the ultimate judge of the accuracy of the
historical data. He stated that the E.A.W. was completed based on the fact that the house
on the property is the home of Peter Gideon. He indicated the question is whether moving
the house on the site will have a potential significant environmental impact.
. Lewis stated that in it's reply to the E.A W., the Historical Society did not indicate that an
E.I.S. is required, and therefore the City should not require one.
Daugherty requested clarification of the issues. Keane stated that because the home on the
property carried the historic designation on the National Register, it required completion
of an E. A.W. As the responsible governmental unit, the City must determine, based on the
information identified in the E.A.W. and the comments received and the responses to those
comments and additional information forthcoming regarding the Indian Mound survey,
whether the 'proposal has potential for significant environmental impact and therefore would
require preparation of the next level of review which is the Environmental Impact
Statement.
Lewis stated that consideration of this P.D.D. is at the concept stage and further study and
determinations of other issues related to this application will be conducted as the approval
process continues. He reiterated that based on the information received from the E.A.W.
and from the comments and responses to the E.A.W.: an E.I.S. is not warranted and that
none of the agencies requested such a statement.
7
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUIES
MARCH 24 1993 - PAGE 8
Stover requested clarification regarding the Indian mound issue. Keane stated the developer
is obligated to complete that investigation.
Lewis commended. the staff for its diligent completion of the B.A. W.
Lewis moved, Stover seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 33-93 "A Resolution Setting
Forth Findings and Negative Declaration in the Matter of Gideon's Woods Environmental
Assessment Worksheet."
Motion passed 5/0.
7. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION OF THE PUBliC WORKS DIRECTOR
REGARDING SIGNAGE
Hurm presented a list of recommended placement of signs for the Council's consideration .
and a resolution prepared for the Council's consideration designating stop sign locations in
the City.
Stover moved, Brancel seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 34-93 "A Resolution
Designating Stop Sign Locations."
. Motion passed 5/0.
Daugherty moved, Stover seconded to approve the sign recommendation list prepared by
the Public Works Director dated March 15, 1993.
Motion passed 5/0.
8.
IDENTIFY AND DISCUSS ISSUES IN RELATION TO RENTAL HOUSING
CODE
.
Nielsen reviewed the background to the Rental Housing Code adopted by the City in 1990.
He pointed out that before the Code was published making it legally effective, the Council
heard from rental property owners who objected to not having input into the Code. The
Code was 'put on hold and a committee reviewed and commented on the provisions of the
Code. No action has been taken on the Code therefore the Code remains on the books yet
is not enforced. Nielsen noted that the Attorney has provided codification changes and
requested that the Council consider the comments of the committee for possible inclusion
in the Code, and that the process be completed for to make the Code enforceable.
During discussion, the Council provided policy guidance for inclusion of the rental property
owners suggestions and comments in the Code. Staff will prepare a final draft of the
updated Code including the Attorney's changes and the Council's recommendations for
consideration at the next Council meeting.
8
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 9
9. MATfERS FROM THE FLOOR - None.
10. STAFF REPORTS
A City Attorney - None.
B. City Engineer - None.
C. City Planner - None.
D. Finance Director
1. Preliminary 1992 Financial Report
.
Hunn explained Finance Director Al Rolek is absent this evening due to the birth date of
his daughter Katherine Elizabeth Rolek on Sunday, March 21 at 2:35 pm, who weighed 7
pounds 5 ounces and measured 19 1/2 inches.
Hurm briefly commented on the preliminary 1992 financial report.
E. City Administrator
1. Review Resident Survey Form~t
Hurm requested the Council's comments on the contents and format of the Resident Survey.
Councilmembers provided guidance for changes to the proposed Survey.
11. COUNCIL REPORTS
.
A.
Mayor Brancel
Brancel reported that the Police Reserve recently honored a woman who has been with the
department for 20 years as Reserve Officer of the Year. The Council agreed that
Administrator Hurm represent the City at the Community Service Award event on April 20.
B. Councilmembers - None.
CLAlMIDJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECf TO APPROVAL OF
Stover moved, Benson seconded to adjourn the City Council Meeting to Executive Session
at 10:05 p.m., subject to the approval of claims.
Motion passed 5/0.
The Work Session scheduled to discuss a proposed Policy on Special Assessments for Street
Reconstru.ction Projects was re-scheduled to a future meeting.
9
REGUlAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
MARCH 22, 1993 - PAGE 10
The Council convened in Executive Session to discussion pending litigation at 10:10 p.m.
The Executive Session adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
RESPECfFULLY SUBMII"I'ED,
Arlene H. Bergfalk
Ftecording Secretary
TimeSavers Off Site Secretarial
ATTEST:
.
BARBAFtA J. HRANCEL, MAYOR
JAMES C. lillRM, CITY ADMINISTRATOFt
.
10
City Council Agenda - Monday, April 12, 1993
AGENDA ITEM 3
4It Attachment No. 3B-staff Report
Under separate Cover
by Brad Nielsen
4It
al
4/7/93
~\AR 3 \ \993 C I TV 0 F
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
March 30, 1993
Mr. James Hurm, City Administrator
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
.
Re:
Request for Shorewood to Consider a Friendly Annexation/Deannexation Agreement,
Most Southerly Lot, J. Scotty Builders, Deer Ridge Plat
Dear Mr. Hurm:
.
Thank you for agreeing to place Mayor Chmi;s nd"i,.yself as the fIrst item on your City Council
agenda of April 12, 1993. Our request is simple. We would propose to have Shorewood agree
to allow Chanhassen to annex the most sgptherly 10 of 1. Scotty Builders' plat entitled Deer
Ridge. The request is solely to ensw.:~j[11lliat Chan }'i1ssen continues to receive Community
Development Block Grant funds. Our 1:992 allocation<'i;was $42,000, of which $4,000 has been
allocated to purchasing the bus for th ~ourn facility,\~d approximately $6,000 for the South
Shore Senior facility. We have pu er $50,000 into m~~e two programs over the past years,
and would expect to do so in C2~ng years assuming m~! we can fInd a means by which to
maintain eligibility for Co~.writy Development Block~lirant funds. Losing Chanhassen's
eligibility will, in all l~~!.WdOd, place an undue econo'<'c burden on other communities,
including Shorewood ',. <ehtly funding Sojourn programs ell as South Shore activities. We
anticipate represe 3L~g~jll@.firjl!!!~i;i,~,9y:m0 enter to additionally be present.
The backgroun ,
Community Developmen lo~~,Grant funding can best be provided .
Commission and City Council."'"~The:tollowin .
"i' eligibility for
gp'5rt to the Planning
at report; i.e:
Manager's Comments (3-18-93):
J. Scotty Builder's request to allow extension of Chanhassen's sewer and water into
Shorewood for their plat occurred at the same time that we were notifIed of our loss of
eligibility for Community Development Block Grant funds. Given the. size of suburban
Hennepin County, they represent an entitlement area. (You do not need to apply for
. specific grants. Distribution dollars are based on the total suburban population.
~
';..1 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
.
.
Mr. James Hurm
March 30, 1993
Page 2
Minneapolis Qperates under a separate program. Carver County is not in the CDBG
entitlement area). As Chanhassen is a split-county city, our entire population can be
counted in the distribution formula as long as we have residents in both counties. With
the widening of Highway 5, the two houses which previously sat in Hennepin County
were eliminated by the highway expansion. The fmal notice received was the last in a
series of appeals at various administrative levels within BUD. Hennepin County
supported us through all of those processes. Although there is 'a possibility that our
federal legislators will introduce federal legislation to allow for our continued
participation in CDBG monies, the chances of that are unlikely.
In meeting with J. Scotty Builders, staff relayed that we would propose that the City
Council approve the fmal agreement, but they would condition that upon staff attempting
to appeal to the Shorewood City Council to agree to a friendly annexation/deannexation
agreement for the most southerly lot. If Shorewood would agree to a friendly
deannexation/annexation for the most southerly lot, Chanhassen will then have re-met the
conditions associated with the CDBG program and retained our eligibility. [Note: We
continue to receive eligibility for 1993 with 1994 being up for grabs.] Our appeal to
Shorewood's City Council will be primarily on the basis of helping us maintain CDBG
monies. They have a direct interest in our maintaining eligibility as we have contributed
over $40,000 to the South Shore Center over the past years and would likely continue to
contribute $4,000-$6,000 per year to that program. We believe this is warranted since
seniors are mobile and many of our residents frequent both the Chanhassen and South
Shore Centers. With the loss of our contribution, ShorewoodlExcelsior!TonkaBay would
likely bear the brunt of those lost contributions.
A second area which we will attempt to present to Shorewood is the fact that without our
agreement to extend sewer and water, no more than three lots could have been developed
by J. Scotty Builders. In essence, without our agreement/participation, the taxes
potentially to be received by Shorewood from the proposed six lots : would then be
reduced to three. Our position will be that by their agreeing to deannex the most
southerly lot, they still will have gained approximately $5,000 per year that they would
not have had had we not agreed to allow the extension of our sewer and water systems.
The above points have been discussed. with J. Scotty Builders. They were made aware
of the fact that staff would be pushing for this friendly deannexation/annexation proposal.
Their fear has been that they would somehow become a pawn in the Community
Development Block Grant money;debate. We attempted to assure them that staff would
not recommend that we do that, i.e. that we would not recommend that the. agreement be
conditioned upon Shorewood's agreement to the de annexation process. Instead, we would
be making our recommendation on the basis that the Chanhassen City Council was
requesting Shorewood to agree to the deannexation process on ~ voluntary rather than a
required basis. The fmal decision, however, rests with the City Council.
.
.
Mr. James Hurm
March 30, 1993
Page 3
Recommendation
Approval of the agreement providing utility and street services to Deer Ridge is
recommended with the condition that staff be instructed to approach the Shorewood City
Council and request their consideration of a friendly de annexation/annexation process for
the most southerly lot in Deer Ridge. .
In approving this item on March 22, 1993, the City Council acted to change my recommendation
from "a request" to "a condition of approval." The Chanhassen City Council's action is an
attempt to demonstrate their strong commitment to Sojourn and the South Shore Senior Center.
The thought of our losing monies to be able to dedicate to these two worthwhile programs was
seen as monumental, and my Council wanted to demonstrate that these programs are of vital
interest to them. Again, Mayor Chmiel and I will attempt to relay points brought out in the
above memorandum during our presentation Monday evening.
I would like to add two additional points that I was unaware of at the time of making my
presentation to the City Council. The fIrst point deals with the method of distributing funds
under the federal program to entitlement areas such as the Hennepin County entitlement area
under which both of us receive funds. The formula used by the federal government allows split-
county cities, such as Chanhassen, to include their total population in that formula. For 1993 and
1994, Chanhassen's 12,000 people produce $52,000 in entitlement dollars for the overall
Hennepin County program. The redistribution formula adopted by Hennepin County has
produced a reallocation back to Chanhassen of the $42,000. Accordingly, if Chanhassen were
deleted from eligibility for 1994, the overall dollars back to the Hennepin County entitlement area
would be reduced by $53,000 and each of the then remaining cities in the entitlement area,
including Shorewood, would see their allocations reduced by approximately $11,000 (this is an
aggregate number to the communities). The second point was brought to my attention by our
election clerk (see attached memo). Her point was that the new lot will become a separate
precinct with votes then being tabulated for that precinct The question then becomes how
secretive is your ballot Jean has requested that the Shorewood Council consider allowing the
southerly-most two lots to be annexed by Chanhassen. In doing such, we would more closely
parallel the "two homes that we had in Hennepin County prior to the Highway 5 widening project
which took both of those homes. Although ballots were not totally secretive, you did have four
votes being tallied versus the possible one or two if its solely one home.
I apologize for the length of this letter, but I feel that it is imperative that I make one last point.
That point is that if Shorewood agrees to the friendly annexation/deannexation procedure, that
our city recognizes that that is being done'solely to act in a cooperative manner with Chanhassen
and to assure that funding continues for programs vital to both cornrnunities~ If Chanhassen is
successful in its continued efforts to have BUD reconsider their administrative positions, or if
we are successful in obtaining federal legislation reinstating our CDBG position, we will cease
our efforts to pursue the annexation request Similarly, if other. road blocks occur which are
.
.
Mr. James Hurm
March 30, 1993
Page 4
beyond the control of. Chanhassen or Shorewood, we will similarly cease our request to effectuate
the annexation process, i.e. if the State Annexation Board denies the request, Hennepin County
refuses to recognize the annexation, emergency services to the one or two lots becomes
unworkable, etc. In all likelihood, if Shorewood approves the annexation agreement, it will take
at least six to eight months to fmalize all of the other agency approvals that would be required.
By that point in time, we will have known whether our federal appeals have been accepted or
not. These processes should not effect 1. Scotty Builders from filing their plat, installing utilities,
or building homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
ICL0J~-
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA:k
Enclosures
;)b
C ITV OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900. FAX (612) 937-5739
..:/(~jG\AL ENGINEERING COPY
MEMORANDUM
f~eceived
.
DATE:
Charles Folch, City Engineer
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer /fl!I-
March 16, 1993
Revision No.
App(oved by C~ Engineer
Date J..I7"'~ ~
Approved by City Council
Date
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
Approve Agreement Providing Utility and Street Services to Proposed
Subdivision (Deer Ridge) in the City of Shorewood
Project No. 92-18
Background
.
The applicant, Mr. Jeff Williams of J. Scotty Builders, has contacted the City requesting
extension of municipal sanitary sewer and water service for a proposed single-family
subdivision in the City of Shorewood. The property is located approximately 200 feet north
of Koehnen Circle and east of Cardinal (see Attachment No.1). The project consists of
extending a public street (cul-de-sac) and utilities north from Koehnen Circle into
Shorewood. The City had previously entered into a subdivision development agreement
back on November 25, 1975 (Attachment No.2) with Shorewood and the property owner
at that time, John E. Sayer. However, the project never commenced and the property
subsequently has been sold to Mr. Williams. The City of Shorewood has recently granted
preliminary plat approval for Deer Ridge contingent upon receiving utility service and street
access from .theCity of Chanhassen.
Proposal
The City Attorney's office has prepared an agreement between the City of Chanhassen, the
City of Shorewood and J. Scotty Builders; Inc. in which the City of Chanhassen assumes the
responsibility in providing and maintaining utility service and street access to the proposed
subdivision (Attachment No.3). Existing sanitary sewer and water lines in Koehnen Circle
are adequately sized to provide utility service to the proposed development. The proposal
for the five-lot subdivision includes a street constructed to Chanhassen standards. This
agreement also requires the applicant to enter into a development contract to provide the
n
~ ~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Charles Folch
March 16, 1993
Page 2
and specifications of the street and utility improvements will be submitted for staff review and
City Council approval.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended that the City Council approved the agreement between the City fo
Shorewood and the City of Chanhassen and J. Scotty Builders to provide utility service and street
access to the proposed subdivison (Deer Ridge) within the City of Shorewood contingent upon
execution of this agreement by the City of Shorewood and J. Scotty Builders, Inc.
. ktm
Attachments: 1.
Location map.
2. Existing agreement.
3. Proposed agreement.
c: Jeff Williams, J. Scotty Builders
Bradley Nielson, City of Shorewood
Manager's Comments (3-18-93):
.
J. Scotty Builder's request to allow extension of Chanhassen's sewer and water into Shorewood
for their plat occurred at the same time that we were notified of our loss of eligibility for
Community Development Block Grant funds. Given the size of suburban Hennepin County, they
represent an entitlement area. (You do not need to apply for specific grants. Distribution dollars
are based on the total suburban population. Minneapolis operates under a separate program.
Carver County is not in the CDBG entitlement area). As Chanhassen is a split~county city, our
entire population can be counted in the distribution formula as long as we have residents in both
counties. With the widening of Highway 5, the two houses which previously sat in Hennepin
County were eliminated by the highway expansion. The final notice received was the last in a
series of appeals at various administrative levels within BUD. Hennepin County supported us
through all of those processes. Although there is a possibility that our federal legislators will
introduce federal legislation to 'allow for our continued participation in CDBG monies, the
chances of that are unlikely.
".
In meeting with J. Scotty Builders, staff rel~yed that we would propose that the City Council
approve the final agreement, but they would condition that upon staff attempting to appeal to the
Shorewood City Council to agree to a friendly annexation/deannexation agreement for the most
southerly lot. If Shorewood would agree to a friendly deannexation/annexation for the most
southerly lot, Chanhassen will then have re-met the conditions associated with the CDBG
Charles Folch
March 16, 1993
Page 3
program and retained our eligibility. [Note: We continue to receive eligibility for 1993 with
1994 being up for grabs.] Our appeal to Shorewood's City Council will be primarily on the basis
of helping us maintain CDBG monies. They have a direct interest in our maintaining eligibility
as we have contributed over $40,000 to the South Shore Center over the past years and would
likely continue to contribute $4,000 per year to that program. We believe this is warranted since
seniors are mobile and many of our residents frequent both the Chanhassen and South. Shore
Centers. With the loss of our contribution, ShorewoodlExcelsiorffonka Bay would likely bear
the brunt of those lost contributions.
.
A second area which we will attempt to present to Shorewood is the fact that without our
agreement to extend sewer and water, no more than three lots could have been developed by J.
Scotty Builders. In essence, without our agreement/participation, the taxes potentially to be
received by Shorewood from the proposed six lots would then be reduced to three. Our position
will be that by their agreeing to deannex the most southerly lot, they still will have gained
approximately $5,000 per year that they would not have had had we not agreed to allow the
extension of our sewer and water systems.
.
The above points have been discussed with J. Scotty Builders. They were made aware of the fact
that staff would be pushing for this friendly deannexation/annexation proposal. Their fear has
been that they would somehow become a pawn in the Community Development Block Grant
money debate. We attempted to assure them that staff would not recommend that we do that,
i.e. that we would not recommend that the agreement be conditioned upon Shorewood' s
agreement to the deannexation process. Instead, we would be making our recommendation on
the basis that the Chanhassen City Council was requesting Shorewood to agree to the
deannexation process on a voluntary rather than a required basis. The final decision, however,
rests with the City Council.
Recommendation
Approval ,?f the agreement providing utility and street services to Deer Ridge is recommended
with the co'ndition that staff be instructed to approach the Shorewood City Council and request
their consideration of a friendly deannexation/annexation process for the most southerly lot in
Deer Ridge.
~
LOCATION MAP
~ . ~ 2 8~ P 8 8 ~ ~
N N' . ct PROJECT LOCATION4T ~ "II
~ .............v ^ I IL ~- -:, \~.~ I ~tTY I nF SHC~"I.\. J'J III
I1T ~ .~'" f1 {/ ~ - \\.. III J'C1....Ll .AST -' I
Ul_ ~~ _ ; I WPC':I(()[WN ...... ~ ~il.L. . ::11
I I ~~ME' m / C1RC ~.. _~"r. ::~l..l.r
r+-L4.. ~/I ff. ':'-...' ~ ")0 ,If ~ ., 63Rdl \ __ ~ ;:::;
I !~.IL.--J % ~ 1( -1~ -L PHEA~-=- ST '/ ~ ON~~O]\ 'j ~
~ij '-~ '- ~ ,\;;. ~ f:. CIRe LE 11 \ ~'u ill...l -:::::; ~
v: fl..L.:.--- It-;s!~~~ 'i1'~(J f---1 (;-J;lrR't LL.... ~ L
~ / R 0 ~/rt Y- ~1:l/( FARMS~~' IrTW ..... ~
.; ~. 6 nSl1. ~.'fo:, CI .,...., ~I.?t. _ PARK-"- -..... "i@~
I . "I Wr\\~ lPHEASANT l ~ ~~~aJ .... 1;~ ~
... I ~ ccf\JR\ -...:;y, r;,::'t.:.{~.,.." j HILL' 2 ~..' -..l t-,.::
CR$TVI'\jO ;:lIOGE. ;..;- ''?f/^ '.~Yv. PARK:~ ~ ~ J,.If])) -'\~ ~ ~IYlc
L;:::= '~ _ -..:.~ CIR ~ rTc(~ C' h r1 ~ W '.iE 0 Q DlI
I tQ.. IILM LUCY 'll A ---y l
~ ) "-- CY LAN%/ ~ 11 r;@ ~I~
a ,J ~'~ CARVEll BEACH .~ ~/u
>-, ~-~ ~ PLAVGf OllNO. ~~~\\ I
~ s"'~1.. ff p\ ~~~
. \jc.. OUff : I~,,"'-- L
__ LAKE " ^ ~,m'\'
~'\~ /..
.)\. ~ . ,- ~~~ ;{\.~
", ~" ,~
t/ i\ _ _ PJ f-......... J,V\--
,-.; . -: JI( ~'~ J
.~.. '.~. JI: r-- YP'
i' ~ '~...l.J .. '/ '-
~\..' LAKE LUCY 'j: - f,.~
~ rI?~ ~f
".' ~'--~-p?:1& -1~1
._ _~I,..J.. U leA
,~~~\~1'1?rA~
.. ~I/ I
~~. .;
.,. \
'/'/ -/ 1. .1 ME.. "AOl.
F if GRE."EN
I' LAKE ANN
~ ;f
o
o
It)
o 0
o 0
. rt')
IL.AC LAJ~
E
o
o
N
~\ T
1'\ .I'\\.i
~~
~
:~
~\
.
-
"-
-
-
~
-
OLAKE
~.. .>> HA R R.' $ON .:::;
\ / - J
II
II
l.u
5'
o
tl)
0:::'
-
i--
..
@:il
~
fl
"
z
~
J.... -'" ;-....
,..: "-.J\'"
<: l f :,
! l' '.
/ :., \ .....1 .:
L-_3 ~ \.;-
I
I
cr
...~ -"..
..
.....
1
t
........ -----
Y'... -.'
. ,... "
,
CIlY OF SH:EEWXD
CXl\1BlNATICN AND SUBDIVISICN DEVElORVJENI' AGREEMENI'
JCEN E. SAYER PROPERIY
lHIS AGREEMENI', .made thisd~C"A day of ,lJt1tLlJ}}t'i..,J, 1987, by
and between the CllY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation,
hereinafter referred to as "Shorewood", JCEN E. SAYER and CAroLE A. SAYER,
hereinafter referred to as ''Developer'', and the CIlY OF aIANHASSEN,
hereinafter referred to as "Olanhassen".
\~, the Developer is the o\vner of certain lands described in
Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof, which lands are
hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has made application under the Subdivision
provisions of the Shorewood City Code for approval of a combination and
subdivision of said land to fonnParcels A and B, described in Exhibits 2
and 3 attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
.
WHEREAS, approval of the proposed combination and subdivision by
Shorewood wi 11 result in Parcel A having no direct access to a public
street within the City of Shorewood and no direct access to a sewer line
within the City of Shorewood; and
\VHEREAS, Chanhassen has agreed to penni t a private driveway
access from Parcel A to Koehnen Circle and to pennit Parcel A to connect
with Cllanhassen sewer lines! all subject to certain terms and conditions.
NO~, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and
approval by Shorewood of the proposed combination and subdivison,
Shorewood, the Developer, and Chanhassen agree as follows:
.
1. Any further division of the Subject Property shall be
acconylished by formal plat.
2. Any further division of Parcel A shall be limited to 3 lots.
3. Parcel A shall have access to Koehnen Circle by a private
driveway to be maintained by the property owners wi thin Parcel A.
4. Parcel A may receive sewer service fran Chanhassen, subject
to the conditions herein, and Developer hereby waives any right it may
have, now or in the future, to receive any sewer service fran Shorewood
for the benefit of Parcel A.
ATTACHMEMT NO.2
.
5. Prior to construction of the sewer line connecting with
Chanhassen sewer line, Developer shall furnish Chanhassen with the
following i terns:
a. Copies of executed easements for road and utility purposes.
b. A detailed plan of the proposed construction in accordance
wi th plans and speci ficat ions approved by the Chanhassen Ci ty
Engineer.
c. A letter of credit in the amount of 110% of the cost of
construction of the sewer line.
6. Developer shall be responsible for all construction costs and
the continuing maintenance of the sewer line connecting with the
Chanhassen sewer line. Develop shall be responsible for costs of
inspection, trunk charges, user charges, and all other charges and fees
which are nonnally associated with sewer service provided by Chanhassen.
.
7. Parcel A and any future subdivision thereof, shall be
considered as benefiting from, and be subject to, all assessments for
local improvements which may be made to Koehnen Circle by the City of
Chanhassen.
8. Public safety and emergency services for the Subject Property
will continue to be provided by Shorewood.
9. Developer shall furnish Shorewood with evidence satisfactory
to Shorewood that it holds fee title to the Subject Property.
10. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the parties hereto, their heirs. 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.
<'
fl~
Ci ty l\lanager .
~e~aYe9. ~
CI'lY OF SIJ:REY\OD
~~~
Robert Rascop, Mayor
AlTEST:
,
:
'--"'J' ,,,-'_,'.",'_ ..___"'~ _'e,' ','" ",~,;..~.._.H
.
.
STATE OF MINNEsarA )
) ss
CDJNIY OF HENNEPIN)
en this ~c:;thday of~, 1987, before me, a Notary
Public within and~ said County, personally appeared
Robert Rascop and .Sandra L. Kennelly, to me personally known, who, being
each by me duly swOrn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor and
City Clerk of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing instrument,
and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said
corporation by authority of its City Council, and said Robert Rascop and
sandra. L. Kennel.lY acknowledged said~'nstrume nt to be the free act and
ma~iJl~mt~""ll ~'"
J ~ SUSAli A. I"'IC~U"
fiii~ HClARY PUDLIC. MI:;;~i:.SOl" . r...lJlf'f)
\~ff1 HENNEPIN CQUNlY N tary Pub I ic
~ My Comml..l... Espires MH. 6. 1990 t.
)4'''tmn,'''n"",~,.."h''''''''X .
STATE OF MINNEsarA )
) ss
CDJNIY OF CARVER. . )
en this :J5~ day of Nnr. ,1987, before me, a Notary
Public .wi thin and for sl!id Co~ty, personally appeared ~~~.
cIJ(~-1-.u.( &__ and ):::(-"....1' U-..d~ ,to me personally known, who,
being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor
and City Manager of the municipal corporation named in the foregoing
instrument, and that said instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of
said corporation by authority of its City Council, and
said'Y~~n;...c. ;f ~~.tr~ and E~u~-,-~...,.2j\ acknowledged said
instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation.
~C;:c,l~~~
Not ry ~c .
(i. KAREN J. ENGELHAROT
NOTARY PUBUC . MINNESOTA
. CARVER COUNTY
. '. My cornmlaion expires 10.16-;1
STAlE. OF MINNEsarA )
) ss
CO.JNIY OF HENNEPIN )
en thisd~h day of ~\ltmbtn ,1987, before me, within and for
said County, personally appeared John E. Sayer and Carole A. Sayer, who
executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that they executed the
same as their free act and deed.
IAU."UW~u~.......a"A"U.lUU1.lAVI
8 SUSAN A. NICCUM
~I NOTARY PUBLIC. MINHESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My Cemmlalon uplr. Mer. I 1990
'y",yy"""",.,~",y"",~"~,,
~1I~~
No ary Publi c
.
.
AGREEMENT
This Agreement, made this ____ day of
, 1993, by
and between the City of Shorewood, a Minnesota municipal
corporation ("Shorewood"), the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota
municipal corporation, ("Chanhassenll) and J. Scotty Builders,
Inc., (IIDeveloperll).
WHEREAS, the Developer is the owner of certain lands
described in Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof,
("Subject Property");
WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to Shorewood for
approval of a subdivision of the Subject Property;
WHEREAS, the Developer and Shorewood have requested that
Chanhassen provide sewer and water services to the Subject
Property. Chanhassen has agreed to permit the Subject Property
to connect to Chanhassen's sewer and water system, all subject to
certain terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises
and approval by Shorewood of the proposed subdivision, Shorewood,
the Developer and Chanhassen agree as follows:
1. Services Provided. Sanita~y sewer, storm sewer and
water s,ervices to the Subj ect Property shall be provided and
maintained by Chanhassen, and Chanhassen shall directly bill the
Shorewood residents for the services. Included in the service
charges will be a surface water utility fee. Shorewood agrees to
:
promptly certify the fees as a tax against the property if the
fees are not paid when due.
2. Utility lines. The Developer shall be responsible for
the construction of all utility lines in accordance with
Chanhassen's latest edition of Standard Construction
ATTACHMEMT NO.3
03:17/93 14:46
'Zi'612452 5550
CAMPBELL IC\lTSOl'i ~~:.+ CH.-\..'. (,;n~ li.:1.LL
If!J VVv': vvo
Specifications. The plans and specifications must be reviewed
and approved by Chanhassen. The Developer shall,enter into a
development contract with Chanhassen and provide the financial
security necessary to guarantee installation of the improvements.
3. Construction and Maintenance. The Developer shall be
responsible for all construction costs incurred in connecting the
Subject Property with the Chanhassen sewer line. The Developer
shall be responsible for costs of inspection, trunk charges,
sewer availability charges, connection charges, user charges, and
~ all other charges and fees which are normally associated with
sewer service provided by Chanhassen.
4. Right to Proceed. Within the plat or land to be
platted, the Developer may not grade or otherwise disturb the
ea~th, remove trees, construct sewer lines, water lines, streets,
utilities, public or'private improvements, or any buildings until
the Developer's plans for on-site ponding have been approved by
Chanhassen. Shorewood shall be responsible for the maintenance
~' and dredging of the pond.
5. Park Dedication. Chanhassen will not require a park
dedication fee on the Subject Property.
6~ Street Construction. A new street will be built by
Developer in a manner consistent with Chanhassen street
standards. The proposed street location is attached as
Exhibit 2. The Developer shall enter into a development contract
with Chanhassen and Shorewood covering all aspects of street
construction as well as drainage 'improvements for the Subject
Property.
:2
.
.
7. Public Safety and Emerqencv Services. Public safety
and emergency services for the Subject Property will continue to
be provided by Shorewood.
8. Assessments. Each of the lots in the Subject Property
shall be considered as benefitting from and subject to all
assessments for improvements which may be made to Koehnen Circle
at any time in the future. The Developer, its successors and
assigns, waives any and all procedural and substantive objections
to be special assessments, including but not limited to hearing
requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the
benefit to the property. The Developer waives any appeal rights
available pursuant to M.S.A. ~429.081. If Chanhassen is unable
to assess the Subject Property, or any part thereof, upon
Chanhassen's request, Shorewood shall assess the Subject
Property.
9. Snowolowinq. Shorewood shall be responsible for
snowplowing Koehnen Circle and the new stre~t.
10. Maintenance of New Street. Chanhassen shall maintain
Koehnen Circle and the new utilities serving the Subject
Property. Shorewood shall maintain the new street. "Maintain"
for purposes of this section means repair and replacement of the
existing surface when necessary, as well as regular upkeep.
11. Maximum Number of Lots. The maximum number of lots
that may be developed on the Subject Property is five (5).
....
12. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded against
the Subject Property.
13. Sunset Provision. If the Developer has not obtained
all the necessary plan approvals from Chanhassen within two (2)
3
.
.
years from the date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be
null and void.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these
present to be executed on the day and year first above written.
Dated:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
By:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
____ day of , 1993, by Donald J. Chmiel; on behalf of
the City of Chanhassen.
Dated:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
By:
Notary Public
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Don Ashworth, City Manager
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of , 1993, by Don Ashworth, on behalf of the
City of Chanhassen.
Dated: '.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
By:
Notary Public
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
, Mayor
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
_ day of ,1993, by , on
behalf of the City of Shorewood.
Notary Public
4
.
.
Dated:
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
, City Clerk
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
____ day of , 1993, by , on
behalf of the City of Shorewood.
Developer:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF DAKOTA )
Notary Public
J. Scotty Builders, Inc.
By:
Its:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
____ day of < I 199_, by , on
behalf of J. Scotty Builders, Inc.
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
Notary Public
CAMPBELL, KNUTSON, SCOTT & FUCHS, P.A.
317 Eagandale Office Center
1380 Corporate Center Curve
Eagan, MN 55121
Telephone: (612) 452-5000
5
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE. P.O. BOX 147. CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 . FAX (612) 937-5739
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 18, 1993
TO:
Don Ashworth, city Manager
Mayor and Council Members ,
() ;
Jean Meuwi ssen, Treasurer rilllV
Proposed Subdivision (Deer Ridge)
City of Shorewood
.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
It has come to my attention that you are contemplating the annexation
of one lot in this proposed subdivision. Have you considered the
implications of this annexation as it relates to elections?
1. The City of Chanhassen would have to set up a separate
election precinct for the people living in that house
because they would be voting for Hennepin County
officials.
.
2. Hennepin County would have to print
these voters. ~
ballots for
3. You would be taking away the ir r i ghtto a secret b'a 11 ot
because the election results would have to be tabulated
as a separate precinct because the.property.isina
different~ounty. politically active persons not
appreciate this.
We had the same problem when ther~ w~re ~ouses along Highway 5
in Hennepin County. One family was very involved in politics
but felt they could not vote because there ballots were not
secret.
n
t J PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
('J
...
~<<-~
CITy/o~ SHOREWOOD
PLAi@NG COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, 2 FEBRUARY 1993
COUNCIL CHA1.1BERS
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
7:00 P.M.
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL SCHEDULE
ROSENBERGER
HANSEN
MALAM
BEAN
PISULA
BONACH
BORKON
..
AFPROV AL OF MINUTES
1. 7:00 PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY PLAT - DEER RIDGE
Applicant: Jeff Williams (1. Scotty Builders)
Location: Approx. 5.1 acres immediately west of Wood haven 2nd Addition
2. PUBLIC HEARING - LOT WIDTH AND SETBACK VARIANCES (continued from
. 5 January meeting)
Applicant: Lance DeTrude
. Location: 26620 West 62nd Street
3. 7:15 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT. AMENDMENT -
SIGN REOUIREMENTS
4. STUDY SESSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
. Update Review Schedule
. Transportation Policy Plan
r
,
.
.
Agenda
Planning Commission Meeting
2 February 1993
5. MATIERS FROM THE FLOOR
6. REPORTS
7.. ADJOURNMENT
..
-2-
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Rob Daughe"v
Daniel Lewis
Bruce Benson,
CITY OF ,
',.SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD. SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (612\-474-3236
:MEMORANDuM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
.
DATE:
27 January 1993
RE:
Deer Ridge - Preliminary Plat
FILE NO.:
405 (92.33).
BACKGROUND
.
Mr. Jeff Williams, representiilg J. Scotty Builders, has requested preliminary plat approval
, '
to divide approximately 5.1 acres of land located immediately west of W oodhaven Second
Addition (see Site Location map.;. Exhibit A, attached) into ,five lots. The land had been
approved early in 1989 for a division into three lots, accessed by a private road. That
division was never froalized and the current owner has managed to acquire control of land
which had previously served as an access easement. In so doing, he is able to dedicate
right-of-way for a public street. This allows him to plat more than three lots (Shorewood's
policy for private streets restricts their use to three or fewer lots). .
The plat)s unusual because the street will start at Koehnen Circle in Chanhassen. In
addition water and sanitary sewer service will be provided by Chanhassen. The site also
drains south into Chanhassen. Due to these circumstances the project will require
development agreements between the two cities. -.
, . The subject site is'~oned R-1C, Single-Family ResidentiaL ,'The layout and sizes of -.
proposed lots are shown on E$ibit B:. As shown the lots range from 24,100 square feet in
area to 54,700 square feet and average 37,600 square feet. "
A Residenr~al Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
.
.
"
,
Re: Deer Ridge
Preliminary Plat
27 January 1993
I '
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
The five lots exceed the minimum width and area requirements of the R-IC district. As
can be seen on Exhibit B, the buildable areas of all the lots are ample. Most of the issues .
which need to be addressed for this plat are related to the agreement between the developer
and the two cities. Chanhassen has agreed to consider providing the utilities and allowing
. the access from Koehnen Circle based on the following understanding:
a. Utilities will meet Chanhassen's standard construction specifications. The developer
will pay all of Chanhassen's tru~ and connection charges.
b. Ponding which will occur in Chanhassen shall comply with Chanhassen design
standards.
c. The new street would meet Chanhassen's standards or Shorewood's, whichever are
higher.
d. The new lots will be assessed for future upgrading of Koehnen Circle.
e. Shorewood will provide emergency safety services (e.g. police and fire) to the
development. -
f. The City of Shorewood shall plow Koehnen Circle in conjunction with Deer Ridge.
g. Chanhassen will provide routine maintenance (Le. patching, sealcoating, etc.) for
Koehnen Circle.
h. Shorewood will provide routine maintenance for Deer Ridge. .
.. -
'1. Chanhassen' s attorney will prepare, an agreement for the a?propriate. signatures.
. .
With respect to the plat itself it is recommended that the following conditi(~ms be imposed:
1. The applicant must provide plans and specifications for the street,'utilities and grading
and drainage. These will be subject to review and approval by the Chanhassen City
Engineer as well as our own C;:ity..Engineer. .- -. '
2. The developer will b~ requi~ect to provide a letter of credit in the amount of 110% of
the cost of the utilities. A second letter of credit must be provided in the amount of
150% of the cost of all other site improvements. . '.
- 2 -
.
.
Re: Deer Ridge
Preliminary Plat
27 January 1993
3.
The applicant must pay $3750 ($750 per lot) in park dedication fees.
~ : .
"
4. Sin~~ the applicant pays Chanhassen's trunk sewer charg~s, local sanitary sewer
- access charges (LSSAC) are not required.
.... I
5. Based upon input from the Public Works Director, the center island in the cul-de-sac
must be eliminated. .
6. The developer must provide a detailed grading plan showing access to Lot 1 with a
maximum grade of 10%.
7. Outlot A should be made part of Lot 5. If the developer wishes to aSsure the
property owner to the south that vegetation in that location. will be I>reserv~, it
should be accomplished by conservation easement.
Subject to these conditions it is recommended that the preliminary plat be approved. Since
the plat is complicated somewhat by the two municipal jurisdictions, .please call me prior to
Tuesday night's meeting if you have any questions.
cc: Jim Hurm
Joel Dresel
Tim Keane
Don Zdrazil
Jeff Williams
p-~~ii~~~se--- )
,..
'.
-,'
.I
.~....
~._".
",
,..;.'\
- 3 -
~...~-~-- ~-..-.;.- ....
~~(r;(\
~k
"
-: t, !
.. ..:: . .~'
., -~~ ~--''''-
..::::-:::-.~~=..~ ~:A
j.
- ... "r-
.;. 'I
,~. I .,..,
.' " '\.S'
.l J'4.~ ~')
~ !:~. 'r":'.- l1)
\\ II I
Q il ~,
: .. I Uu-l
----~ , ~
lIS la'l.n ! I M S!".
,d ~ 11')
.J> I, ~) ... "'.'
~ OT,\)~~ l ,.~.~,.
t ~.~~
." .'"J:,"
:, ,.
,
-,
,
;.Ij) I
I " I . .\':
, ,!) l r
~ !...1
'-' ',' I . o'
1P: ~! ~
.~ ~-~
;. ~l 6)"
~
,..I'
,,') ~'.
l'~"',
. .~.
.
"
, n
., .
.,.
""
: . /,:zt/
-I
..J.
~
%'
Q
cz:.
~. (,;I~~
(,J~ !', W,"TZ
~:. ".-n. _....
v'""'
',.,1 7 J
nq,
3
I~
CIffct.E ~
n7'1
, 8
. .(,:1."1/
B
',. ........r
'.S!Ir..r..U.
,-
I
I
I,
.,
I
I
i
I
.
I
1-
-.....~
~
!
r;IP:.
11"'
.. :'\\
-:.
",.
i
I .
.3
I
II. ,~
CIRCLE
.
.
f
LE0f4ARO KOEHNEN
&k 60, ~ 205
I
r.
.
.-'._'. ....- --...... .-. -. .-.
. .
_..
/1>9'
I
J Ie
I~w /.1.
~-
~(~
i-: ;'t/t>
1'''''
. .
. I
/.'
I
112
~I
I
,
;
,
1
....
~orth
~ ~ \c..
rr~
125 /,-/ ..:\
/ y' ~
/ : .
T~-----{-+7--
--55.'- --1 j' p" ~
! (:) I: '(-
. L-
a
"., I
-
-# ~..
III f'
o~
~\) Q\~
..,,~ t:# ~(.'
t~~t
I
I
,
I
~3" I
o~
llO"At.D IA'TIA"SCN
C1, ... 'f4'
, ,
~
...."..
,.. .
~ J.~I t,;Zftl
I A 1ft L~ S. ?<< ;'." ~
, ,,'Ji.. ,aJ. 1- "~
· ;2 Z:' ~ :i"
~ =,. .. & ..J . ...
I !: ii: E CD!:.
I -. ;a '1N Iii..
:l,a....a.... _..ll"-~ &3RD- _ _ _ '::..!
II
. ,~\
II L STOODAIIT
.. .. p ,,~-~. .
'. .
...." .
--;... .
..
,.f>>.... . .
or
- I
.
,
Exhibit A
SITE LOCA nON
.
.
,':
/i /i /i
/ /, /
lnl
I I \
: :: \
\
i \ :
\ ~"~",,,,,,,,,-,,,,"~.1....
\ ( \ . .......!\....-
\""{ \
\ ........ ..'.
\ It..... I
\ \ ...._-.=.
I
!
'..,,1
1"'\,
I '
. I
\ ~
: i
i (
\ ~
, I
: I
" : .
\'t.........,~...........
\ ~ ..... \.
~ """'"
,
l
I
!
!
"
';.....
....':...
: .
j
/
.................,.........
....--...
"-
.."
i
\::.:: (
r EXISTING CC
\ I
J
\
\
\
, \,.:\
I
,
\
)
" ,../'
/
..'-
....... ..'
,
I
/
/
"
".
\
\
I
.t
.,
...
No~"
\": 50'
_-"'..I',......""-^..". ...
~\
~I
~-e.
..
"',
--
\
I
!
..."
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
TO DEVELOP A SUBSTANDARD LOT TO
PAT PECHACEK
WHEREAS, Pat Pechacek (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5025
Shady Island Road, in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota,
legally described as follows:
"Lot 32, Shady Island, Lake Minnetonka"; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family dwelling
on the property and construct a new home; and
WHEREAS, the subject lot does not comply with the lot width or area requirements
of the R-1C/S zoning district in which it is located; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit (c.u.p.) to build
on a substandard lot; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated
25 February 1993, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, after required notice, a public hearing was held and the application was
reviewed by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting on 2 March 1993, the minutes
of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant's request for a conditional use permit was considered by
the City Council at their regular meeting on 22 March 1993, at which time the Planner's
memorandum and the minutes of the Planning Commission were reviewed and comments
were heard by the Council from the City staff. .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as
follows:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. That the Subject Property is located in an R-1C single-family residential
zoning district and is also subject to the requirements of the "S" Shoreland District.
2. That the City Zoning Code requires that a nonconforming lot of record meet
70 percent of the width and area requirements of the zoning district in which it is located in
order to be considered buildable.
3. That the Applicant's lot is 77 feet wide which is 77 percent of the required lot
width in the R-1C zoning district.
4-A
.
.
4. That the Applicant's lot is 16,170 square feet in area which is 81 percent of
the lot area required in the R -1 C zoning district.
5. That the City Code provides an exception for single-family homes to be rebuilt
on nonconforming lots of record, provided that setbacks are complied with to the extent
possible.
6. That the structure proposed to be constructed by the applicant complies with
all setback requirements of the R-IC zoning district.
7. That the proposed structure is a reasonable use of the subject property and
does not have an adverse affect on neighboring properties.
8.
That the Applicant does not own property adjoining the subject property.
CONCLUSIONS
1. That the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a conditional use
permit to build on a nonconforming lot of record.
2. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants Applicant's
request for a conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
a. The bituminous surfacing on the side and rear of the lot may remain for
drainage purposes but must be reduced to no more than four (4) feet in width.
b. The Applicant must provide a landscape plan, to be approved by the City
Council, which screens the bituminous area from view from Lake Minnetonka.
c.
The existing boathouse must be removed.
d. The bituminous area on the north end of the Jot must be removed except as
needed for the proposed driveway.
e. Impervious surface on the site shall be limited to 4043 square feet of area.
f. Erosion control and construction limits as shown on the Applicant's site plan
must be in place prior to any site work being started.
g. The proposed driveway must be located at least five (5) feet from the side lot
line.
h. All improvements required in a., b., c., d., f., and g. above shall be
completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new house.
i. The conditional use permit shall be valid for one year from the date of this
resolution.
- 2 -
.
.
3. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified
copy of this Resolution for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th day of
April, 1993.
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
- 3 -
4b
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION
OF REAL PROPERTY
WHEREAS, Carolyn K. McClure (McClure) has an interest in certain real properties
in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described in
Exhibit A:
WHEREAS, McClure has applied for a subdivision and combination of said
properties to form Parcels A, B and C, legally described in Exhibit B, attached hereto and
made a part hereof; and
.
WHEREAS, the subdivision and combination requested by McClure complies in all
respects with the Shorewood City Code; and
WHEREAS, the application was reviewed by the City Planner, and his
recommendations were duly set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated
24 February 1993, which memorandum is on file at City Hall; and
WHEREAS, the application and the Planner's memorandum were reviewed by the
Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 2 March 1993, 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 22 March 1993, at which time the Planner's Memorandum and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission were reviewed.
.
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 Exhibit A be subdivided
and combined to form Parcels A and B, legally described and shown in
Exhibit B.
2. That the City Clerk furnish McClure with a certified copy of this resolution
for recording purposes.
3. That any further division of Parcel A be done by formal platting.
4. That McClure record this resolution together with the drainage and utility
easements shown on Exhibit C and the roadway easement shown on Exhibit D,
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 12th day of
April, 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
Existing Legal Description
.
Lot 86, AUditors Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT
that part thereof descnbed as foflows: Beginning at the Northwest comer of said
Lot: thence South 28 degrees 1 0 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 teet 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 fine of Murray Street to be .due East or West; ALSO
EXCEPT that part of said Lot 86 described as fOIJO'NS: Beginning at the most
northeasterty comer of said lot 86; thence southerly along an easterty fine of saJd
Lot 86 a distance of 355.00 feet; thence west parallel 'Nith the most norttJerty line
- of said Lot 86 a distance of 54.DOfset; thence norttlerfy paranel 'Hfth the most
easterly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 100.00 feet; thence northerfy, de1iecting
right 27 degrees a distance of 72.00 feet; thence northeasterty to -a point on said
most northeriy line of said Lot 86 distant 1.00 feet westerty of said most
northeasterty comer of Lot 86; thence easterly to the point at beginning.
TO BE COMBINED WITH
That part of Lot 86, Aucfrtor's Subdivi~ion Number 135, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described .as follows: 6eginning at a point 197 feet East on the South
line of Murray street from the Northwast comer of said lot 86 -(said Northwest
comer being the intersection of the South line of Murray street and the East line
_ of Shakopee Road); thence Due South at a 90 degree angle to the right, 209.1
feet to a point; thencs South 27 degrees 47 minutes West, 148.5 feet to a point;
thencs South 62 degrees 13 minutes East 200 feet to a point; thence North 26
degrees 31 minutes 20 seconds East, 470 feet to a point, said point also being on
the south line of Murray street; thence due West along the said South line of
Murray Street to the point of beginning.
.
Exhibit A
Legal Description - Parcel A
That part of Lot 86, Auditor's Subcfrvision Number 135, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot
86 distant 377 feet east from the northwest comer of said Lot 86; thence on a
bearing of West along said north lilie 180 feet; thence on a bearing of South a
distance of 209.1 feet; thence South 27 degrees 47 minutes West 148.5 feet;
'thence South 62 degre.es 13 minutes East to an 'intersection 'Nith a nne bearing
South 27 degrees 47 minutes West from a point 78 feet south at right angles from
the point of beginning; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes East to said point;
thence on a bearing of North to the point of beginning, EXCEPT the most northerly
1,8.00 feet of the above described property.
.
Legal Description - Parcel B
.
That part of Lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, '
Minnesota, described as follows:' Beginning at a point on a line drawn on a
bearing of South a distance of 78.00 feet from a point on the North line of said Lot
86 distant 377.00 feet.East from the northwest comer of said Lot 86; thence on a
bearing of North a distance of 78.00 feet; thence on bearing of East a distance of
129.82 feet; thence South 5 degrees 46 miJ1utes 30 seconds West a distance of
68.09 feet; thence South 40 degrees West a distance of 245.00 feet; thence on a
bearing of West to a line drawn on a bearing of South 27 degrees 47 minutes
V\/est trom the point of beginning; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes East to the
pofntof beginning, EXCEPT tha northerfy 18.00 feet of said above descnbed
property(for purposes of this description, the Nortl1line of said Lot 86 is assumed
to have a bearing of due East and West).
Legal Description - Parcel C
Lot 86, Auditor's Subdivision Number 135, Hennepin County, Minnesota, EXCEPT
that part of Lot 86 descnoed as follows: Beginning at a point distant 377.00 feet
East of the Northwest comer of sajd lot 86; thence on an assumed bearing of
West along the North line of said Lot 86 to said Northwest comer; thence
southwesterly alqng the NorthwesteJiy line of said Lot 86 a distance of 242.00
feet; thence South 62 degrees 13 minutes East to its intersection with a nne
drawn on a bearing of South 27 degrees 47 minutes West from a point on a lIt1a
drawn on a bearing of South from the point of beginning and distant 78.00 feet
from said point of beginning; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes East to said
point; thence on a bearing of North to the point of beginning, ALSO EXCEPT that
part of Lot 86 described as fallows: Beginning at a point on a line drawn on a
. bearing of South a distance of 78.00 feet from a point on the North line of said Lot
86 distant 377.00 feet East from the northwest corner of said Lot 86; thence on a
bearing of North a distance of 78.00 feet; thence on beartng of East a dIstance of
129.82 feet; thence- SOllth5 degrees 46 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of
68.09 feet: thence South 40 degrees West a distance of 245.00 feet; thence on a
bearing of West to a Une drawn on a bearing of South 27 degrees 47 minutes
West from the point of beginning; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes East to the
point of beginning, ALSO EXCEPT that part of lot 86 descnbed as follows:
Beginning at the most northeasterly comer of said Lot 86; thence southerly along
an easterly fine of said Lot 86 a distance of 35.5.00 feet; thence west parallel. With
the most northerly Iina of $.aid lot 86 a distance of 54.00 feet: thence northerly
parallel with the most easterly line of said Lot 86 a distance of. 1 00.00 feet; thence
northerty, deflectfng right 27 degrees a distance of 72.00 feet; thence
northeasterty to a point on said most northerly line of saId Lot 86 distant 1.00 feet
westerly of said most n'ortl1easterfy comer of Lot 86; thence easterty to tha poInt
of beginning,
ALSO EXCEPT the most northerly 18.00 feet of the above described property.
Exhibit B
Indl"d~~i ili I~ C~;P~;III~~'--'--------------- -..-.---.-- .----.-....
01 P illn_lIl1ip
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
ot Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( . ) not required
Certificate ot Real Estate Vulue No,
,19
"
County Auditor
by
De ut
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $
Date:
Mrlrr.h 10.
, 19 -21
(reserved lor recording data)
. FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. Thomas J. Beedem, a single person and
Carolyn K. McClure, a single person ,Grantor(s),
Imllil.1 SIIlu&l
hereby convey (s) and quitclaim (s) to
city of Shorewood
a municipal corporation
real property In Hennepin
, Grantee,
under the lnws of Minnesota
County, Minnesota, described as fol!ows:
.
An easement for drainage and utility purposes over, under, and
across the westerly, northwesterly, southwesterly, southeasterly,
and easterly 10 feet of the following described property:
That part of Lot 86, Auditors Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on
the north line of said Lot 86 distant 377 feet east from the
Northwest corner of said Lot 86; thence on a bearing of West
along said north line 180 feet; thence on a bearing of South a
distance of 209.1 feet; thence South 27 degrees 47 minutes West
148.5 feet; thence South 62 degrees 13 minutes East to an
intersection with a line bearing South 27 degrees 47 minutes West
from a point 78 feet south at right angles from the point of'
begiryning; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes East to said point;
thence on a bearing of North to the point of beginning.
III mort splc.1s nllded. continue on blckt
tocether with nil hcrcdilam~nts and appurtenances belonGing thereto.
~~~~ \ea~t"d v. NY, ~
,\1"11:" Ill,..d Tal( :-:It'-IlIJ11Il'f(' II ~
. STATE OF MINNESOTA
s
COUNTY OF
,
Hennepin
} u.
The Corecoini: instrument was acknowledged before me this lo'f!:; day of
by Thomas J. Beedem, a single person and Carolyn K.
erson
NO"rAI\lAL'STAt.\1' 01\ Sl::AI.. (Oil OTlllo:Il1'1TL.l:: Oil IlANKt /---
~
--~ "
'1~
. I ,
a Sln Ie
, GrlUltor (s).
I..
. 'J i '\ ,
-,I' , 1 ~ .". ., ...
: H., ...... .'tf:.'\I:.1!'1 .
::' ,.,." 11..... ",.. .."" 1\ I\. J/";'
...~. I' \"""iH"..;!:.;.~~.t,...~.1.'J" ,"
., ..f ..~ _ . '. '.I\f~ 'J"''''; ,,,,.~',,'I ;V,:' ,1
:; ",~..,~.,.~"'J',"",,,,,,\/\ "'\o~',,\. v
,
~
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
TII~ INliTUUMi:NTWAS DllM"TIW BY (NAM!l:AND ADDIlE9S).
Liszt
Office, Ltd.
Avenue South
MN 55431
.
Ind,vidu.1 hI \0 COlpOla\lOn
0' P"'''''lI1ip
...--------___ _..____.__0__.
,
No delLnquent taxes and trnnsfcr entercd; CertlClcato
ot Real Estate Value ( ) tilcd ( ) not required
C~rti!icate at Real E~latc Vnluc No.
,19
County Auditor
by
De ut
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $
Date:
March 10,
19 93
, -
.
(reserved lor recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Thomas J. Beedem, a single person and
Carolyn K. McClure, a single person
Imllil,IIIIlUs!
, Grantor (5),
her(:by convcy (5) and quitclaim (s) to
City of Shorewood
, Grantee,
a municipal corporation under the laws at Minnesota
real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as fol!ows:
An easement for roadway purposes over, under, and across the
north 18 feet of the following described property: .
That part of Lot 86, Auditors Subdivision No. 135, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at a point on
the north line of said Lot 86 distant 377 feet east from the
Northwest corner of said Lot 86; thence on a bearing of West
along said north line 180 feet; thence on a bearing of South a
distance of 209.1 feet; thence South 27 degrees 47 minutes West
148.5 feet; thence South 62 degrees 13 minutes East to an
intersection with a line bearing South 27 degrees 47 minutes West
from a point 78 feet south at right angles from the point of
beginning; thence North 27 degrees 47 minutes East to said point;
thence on a bearing of North to the point of beginning.
llf mort .pIC' Is nlld.d, conllnu. on blckl
toGether with all her(!ditamcmts and appurtenances belonging thereto.
C~:a ^,s, )~~'UHb 0 """ \
Thomas J. B e em
.~~a;~
c~r yo K.. McClure
,\I"i'I:', D"l'd Tal( :)1~1Il1' I "'re'
STATE OF MINNESOTA
} u.
~OUNTY OF Hennepi n
The tor(:coinl: instrument wns acknowledged betara me thIs /r.;*- day of March
by Thomas J. Beedem, a sinqle person and Carolyn K. McClure, a
)erson
" lULL-,
single I
, GrMlor (s).
NOU':'~';'" ~'" 0', :~.L .(~" OT;"<" ~!TL: OIl '.N'(j~.,L:::-----/ / . . .
;;Q1:.'i~ !. '.1_. "-::-01.' ;': /./ G TURI:: OF PERSON TAKUiO ACKNOWLEDGMENT
:. '. ....... I:::;.;.' .' ;j 1\ I II \' ----:r..-{S,.tamtlnu lor lh. n.1 property d..erlb.d la tblt InIlnualAt alaCHAW
:! l.~; C~:;ln;:.: IJ. L:j'! ..J 2~, It ::1.'.: ~. b. I.hllo (Includ. nllrU. ,nd .dd.... 01 OraU''')1
I, ""'; ,,: .....,,':.... ,r ..'"",',.'V''''''''.. t. ....,.... :'."/\1\,'\:,":"""': .
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
TlIl:IINSTI\UMt:NT WAS DI\At'TJ.:D DY (NAMII: AND ADDIlILSS). Shorewood, MN 55331
Marvin A. Liszt
Liszt Law Office, Ltd.
8900 Penn Avenue South
Suite 312
Minneapolis, MN 55431
(612) 001-8805
Exhibit D
~
.
.
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR MINOR DRAINAGE PROJECTS
TO BE FUNDED BY STORMWATER UTILl1Y
GENERAL -
. Projects to be funded under this utility will include only those
projects that are estimated to cost less than $15,000. Projects will
be completed in order of priority, as defined below and as
categorized and dated by the Public Works Director. Where two (2)
or more projects have the same priority, the older of the projects
will be completed first, funding permitted. Total project spending
per year will not exceed $30,000 or the fund balance, whichever is
smaller.
1)
PUBLIC SAFElY AND HEALTH
CRITERIA
Primary attention will be paid to those projects that impact the public health or
safety. These projects would include ice problems on the road, erosion that is
causing a hazardous structural problem (i.e. undermining a road), or storm water
that is causing a significant health problem (such as flooding the sanitary system).
CURRENT PROJECTS (DATE)
- Hall and McNolta Residences along Near Mountain Blvd. (11/92)
2)
SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE CIlY
CRITERIA
This category will include those projects that, while not endangering the public
health, will still have a negative impact on the residents as a whole. Projects in
this. category include minor infrastructure replacement that cannot be funded cost
effectively by other means. Other potential projects include erosion causing
property damage and minor structure replacement.
CURRENT PROJECTS (DATE)
- Rustic Way drop manhole replacement (6/92)
- Old Excelsior Blvd. culvert erosion into Footprint Lake (3/92)
4) PRIVATE NUISANCE
CRITERIA
.
3) PUBLIC NUISANCE
CRITERIA
This category includes those projects that cannot be considered a substantial
hazard, are not likely to cause a financial loss to the City, but are a public
nuisance. These projects include standing water in the roadway, unwanted
flooding in public parks, and minor erosion projects.
CURRENT PROJECfS (DATE)
- Harding Ave. in front of Agaard residence (12/92)
- Bracketts Road in front of Champion residence (1/93)
Finally, those projects that are a nuisance to a single residence or small group of
residences that the City Council deems that the City has some responsibility to
help correct. These projects include those instances where a large drainage area
is causing a problem to a small area, and the homeowner(s) is (are) willing to
allow a right of entry to City crews without cost.
CURRENT PROJECfS (DATE)
- Rear yard drainage problem at Brown residence along Harding Lane
.
.-
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
Bruce Benson
. CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331.8927 . (612) 474.3236
MEMORANDUM
TO:
. Jim Hurm
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
.
DATE:
23 March 1993
_ RE:
Vacant Park Property - Academy Avenue _
FILE NO.:
405 (Parks)
In preparing the existing land use map, a vacant property on Academy Avenue shows up as
"park and utility" owned by the City of Shorewood (see Site Location map - Exhibit A,
attached). The lot measures 83.6' x 141.8', contains approximately 11,854 square feet of
area and is served by City sewer. This constitutes a buildable lot in the R-1D zoning
district.
The property is relatively wooded and sits high from Academy Avenue. Nearby lots, similar
in size show the following land values in the tax records:
. Lot3-
Lot 10 -
Lot 11 -
~ Lot 79 -
$29,400
$33,600
$30,500
$30,400
(23355 Academy Ave.)
(23350 Park St.)
(23340 Park St.)
. (23285 Academy Ave.)
--
Assuming--that the City's policy of not developing tot lots remains consistent, -it seems that
. this lot could be sold. Since it is on the books as park land, the proceeds from the sale
should go into the park fund. _ As we discussed this money could be used for the construction.
of the Manor Park shelter building. ..
Before any fInal decision is made, ~ suggest that we have the City Attorney review the de~ "
to m~e sure there are not extraordinary restrictions on the use of the lot . .
- '
. \ .
If you need any additional information, please let' me know.
--
cc:
Park Commission
Planning Commission
Tim Keane
5
Bruce Benson
Dan Lewis
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
c
.... -~_.
@
115. 6 175
,
..,1 I
~. ,'/:1 /,p
~:/~. ~~/ .
-/"
"
"
.-
~rth
I" ,
;::. z.t:;O
215
(;8)
,fl'-:
,
I
,
1
""
."
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
~ (II)
"'" /~.
.......~
'..............
74,7
~
QIo<:o
212
(14) \Q
~
( is)
~.} .
.'
" .
:..~
-
-0
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
L:": ' ..
"7
"--' .......
U~
"--"
/
. :::;:/-/- .
" j'~~ .''"'"-
-- "........ L-..
'-..-.-
/
( 25)
(27)
--- LL ..~-7:--Q-:;~--=----
.....-,.,..... ;......;/_/~
---- ----- : -. (28) ~
"..." ,...... . .
_-- ~.. 209 .
(- cCl /,; "'________________
I ...::;; 1< v II> c:.-Q ," ,...,
I . N :; / _ . t,..... -,
! (26) , . (29).... 2
: ':::-.0'" +,---------------
I'~./ ~(/,. ~.~ .
,_,V i....~~ ...130) ~
I ! ~'-2~
..ni!
I
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
166 ;
210
'- ."
(31)
~
'Ii.
168
Exhibit A
SITE LOCATION
Academy Ave. park lot.
~
I.' ..,
,
".
. /.' 7'-1
...
'Z
<CI'l
,'0 CI'l.
....Iw.
"0:
.we
ee
c: 8 ~
,. W
'~~ ~
~z
x
o
0:
U
CI'l
.:". LU
-~;:' .:a'
..;.:~_ w (/)
,--, c:: e
~s
~o
LUCC
:<:e
<-
z:t
""} "Y "'l 1) 'l "'J'! r ':jj 'T 'Y -}'-, '-f 1) ....
I
III
P"I
o
o
~
P"I'
P"I
N
I
r-.
~
....
I
~
to
'0
O.
III
to
o
co
r-.
~
P"I
NW
0>
0<
N>-
0:<:
ow
c
<
U
<
XI-
wCl'l
..CI'lO
c::e.
~~
III
C::P"I
OP"l
~P"I
CI'lN
...I
W
U
x
w
o !z
I-P"IW
c::
Z c::
O-D::>
~r-.u
I-N
~
COCl'l
co::>
< . I-
0<
CI'lOI-
- 0 CI'l
...I
...I
<
.a:l
'0
o.
CI'
c::
<
W
>-
Z
o
~
I-
U
::>
c::
I-
CI'l
Z
o
U
W
I-
0<
zc
aaCl'l.
~ ~c.
CI'lCl'l~
~ .....
>>w
~.....w
CCCl'l
o 0
o 0
o
o
o
o
o
o
. ...:
%: 0
<owz
1-1-
(!) <I-
zcc::u
~w w
>-c::<~
"-<wo
.....:::0:0:
...Ien<e..
.<
::lCC"-'
Cll'''-''-M
CI'
to
....
. CI"
to
..... >-
c." l-
. O. C ~ >-
1-0 W'UI-
e..::::>-wl-<~
wwl-CWe..u
oc::~ :>:::<<
og~t:;~u~x!i:
~ CI'l.5 .... %: ~ U ~ <
...1"- r-.Wl-X ...,
OoG,.... <...10
W ....CCCl'lI-<c::
'1->-:>:::N<CI'l I-e..
<1-C::'XOI-Z
I-~<Ill<a:ww....
CI'lue..OI-(!)zO:.....
I-
~
:;:
j"
~
W
en
<
e
z
N
W
CI'l
<
cc
.... .
W
en
<
a:l
:-.:
~
.>.
o
u
<
%:
(!)
o
...I.
a:l
C
Z
<
...I
~
o
....
<
o
o
o
o
w
I-
<
a:, x 0
<.....
1-<
e..
0. ...I
~ ~~
a:C::01-.
e.. 1-0
C l-
I-
.CI'lZ
~.
%
o
H
I-
0.
~
a:
u
CI'l
w.
e
,
~
wI-
...Ie..
:<:
XLU
<x
I-w
x
"-
.::>
CCI'l
.'
HC!f
C!f
~(!)
0:0:
LU
e..o.
0:;::
a: I-
e..
Z
CI'l
. ...I
w
U
0:
<
e..
I-
<
...I
e..
":>:::
....
a:l
I-
OCl'l
...ICI'l
W
0:
C
e
<
:::1-
LUUCl'l
%:ene
<
ZW.
(!)
z<
ow
.....a:
I-U
~<
C
e
<
...
Z
<CI'l
OCl'l
...ILU
,a:
we
ee
0<
u,
w
.....:
c::<
52.Z
....
X
o
a:
u
CI'l
w
'CI'l.
CI'l
wCl'l,
a:e
c-
cS
<0
"-a:l
W
%:c
<:::
z<
a:CI'l
ww
>-1-
a:<w
we..%:
~x
is ~ .
-D
P"I
o
o
~
to
P"I
N
I
r-.
~
~
I.
~
P"I
'0
N
o
~
o
cc
r-.
~
M
NW
0>
0<
M>-
o%:
ow
c
<
u
<
~
a:
w
0.
o
a:
0.
III
00 a: III
OM
.....P"I
CI'lN
...I
w
.u
X
w
o !z
I-P'\w
0:
_ a:
O-D::>
.....r-.u.
I-N
.....
COCl'l
co::>
< '1-
0<
CI'lOI-
. 0 CI'l
...I
...I
<
a:l
XI-
LUCI'l
CI'lC
a:c
~~
~.
M
r-.
-D
N
....
o
.....
M
co
~
a-
....
a:
<
LU
>-
Z
o
H
I-
g
a:
I-
CI'l
a
u
W
I-
0<
zc
ZZCI'l
00
.........c
CI'lCl'l.....
.... ....
>>w
..........w
CCCI'l
-D
r-.
r-.
P'\
'"
I- .
%: 0
<uwZ
I- I- .
(!) <I-
Zca:u
.....w w
>-a:<...,
,,-<wO
.....::: a: a:
...Ien<e..
<
::>OC"-
Cll'''-''-H
OM CI' .
or-.r-.
o;.~\oQ
r-.....
-4)
~
to
M . >-.
W Ill. I-
~~~Illt tn: '
:>::::>::: 1-<.....
uu>- owe..u
WUJ=::P"'4~c:(<(
........w:l:..,a:uo. l-
e CO<l: <X=
cc.c < c :l: X u < <
UOr-. < 1-'
U en < 0 N W.I- X ...,
w :;::........ <...10
O/l...lIllW eo.Cl'lI-<a:
o~~5Z~~I-!;:e..
:tt'\: c:tc::wwL&..
UUNCI'l I-(!)Za:l-1
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I-
~
I.
Z
g
w
en
<
e
z
N
W
CI'l
<
a:l
~'"
wr-.
CI'l-D
<
a:l
:-':0
~o
0....
u
<
%:
(!)O
co
....Ill
a:l A
co
P'\
00
ZO
<~
...I A
a-
N
a: a:
uu
I-~COO-D
5~~~":
ONCO-Dr-.
=NCOa-M
<MNOa-O
A A 0
N ....
00"
w....r-.
1-"" III
<....~
a:
CON
M~
....
0.
~.
c::a:
0.
e
I-
~:c
a
M
l-
e..
M
c::
u
CI'l
w
c
,
~
W
....1
X
<,
1-,
Xc
<.....
1-<
Co.
...I
<...I
1-<
.01-
1-0
I-
-D
r-.
r-.
M
'"
c
~
<
Co.
5
I-
=
<
XI-
LUCI'l
CI'lc
a:c
~~
=1-
wUCl'l
:l:enc
<
ZW
(!)
Z<
ow
. ..... a:
I-U
.....<
e
o
<
...
Z
<CI'l
OCl'l
...IW
,a:
wc.
co
0<
U,
W
1-=
a:<
oz
%:5
c::
.u
en
W
X
"-
.::>
oen
HCll'
cr
~(!)
a: a:
W
0.0.
ox
a: I-
e..
Z
CI'l
...I
W
U
c::
<
Co.
I-
<
...I
Co.
:.!
....
eo
I-
OCl'l
...ICI'l
W
c:::
C
o
<
~
c::
W
Co.
o
c:::
e..
CI'l
CI'l
wCI'l
c::o
9~ .
r-.
M
o
o
....
M
M
N
I
r-.
....
....
I
~
.M
o
C::1ll
OP"l
.....P"I
CI'lN
..J
W
U
X
w
o !z
I-P"I'W
. c::
6..05
.....r-.u
I-N
.....
OOCl'l
00::>
< '1-
0<
CI'lOI-
- 0 CI'l
...I
..J
<
eo
....
~
a-
.....
~
....
o
- 0
a-
eo
r-.
r-.
r-.
III
....
'"
....
a:
<
w
>-
o
..:
o
~
o
co
r-.
..:
P"I
-
o
.....
I-
g
c:::
I-
!2
o
U
N
o
o
I-
CI'l
:>:::
a:
<
0.
o
....
c
..,.
<
to
CI'l
I-
o
...I
Cl)
P"I
N
r-!~
to
I-
o
...I
"-
'0
l-
. .... "-
to
to~
III ....
III .a
Exhibit B.
RENN. CO. TAX RECORD
,-,. .'.
f6
I
~ ':
.~
J
;;;;..J ..... OJ
'""' ." '""' 01
,
ACADEMY
AVENUE
BALL S ADD.
TO EUREKA
()
'";e
H.~_
, ~
93.65 .
I'; .....2'J. ELM
""
)-30"ELM
I-
u...
j r~
--
::J I O.
I
-
I
!
~
~1183.5'
836'
( 5700 )
I _ II I....' , ,..
"""",n' _-J .v.v.
'-' ......-
.....
J
I
I ,-
, ,
I
I
AUD. SUS'D. NO. 135 \
h "
EL 96493 tEI..96S6.
I- L= 30' L=33 9648 EL q:; I 8
~ 0-6S' 0=95' L=33' L-;7 \
~ h 0- 10' 0= l' 5
..J ',.J _ l(
J i 20E[) 12'J-~ 20+ l LJ'"
,~4"'<: W' I ;0:
ASH f-7:J ~:rll' CJ ).".
'1'~ ' tJ. · 0
5.5S..-.... '1:': I ,,:.-?IZ.S ~1' ,?.J,.., I I
36'1.,.-__.,' ,J '-J'\~\,,: r',,;, ',-37.6' 3C:'~.! [:;' "I I
" T"I.l-" I .__-\_""( (-. -' l, 76.<:-
. 1# ! rl rh I '----
) _ _ _ _____. c "'- -...:er-'
117'1129' "SS ifH 'e' <;.'rJ S"iR . '1.0
._~' ,- - \57 Ir- - -=--76' -1Mii36-i' p~ r-- - 1.0
I p~' ,L _ _ If,:::"" ~ t~ hI
.. ...' i I" ,~~-\ :8"3.6' 93.65.V;~K' Y\ 8S' :'-'!
, ~~ I V I OAK; ,'\ ''. 81 a:: .
/_,' 24,51 \ \ 28'..!.......... ~/ ' 012 I
12.13"'" 1- D '~7.3' , ,', Q~I~ r-
, ,s,e;....,.... "'I W I
.../'X . 5 u-
32-- I "-.' J: X
r ,. U>L.J"-
't.~;1<; (30101 ~ ''19\~: 80
o II 0' UJ ~~~5~1:5
~ll~8~fi~:ls~g~
R. L.S.
NO, 447
L
75'
.
.:-.
MH ),.!3
"'6JL-
Jf
""
14(20)
f".J
EL !:'.,.o a8
'.- 33
11'75'
TO
EU~E;K~ -,~,- 0
D'
a
".
r
.:...
...
-fI l'
I
.,
.....
....
::J ,v
T
'.?'
.....:
~'
~ 1
0,7 r
1:::71 ~
a.v
7c:.. ;;1 I.V
.--.........
~
- ^ 1"'\
/:::.U.v
""" \ I .
..., ..
--. -
~r- ..... ,.....
.... .......... ..,
"\ 7 0/_
-
,
K L
~ .
.
Z
I
6 -
L
.
~r' )
....- "\
oJ I ...,
"",..""
;;;; \,; '"' '
.' Exhibit C
SEWER AS-BUILT
----j-
.
.
City Council Agenda - Monday, April 12, 1993
AGENDA ITEM 8
Attachment No. 8 - Planner's Hemo and ProDosed Ordinance
al
4/8/93
Under Separate Cover by Brad Nielsen
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (612) 474-3236
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
MEMORANDUM
\
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
. DATE: 7 April 1993
RE: Spruce Hill - Final Plat
FILE NO.: 405 (92.11)
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Krist; Stover
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
Bruce Benson
Paul Kelley has submitted a fmal plat for Spruce Hill. You may recall that the preliminary
plat showed seven lots, while the fmal plat shows six. Apparently a prospective buyer for
the lot with the house wanted a larger lot. Consequently, two of the lots have been
combined as Lot 1.
As noted in the City Engineer's report, dated'5 April 1993, some modification of the plans
and specs for the street and utilities is required. Approval should therefore be subject to the
. Engineer's approval of revised plans and specs.
If you have any questions relative to this matter, please call me prior to Monday night's
meeting.
BJN:ph
cc: Jim Hurm
Joel Dresel
Tim Keane
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
q~
April 5, 1993
~Q'>."~.'~ ::. .:\.~. j}~... ~elen
, .... -'. '? Maye1"9n&
- .. . u' AsSociates, Inc.
300 Park Place Center
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis. MN 55416-1228
612-595-5775
1-800-753-5775
FAX 595-5774
Mr. Brad Neilsen
City Planner
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
Re: Construction Plan Review
Spruce Hill
Sanitary Sewer & Grading Plan
OSM File 5047.00
. Dear Mr. Nielsen:
As requested, we have reviewed a plan sheet dated March 15, 1993 by Coffin &
Gronberg, Inc. for the referenced project. This review has been done in the context of
final plat approval for the project. Because city water is not proposed, this review is
limited to streets and drainage, and sanitary sewer construction.
Streets, Grading & Drainage
We have the following recommendations regarding the streets, grading and drainage for
the project:
1)
It appears that a culvert or storm sewer is necessary under the proposed new
road at Yellowstone Trail where the existing ditch is being crossed.
.
2)
It is unclear how the drainage is being handled at the north end of the proposed
cul-de-sac. It appears that a section of storm sewer will be required.
3) Drainage from the proposed road should not be allowed to run onto Yellowstone
TraiL In general, it is preferable to have the existing crown on' the mainline road
extended into the new project for at least 20 feet. If that is not possible, some
other method of handling the drainage is required.
4) A 2 percent approach grade to Yellowstone Trail is preferred if the requirements
in 3) above cannot be met.
5) The Shorewood Street Ordinance provides for, essentially, a 7-ton road design.
No soil information was provided to evaluate the proposed street sections and the
section shown is the minimum allowable. Additional sub grade work and/or a
section increase may be required during construction to achieve the 7 -ton design requirement.
qe
Equal Opportunity Employer
6) Road construction is proposed to be done in accordance with the Mn/DOT 1983
. specification. We recommend the use of the 1988 edition with the updated
bituminous specifications to avoid confusion during construction. Bituminous base
and wear courses should be Mn/DOT 2331, Type 31 and Type 41, respectively,
with Type A.aggregate in the wear course. It is preferred that the bituminous
material be supplied by a certified plant.
Sanitary Sewer
1) The proposed sewer will require a connection to the existing pipe in Yellowstone
Trail. A detail should be provided regarding the proposed road cut and sewer
installation. Service must be maintained in the existing sanitary service at all
times.
2) We recommend the use of PVC service pipe.
3)
Sanitary manhole details have not been provided. We will be happy to forward
these details upon request.
General
A Watershed permit and Pollution Control Agency permit are required for this project.
The watershed has apparently given preliminary approval. The PCA permit will have to
be forwarded through the City Engineer's office.
A road name sign and stop sign are required at the end of the proposed road.
Standard storm sewer details are. required if the revisions require the installation of a
storm sewer system.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MA YERON
& ASSOCIATES, me.
/~.~ .
re:-'
Joel Dresel, P.E., L.S.
City Engineer
H:\CIVIL\lME\ENGINEER\1AD\LEITERS\040693.BN
.
.
.
.
~~~"\
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF
SPRUCE HILL
WHEREAS, the final plat of Spruce Hill 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 Spruce Hill 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 12th day of
April, 1993.
BARBARA J. BRANCEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HURM
City Administrator/Clerk
qe,
.
.
\) ~f\1(~
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
SPRUCE HILL
THIS AGREEMENT, made this
day of
, 1993, by and
between the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation, hereinafter
referred to as the "City", and Paul B. Kelley, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer".
WHEREAS, the Developer is the fee owner in certain lands 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 made application under the City Subdivision
Ordinance for City Council approval of a single-family residential development plat of the
Subject Property, said plat to contain approximately 7.5 acres divided into six lots, to be
known as Spruce Hill (the Development); and
WHEREAS, the City Council by its Resolution No. 64-92 adopted on 13 June 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
WHEREAS, the City Council by its Resolution No. adopted 12 April 1993,
has approved the final plat 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 sewer 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 fmal plat of Spruce Hill, the City and the Developer agree as follows:
1.) Improvements Installed by Developer - 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;
- 2 -
(04) Storm sewer and surface water drainage facilities;
(05) Street name signs and traffic control signs;
(06) Requir~ landscaping
(hereinafter liThe Improvements ").
2.) Pre-construction Meeting - 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.) Standards 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.) Materials and Labor - 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 July 1, 1994. 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.
6.) Streets. Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Facilities -
(01) Plans and Specifications. 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 Coffm and Gronberg, Inc., dated 13 March 1993 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 si~ty (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) Pre-existing Drain Tile. All pre-existing drain tile disturbed by Developer
during construction shall be restored by Developer.
7.) Staking. Surveying and InspeCtion - 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.
8.) Grading. Drainage. and Erosion Control - Developer, at its expense, shall"
provide grading, drainage and erosion control plans to be reviewed and approved by the City
Engineer. Said plans shall provide for temporary dams, earthwork or such other devices and
practices, including seeding 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 Signs - Developer, at its expense, shall provide standard city street"
identification signs and traffic control signs in accordance with the Minnesota Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
10.) Access to Residences - 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 paragraph 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
- 3 -
- 4 -
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
Imp~ovements by accepted by the City.
13.) Conveyance of Improvements - 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.) Replacement - 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 thereof.
15.) Restoration and Streets. Public Facilities and Private Properties - The
Developer shall restore all City streets and other public facilities and any private properties
disturbed or damaged as a result 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. .
17.) Claims 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.) Surety for Improvements - Deposit or Letter of Credit - 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 to the 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 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 flie 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. Regulations 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 Assessments - Developer shall pay $1000 per lot ($6000) 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.
22.) 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 $4500 ($750 X 6 lots) for the Park
Fund.
23.) 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
- 5 -
- 6 -
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, 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:
Paul B. Kelley
2511 0 Yellowstone Trail
Shorewood, Minnesota 55331
24.) 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.
25.) 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 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.
26.). Declaration of Covenants. Conditions and Restrictions - Developer shall
provide a copy of any Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for review and
approval by the City prior to recording.
27.) Remedies Upon Default-
/
(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 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) Performance Guaranty. 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 Proceedings. 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.
28.) Headings - Headings at the beginning or 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.
29.) Severability - In the event any provisions of this Agreement shall be held
invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall
not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof, and the remaining
provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
30.) Execution of Counterparts - This agreement may be simultaneously executed in
se~eral counterparts, each of which shall be an original, and all of which shall constitute but
one and the same instrument.
- 7 -
31.) Construction - This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Minnesota.
32.) Successors and Assigns - It is agreed by and between the parties hereto that
the Agreement herein contained shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of their
respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be
executed on the day and year first above written.
DEVELOPER:
PAUL B. KELLY
- 8 -
CITY:
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
By:
Its: Mayor
ATIEST:
City Administrator/Clerk
.
.
.
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
On this '. day of , 1993, before me, a Notary Public within
and for said County, personally appeared Barbara Brancel and James Hurm to me personally
known, who, being each by me duly sworn, did say that they are respectively the Mayor. 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 Mayor and city administrator/clerk 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
County, personally appeared
, 1993, before me, within and for said
on behalf of
, who is its
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.
1500 Norwest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431
(TJK) .
- 9 -
Legal. Description
.
"That part of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township
117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, .described as follows:
Commencing at a judicial landmark established in Torrens Case No. 181 (District
Court of Carver County, First Judicial District, State of Minnesota) at a point on the
South line of said Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter distant 1485.96 feet East
from the Southwest corner of the Southwest quarter of said Section 33; thence on an
assumed bearing of North 7 degrees 45 minutes West along a line hereinafter referred
to as "Line A" (said "Line A" being a line drawn from said judicial landmark to the
Northwest corner of said Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter) to its point of
intersection with the centerline of the Excelsior and Glencoe wagon road, said point
of intersection being the point of beginning of the property being described; thence
North 7 degrees 45 minutes West to said Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter of
the Southwest quarter; thence Easterly along the North line of said Southeast quarter
of the Southwest quarter a distance of 363 feet to the point of beginning of a line
hereinafter referred to as "Line B"; thence South 7 degrees 45 minutes East along
said "Line B" to said centerline, and said "Line"B" there ending; thence
Southwesterly along said centerline to the point of beginning, EXCEPT that part
thereof included in the right-of-way of the Minneapolis, Lyndale, and Minnetonka
Railway; ALSO EXCEPT that part tPereof lying Southeasterly of a line drawn
parallel with and 33 feet Northerly, measured at right angles, from said centerline of
the Excelsior and Glencoe wagon road; EXCEPTING from the above-described
property that part thereof lying Easterly of a line hereinafter referred to as "Line C"
drawn from a point on the Southerly right-of-way line of said Minneapolis, Lyndale,
and Minnetonka Railway distant 9.5 feet Westerly, measured along said Southerly
right-of-way line, from said "Line B", to the point of intersection of said "Line B"
with a line drawn parallel with and 33 feet Northerly, measured at right angles, from
said centerline of the Excelsior and Glencoe wagon road, and said "Line e" there
ending. "
.
P.I.N. 33-117-23-34-0018 and 0019
EXHIBIT A
..
No,rTh.
,. "
,~~( ':'
l-C.;"
...-4/
"~/;-;'e
~ i:~:',
f'"!'";
,. --
rn
;:C.:::
-.' .
~~~~
--.\
r"'-
':::~'J
_n~
:,.)
ii,
, .'
.-
\' I
r.'-
i
(r:
----
~
i. r
I ;
!l. ~
t/I !l,
'" <to
.'" m
'" ~
~ '^
.. <:
i '"
'" .'
'"
:J:
1"tl5.% .."\
\
..lI'~.1
'"11
\ \
\ t\
Ul en \ :1.......
.' c:
1 1 ~
\w .
\~ 1
" \
-;e ;;;;-' \ \
r- f5~ \
\ _, ~,I \ 1
\ !.;~ "'s~ \ \
~., eft~. '"
:.\ 'r;>.ds <" is ~~ """ \ \
" ~ 0,'__- ~.'" .' '-. " ·
, I 0 ~",,: -. '1 \ 1
\ / ~~;~".r. -:..~ \,.;
..,.....~ ~ -1=!_ 0'
2:. \ 1;.--=-~ "'~. \
~ ~'O
~ L- _ _ -.-.,,.,..,,.,-- - - _:1 < ~ \
i. ~.6 .' '- (f) ..
r_-----------zi.- ":.-"'1)--- \
I ("') ..../.. \ '. :::0 ""
1!\ .ij . \ c ~ \
. \ t"t - (')...
. '\ ",' ~ '" ~ I
~ \ \ ~ I
~-----------J ,I
.5 el.'~' 3(YW -
r-----"'''-7<:---i ~~ ri'
~ it~ I ~
8' ",,' ~ .1
\ . I
\ \
~ _-.-~"""...- ."..,,__-J
"
.. CIl I
.&:J '01
.. -
i ?
f ~ I
r 3' I
.... t
i1'i L
- ::-
.f "3 IS
.. _ <5
0: ,.
i ~ ,I
X ~
. ~ I
J ~.
~" 10
l~ I
.; ::"
-.
. .
(::)
~_.__. --- --' ------'
\ \ -8
\ ~ ~
\ -\
..
\~
T!fr- \
~f3~ \
~ ~l;~ ..... ~ "
~~~: \ ....::
\ E~,tt' ~~,'':',.
-!l.'f . \ : " .' ~ /'
, 1'" / ,. : /
\, .~ ;.'-/// /C' ~
\ . ~.;7."'$-/ \..~~~O~ /.
.'7:'1""''.:?' ' 1&'\~
\ ~~~ .\~'~lh"~ ..\
~. _ " ..,tiP'",---:: :,~,. "':/--' :;:
--- \...' .'~'0;S:/':') \ .~:,~:-
--I~" --~ \'; -:;,::;;-~ ,';: :~-:
~ ,'-',.,'
..~:.
-..
\ d[ \~,:.:
..-" ."
1.'-0 ~=>. C,:.
, ' " ---:
" " ...,
. ~ ~
\ " .
..-
i' _n
\ ..:; \ .;j
/iI- ."
\ 'f ....'
~~
\ .Y-
o
,
j
~
.' .
,.,."
EXHIBIT B
..d>-
.
.
.
.
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
City of Shorewood
State of Minnesota
,19_
To the City Council of Shorewood, Minnesota:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED OWNERS of all of the real property described as:
(see Exhibit A.attached)
hereby petition, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, for the following public
improvements:
, Construction of storm sewer. sanitary sewer. amd watermain
EACH OWNER FURTHER AGREES, in consideration of the City action at our
request to cause construction of the above-described improvement, to pay such sums as may
be determined by the City to be a fair and reasonable apportionment of the costs of said
improvement.
OWNER EXPRESSL Y WAIVES OBJECTION to the making of the improvement or
assessment of the cost thereof; waives the right to a public hearing to consider the
improvements; waives any claim that the amount thereof levied against owner's property is
excessive; and waives all rights of appeal in. the courts.
Date
Signature
of Owner
Description of
Property
Print Name
of Owner
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Examined, checked, and found to be in proper form and to be signed by the owner of
the above-stated quantity of property affected by the making of the improvement petitioned
for.
City Administrator/Clerk
loA
r
.
"All that part of tb.e Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 25, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, :Minnesota
according to the Government Survey thereof, described as follows: Commencing at a
point on the North line of the right-of-way conveyed to the St. Paul, Minneapolis and
lIfanitoba Railway Company, which point is 411.68 feet in a straight line from a point
on the said North right-of-way line where the same intersects the West line of the
above mentioned tract at a point 41 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof; thence
Easterly along said right-of-way curving to the right along the circumference of a
circle, the radius of which is 67'3 feet to the Soum line of said tract at a point on
same 508 feet from the Southwest corner thereof; thence East along said South line
63.5 feet to a point 88.64 feet \Vest of the Southeast corner of said tract; thence
Northeasterly parallel with and 56 feet Northwesterly from the centerline between the
tracts of the Suburban Railroad 98.29 feet to the East line of said tract and at a point
42.47 feet North of the Southeast corner of same; thence North 617.1 feet to the
Northeast corner of said tract; thence \Vest 284.5 feet, more or less, tq a point 374.4
feet East of the West line of the Northeast Quaner of the Southeast Quarter of the
South:;vest Quarter said Section, Township and Range; thence Southerly 619.2 feet to
the point of beginning. Subject to reservations, easements and restrictions of record,
if any, also subject to existing building, zone, and other ordinances, if any.
AL'ID
.
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 25, Township
117, Range 23, Hennepin County, :Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at the
Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 7
rods. to the centerline of Glencoe road; thence Southwesterly along said centerline to
the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence east along
said south line to the point of beginning. Subject to Public Road easement.
P.I.N. 25-117-23-31-0001 and 25-117-23-34-0001
Exhibit A
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE ADEQUA~Y OF THE PETITION
: FOR IMPROVEMENT AND ORDERING THE
PRELIMINARY FEASIBILITY REPORT IN THE MATTER OF
THE SEASONS P.U.D. IMPROVEMENT OF 1993
WHEREAS, the City has received a petition (the Petition) requesting that the City
improve certain property by constructing sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain (the
improvements); and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Petition and identified the owners of the real
property abutting the streets named in the Petition and determined that the Petition has been
duly executed by the owners of 100% of the frontage of the real property abutting on the
streets named in the Petition as the location of the improvement;
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood, Minnesota:
1. The Petition is hereby declared to have been signed by the owners of 100 % of
the frontage of the real property abutting on the streets named in the petition as the location
of the improvements. This declaration is made in conformity to Minnesota Statutes, Section
429.035.
2. This Petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer who is instructed to
provide to the City Council a report advising, in a preliminary way, whether the proposed
improvement is feasible and whether the improvement should thus be made as proposed or in
connection with some other improvement and the estimated cost of the improvement as
recommended.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Shorewood this 12th day of April,
1993.
ATTEST:
. Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
James C. Hurm, City Administrator/Clerk
lo~
.
.
April 6, 1993
Mayor and City Council
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
O~M Schelen
. . :yer~:>n &
AsSociates, Inc.
300 Park Place Center
5775 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55416-1228
612-595-5775
1-800-753-5775
FAX 595-5774
Re: Modification of Lift Stations 9 & 10
City Project 93-1
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Engineers
Architects
Planners
Surveyors
We have completed the plans and specifications for the referenced project, and have
attached a resolution for your approval. The project was identified in the Capital
Improvement Plan, and has been budgeted for. The two lift stations under consideration
have been identified by Munitech as having the most problems from a maintenance
standpoint. If you have any questions, please call me at 595-5695.
Sincerely,
ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON
~~4?
Joel Dresel, P.E., L.S.
City Engineer
Attachment
/nm
Equal Opportunity Employer
I I
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. - 93
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
AND ORDERING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
UFf STATION MODIFICATIONS TOUFf STATIONS NO.9 AND 10
AND APPURTENANT WORKS
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has prepared plans and specifications for local
improvements designated as Uft Station Improvements and Appurtenant Work, Project
No. 93-1.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Shorewood as follows:
1.
That such plans and specifications, a copy of which are available for
inspection at City Hall and made a part hereof, are hereby approved.
2.
That the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official
newspaper and in "Construction Bulletin" an advertisement for bids upon
the making of such improvements under such improved plans and
specifications. The advertisement shall be published twice, shall specify the
work to be done, shall state the bids will be received by the Clerk until
10:00 a.m. on May 19, 1993, at which time they will be publicly opened in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall by the City Clerk and Engineer, will
then be tabulated, and will be considered at 7:00 p.m. on May 24, 1993, in
the Council Chambers, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed
and filed with the Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's
check, bid bond or certified check payable to the Clerk for 5 percent of the
amount of such bid.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 12th
day of April, 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm
City Administrator/Clerk
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
-93
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION
OF A BRIDGE CRANE
WHEREAS, the Shorewood City Council, has previously authorized
the Director of Public Works to search for a bridge crane to be
installed in the Public Works facility for a price not to exceed
$15,000; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has researched such
acquisition and has found a used Manning, Maxwell and Moore Bridge
Crane sufficient for City purposes as described in the quote dated
April 6, 1993 attached (Attachment A) and made a part of this
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the cost for said crane and installation is $9,235
plus the cost of wiring.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council
that said crane purchase and installation is hereby approved and
shall be charged against the Public Works facility construction
fund.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL this 12th day
of April 1993.
Barbara J. Brancel, Mayor
ATTEST:
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
/2
1'\t.~~'47"TS
.
.
BUSH ~TEEL Compan'j
801 WASHIN TON AVE. N.
)d~X~}il ~~
MINNEAPOLIS Xx. MINN. 55401
338-4523
April 6, 1993
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, Mn. 55331
Gentlemen:
We herewith propose to install one Manning, Maxwell & Moore Bridge Crane
on your premises. The overall length is 271-7". Span between rails
241-9". Overall length of rails 371 to include one Peerless 3 Ton
Electric Chain Hoist S. N.J-EH 4805 - Lifting speed 15.6 FPM - 3 P.hase
220/440/ Motor with Trolley and Electrical to Junction Box.
The above will be installed in your building according to plans submitted.
The price of the Crane and Hoist installed is $9235.00.
Thank you for the opportunity of bidding.
Yours very truly,
BUSH STEEL COMPANY
/??7~ ~
Martin Bush
MB:eb
ATTACHMENT A
.
.
i
. ;
, !
! !
\ \ \., \
\ \ '. -\
'. .\ \
\ \.,
'-\ ';--\
-l --\. ~\
U. ~\
' \-\. \
i
i
: i
~ I
I :
. ;
I :
: i
P2(OCL.9l9v&L q'I09\[
Wl1.eTea.s, older :Americans are si9ni,ficant members of our society,
tnvestt"'9 the.tr wtsdom and. experience to hdp enrich
and. better the. [tves of you"'ger generatwns, and.
Wl1.eTea.s, the. Southshore Senwr Center has acted as a caWyst for
mObUtztng the. creattvtty, energy, vtwtty and.
commttment of older residents of Shorewooci, and.
. Wl1.eTea.S, through the. wide array of services, programs and.
a.cttvttte.s, senwr centers empower o[cie.r aduLts of the.
Shorewooci ania to contrwute to the.tr own fJ.e.a!th and.
weU-bet"'9 and. the. fJ.e.a!th and. weU-bet"'9 of the.tr
f e.[[ow ctttze.ns of aU ages, and.
.
Wl1.eTea.s, On :Friday, nay 7, the. Southshore Center wm celebrate
tts 10th anntversary and. begtn the. ceLebratwn of O[d.e.r
American M..onths, and.
Wl1.eTea.s, 1993 ts the. ceLebratwn of the. 50th anntversary of the.
Senwr CenteJ" concept tn the. Untted States.
Now therefore, 1., nayor narbara 1}rance.[, do hereby proctatm
nay of 1993 as O[d:er A:rnerLcans T1,onth
and. ,the year 1993 as Senwr Center year
and. caU upon aU ctttze.ns to re.cogntze the. spe.cW contrwutwns of the.
Senwr Center partictpants, and. the. spe.cW efforts of tts staff and.
vo[untoors who wor~ every cia.y to enhance the. weU-bet"'9 of the. o[d.e.r
persons tn our ctty.
Stgne.ci
thts
:Day of
1993
ISA
CK NO
AMOUNT
TO WHOM ISSUED
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE MARCH 17, 1993
11186
11187
11188
11189
11190
11191
11192
11193
11194
11195
11196
.1197
1198
11199
11200
11201
11202
11203
11204
11205
11206
11207
11208
11209
11210
11211
11212
11213
A1214
~1215
11216
11217
11218
11219
11220
11221
11222
11223
11224
11225
11226
11227
11228
11229
11230
11231
11232
11233
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 12, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(G)
(L)
(L)
(L)
(L)
Void
Pera
Mn Department of Rev.
Wendy Davis
Fina Fleet Fueling
ICMA Retirement Center
Cellular Telephone Co.
Northern States Power
Daniel Randall
Superamerica
Bellboy corporation
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Johnson Brothers Liquor
Mark VII
Ed Phillips and Sons
Pogreba Distributing
Quality Wine/Spirits
on prev list
Void
City cty Credit Union
Wendy Davis
James Hurm
Anne Latter
Bradley Nielsen
Joseph Pazandak
Dick Blick Art Materiels
First State Bank
Mr./Mrs. Douglas Shoutz
Deputy Registrar #59
Susan Niccum
Void
Commissioner of Revenue
Pera
ICMA Retirement Trust
Child Support Enforcemt
Anoka cty Spt/Collectn
Cellular Telephone Co.
Minnegasco, Inc.
Northern States Power
Northern States Power
Pepsi Cola Company
Petty Cash
Us West Communications
wmi Services of Mn
Bellboy Corporation
Day Distributing
Griggs, Cooper and Co.
Johnson Brothers Liquor
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
PURPOSE
Payroll deductions
Feb sales tax
Sec 125 reimbursement
Gasoline purchases
Surveys
Cellular phone air time
utilities
Sec 125 reimbursement
Gasoline purchases
Liquor purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Beer and misc purchases
Liquor and wine purchases
Payroll deductions
Sec 125 reimbursement
Sec 125 reimbursement
Conf expenses
Sec 125 reimbursement
Mileage
Planning supplies
Payroll deductions
LSAC reimbursement
Tax/license-1993 ford trk
Sec 125 reimbursement
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Payroll deductions
Cellular phone air time
utilities
Street light utilities
utilities
Pop machine rental
Supplies
Telephone services
Waste removal
Liquor purchases
Beer purchases
Liquor,wine,misc purchases
Wine purchases
~
-1-
25.00
7,552.22
49.00
291. 51
4.35
10.92
1,661.18
33.25
1,048.73
1,405.97
3,367.07
3,090.02
3,047.30
1,589.23
1,253.80
1,412.53
320.00
164.08
368.20
47.56
240.00
56.92
40.63
6,114.70
1,000.00
963.49
46.99
1,025.04
2,060.65
641. 57
87.50
110.59
88.37
1,199.67
1,976.73
2,895.31
10.65
50.52
1,167.04
242.00
4,985.52
768.95
7,564.75
3,662.73
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 12, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO
TO WHOM ISSUED
PURPOSE
AMOUNT
CHECKS ISSUED SINCE MARCH 17. 1993 <Continued)
11234 (L) Harry Niemela April rent 1,664.00
11235 (L) Ed Phillips and Sons Liquor and wine purchases 2,814.88
11236 (L) Quality Wine/Spirits Liquor,wine,misc purch 4,217.39
11237 (L) Ryan Properties April rent 2,400.00
11238 (L) Thorpe Distributing Beer and mise purchases 2,873.35
11239 (L) Wine Merchants Wine purchases 54.00
11240 Void
11241 (G) Per a Payroll deductions 42.00
11242 (G) Medcenters Health Plan April health insurance 1,021.40
11243 (G) Medica Choice April health insurance 4,383.16
11244 (G) Group Health, Inc. April health insurance 1,192.44
11245 (G) League of Mn cities April dental insurance 403.00.
11246 (G) Mn Mutual Life April disability ins 85.50
11247 (G) Commercial Life Ins. April life insurance 50.15
11248 (G) AFSCME Council #24, April delta dental 224.00
TOTAL GENERAL
31,443.80
TOTAL LIQUOR
53,723.71
TOTAL CHECKS ISSUED
.
85,167.51
..,.2-
AMOUNT
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 12, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO TO WHOM ISSUED
CHECKS FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL
11250
11251
11252
11253
11254
11255
11256
11257
11258
11259
11260
11261
11262
11263
11264
11265
.1266
1267
11268
11269
11270
11271
11272
11273
11274
11275
11276
.1277
.1278
11279
11280
11281
11282
11283
11284
11285
11286
11287
11288
11289
11290
Void
Airsignal, Inc.
Artworks
Assured Office Systems
Biffs, Inc.
Bituminous Roadways
Boustad Electric
Boyer Ford Trucks
Boyer Ford Trucks
Chanhassen Lawn/Sports
City of Chanhassen
Crosstown OCS
Driskill's Super Value
EOS Architecture
Eden Prairie Ford
City of Excelsior
Hance Hardware
Hennepin County
Hopkins Parts
Jim Hatch Sales
John Meldal Crad-Mel
JR's Optic Inspections
Knutson
Larkin, Hoffman,
Daly & Lindgren, LTD
Mann Made Products
H.C. Mayer and Sons
Midwest Mailing
Mn Sun Publications
City of Minnetonka
City of Mound
North Star Turf
Orr, Schelen, Mayeron
and Associates, Inc.
Peterson Enviro Consult.
Pitney Bowes
Saf-T-Ladders
So Lk Mtka Pub Safety
Time Saver
City of Tonka Bay
US Postmaster
witt
WMI Svcs of Mn
PURPOSE
Beeper services
Office supplies
Janitorial services
Satellite rental
Cold mix
Waterford well maint.
2 speed shifting motor
93 ford f450 truck
Chain saw maint supplies
Jan/Feb animal control
Coffee supplies
Dinner mtg supplies
PW facility svcs
vehicle maint supplies
1st qtr fire/stop light/swr
Maint supplies
Feb prisoner expense
Vehicle maint supplies
Shovels/strobe light
Shop supplies
Swr line inspec/cleaning
March recycling services
Feb legal fees
dev 171.00
general 4116.00
church rd 627.06
mwcc 243.00
park ref 324.00
Truck #29 supplies
Shop supplies
Postage machine maint contract
Publishine
1st qtr water
2nd qtr fire contract
Grass seed-parks
Feb engineering fees
dev 2150.49
general 10010.84
pw facil 1282.50
wtrfd 601.38
mwcc 128.25
old mkt 10411.20
Litigation svcs
Postage machine rental
Ladder and tape
Reserve dinner/jan-mar ot
Minutes
Lumber for dock at crescent
1st and 3rd class permits
Financial svcs
Warming hse rental
TOTAL CHECKS FOR APPROVAL
TOTAL CHECK APPROVAL LIST
-3-
9.58
63.70
236.00
50.26
435.42
1,018.01
209.45
14,369.00
211. 65
2,016.00
47.00
12.54
87.76
21.80
26,626.03
61. 22
756.00
67.32
244.65
82.43
310.00
3,893.40
5,481. 06
21.36
23.43
205.00
63.36
755.98
1,146.27
3,791.40
24,584.66
995.31
91. 86
439.23
466.65
532.05
167.83
150.00
125.81
130.00
90.000.48
175.167.99
CHECK APPROVAL LISTING FOR APRIL 12, 1993 COUNCIL MEETING
CK NO
TO WHOM ISSUED
HOURS
AMOUNT
CHECK REGISTER FOR MARCH 23, 1993 PAYROLL
207165 Void
207166 (L) Scott Bartlett 11. 0 reg hours 63.49
207167 (G) Edwin Boltman Election judge 73.88
207168 (G) Charles Davis 80.0 reg hours 589.64
207169 (G) Wendy Davis 80.0 reg hours 720.16
207170 (L) Julie Dunn 5.5 reg.hours 28.70
207171 (G) Jeanne Englund Election judge 71. 5.7
207172 (G) Gail Finney Election judge 66.95
207173 (L) Cory Frederick 43.0 reg hours 191. 57
207174 (L) John Fruth 20.25 reg hours 107.86
207175 (G) Patricia Helgesen 80.0 reg hours 633.07
207176 (G) Joanne Hermann Election judge 88.66
207177 (G) James Hurm 80.0 reg hours 1,540.97.
207178 (L) Brian Jakel 39.5 reg hours 208.36
207179 (G) Dennis Johnson 80.0 reg hours 775.31
207180 (G) Lorraine Johnson Election judge . 72.73
207181 (L) Loren Jones 14.5 reg hours 73.74
207182 (L) Martin Jones 17.75 reg hours 72.62
207183 (L) William Josephson 80.0 reg hours 630.22
207184 (L) Mark Karsten 23.75 reg hours 130.59
207185 (L) Sandra Klomps 2.5 reg hours 13.05
207186 (G) Mary Knopik Election judge 272.63
207187 (G) Irene Kronholm Election judges 180.87
207188 (G) Anne Latter 80.0 reg hours 859.35
207189 (L) Susan Latterner 71. 75 reg hours 251. 94
207190 (G) Joseph Lugowski 80.0 reg hours 754.37
207191 (G) Jill Majestic Election judge 72.73
207192 (L) Russell Marron 28.0 reg hours 154.39
207193 (G) Lawrence Niccum 80.0 reg hours-2ot 827.50.
207194 (G) Susan Niccum 80.0 reg hours-4ot 757.47
207195 (G) Bradley Nielsen 80.0 reg hours 953.52
207196 (G) Joseph Pazandak 80.0 reg hours 1,033.73
207197 (G) Nancy Peterson Election judge 73.88
207198 (G) Daniel Randall 80.0 reg hours 785.94
207199 (L) Brian Roerick 16.0 reg hours 88.92
207200 (G) Alan Rolek 80.0 reg hours 1,225.31
207201 (L) Brian Rosenberger 39.5 reg hours 202.57
207202 (L) Christopher Schmid 80.0 reg hours 404.27
207203 (G) Carmelita smith Election judge 71. 57
207204 (G) Howard Stark 82.0 reg hours-3ot 724.55
207205 (G) Beverly Von Feldt 80.0 reg hours 579.74
207206 (G) Carla Wacker Election judge 68.01
207207 (G) Ralph Wehle 82.0 reg hours 652.51
207208 (L) Dean Young 80.0 reg hours 614.44
207209 (G) Donald Zdrazil 80.0 reg hours 1.189.45
TOTAL GENERAL 15,716.07
TOTAL LIQUOR 3,236.73
TOTAL PAYROLL 18,952.80
-4-
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOO
12)
CITY OF
SHOREWOO
MEMO TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: James c. Hurm, city Administrator ~
DATE: April 7, 1993
RE: 1993 street Plan
Patching - $30,000 (line item 10-6326)
Seal coating - $30,000 (line item 10-6335). will bid with Tonka
Bay and Excelsior (if they seal coat this year) to-reduce costs.
We will do 4 to 5 miles in the Near Mountain and Waterford area.
overlay - Galpin Lake Road and Chaska Road - estimated cost is
$30,000. The remaining $50,000 should be spent to correct dips in
the road and curb in Near Mountain (Sierra Circle) before seal
coating. -
other - The City has been approached about replacing a concrete
apron at an entrance to Ames bury . There are significant cracks and
bumps. It is staffs intention to spend approximately $2,500 to
replace this apron from line item 10=6335.
Rebuilding projects - Planned are Lake Linden, Strawberry Lane and
Pleasant Avenue. Funds are available in the street Capital Reserve
but nothing further will be done until the Council makes decisions
on special assessments for street reconstruction projects.
* Don wants to remind the Council of the wear. and tear on City
streets caused by so many heavy garbage trucks running weekly.
JCH.al
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
IJ)()R f 5ESS/01,-
/A
MEMO TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PAGE
. 2
5-6
7-15
16-20
--~~
16
.
16
'-'~\,
i'16
_ 17
17
18
21
22
MAYOR
Barb Brancel
COUNCI L
Kristi Stover
Rob Daugherty
Daniel Lewis
'Bruce ~enson
CITY OF ')
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 . (612) 474-3236
Mayor and City Council
James C. Hurm, city Administrator
~
March 17, 1993
Policy Considerations for the Work Session of Special
Assessments for Street Reconstruction Projects.
NOTES
Scope and Purpose defines what projects are assessable
under this ordinance:
Explains what special assessments are. There is no one
"right" way to do special assessments. The key is to be
reasonable and to beconsistertt overtime.
Explains the procedures to be followed.
Read this section on "polic~es" carefully.
A. Explains how an annual rate is established. This
annual rate is then used in the formulas to determine the
assessments according to the unit Method (pg. 21) and
Front Footage Method (pg. 22).
Kristi has suggested the following policy be added. It
could be a second paragraph for Section yI; A: When the
City determines that a street should be reconstructed it
would be rebuilt to its current width. Current "width
could be adiusted bY the city Council upon request of the
property owners or by the Council followinq public
hearinq' if traffic counts or safety considerations
suggest wider street is warranted.
B. Defines when a proj~ct becomes "asse~sable".
'J':'
E.'AII government property is assessed.
.- .
. - .
D.. Says assessments should typically be spread over
year i period. ~'. .
.~ \.
\/.- - \, ! .~
F. "De(ines/ properties which are not .to ,be assessed~
\,
. '.
A. Defines when 'ai-td how "unit" method is to be used.
B. Defines when and how "front footage" meth.od is to be
used.
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore . \
\ \'
_Memo to Mayor and City, Council
Policy Special Assessment for Street Reconstruction Projects
March 17, 1993
Page Two
},
\
i
29
Top paragraph - Read carefully how interest payments are
to be handled in cases of deferred assessments.
29
'A. Does the Council want large assessments on . large
tracts of land to be deferred?
29
B.l. If the "and" at the end of paragraph one is changed
to "or" low or moderate income owners could qualify for
deferment'. 5j16j92,HUD qualifying guidelines are as
follows:
Number in Annual Low Annual Moderate
Household Income Guideline Income Guideline
. 1 $ 17,850 $ 27,000
2 $ 20,400 $ 30,900
3 $ 22,950 $ 34,750
4 $ '25,500 $ 38,600
Perhaps low income families should qualify for deferment.
JCH.al
.
,
'(
"
.:.'
,
, \.
ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA
.
MARCH, 1993 DRAFT
.'
ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
10 HISTORY 00.000000.00000.000.000.00000.0.000000.00000000 1
n. SCOPE AND PURPOSE 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
mo DEFINITIONS 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 3
IV. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CONCEPT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
.
A.
B.
Benefit Principle 0" 0 . . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . o. 5
Consistent and Equitable 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . . . . 0 . . . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 5
Vo SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE o. 0 0 . 0 0 . . . 0 . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 . 0 . 7
.
Ao . Initiating the proceedings . . . . . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 7
B. Preparing the feasibility study . 0 0 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
C. Holding a public hearing 0 . . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 . . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Do Ordering the Improvement and ordering Plans and Specifications 10
Eo Advertising for Bids 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Fo Awarding Contracts 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . 0 0 0 . . 0 0 12
Go Preparing Proposed Assessment Roll. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 12
H. Holding Public Hearing on Proposed Assessments o. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 0 13
I. Adopting the Assessments 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 14
Jo Transmitting Assessments to County Auditor 00 . 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15
VI. ASSESSMENT POLICIES 0 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Ao Estabiishing an annual assessment rate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
B. Assessable Street Reconstruction Projects 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
Co Project Costs. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . 0 0 0 17
Do Term of Assessment 00000000000.00000000000000.00..0. 17
E. Government Owned properties ......................... 17
F. Non-developable Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18.
G. Interest Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18
H. Payment Procedures ................................. 18
I. Appeal Procedures .................................. 19
J. Reapportiom;pent upon Land Division. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19
VII. ASSESSMENT METHOD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 21
.
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
. 9.
Unit Method . . . . . '.' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21
Front Footage Method ............................... 22
Standard Lots ................................. 23
Rectangular Variation Lots ....................... 23
Triangular Lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Cul-de-sac Lots ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 24
Curved Lots .................................. 24
Irregular Shaped Lots ........................... 25
Corner Lots .................................. 25
Flag Lots and Back Lots ......................... 26
Double Frontage Lots ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
VIII. DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 28
A. Large Tracts of Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 29
B. Conditions of Hardships .............................. 29
C. Termination of Hardship Deferment ..................... 31
.
.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
ASSESSMENT POLICY
FOR STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
SECTION I - HISTORY
The City Council has become concerned with street reconstruction needs for a number of
reasons: 1) Street mileage and costs associated with ,reconstruction have been increasing;
2) Shorewood's becoming eligible for the Municipal State Aid Program (MSA) in 1990 has
provided funding for certain street reconstruction on an accelerated basis; and, 3) many
of Shorewood's streets were last worked on beyond normal maintenance in the early 1970's
with the installation of city-wide sanitary sewer. The Council has further concerns that the
necessary financial resources may not be available to properly reconstruct city streets as the
need arises.
These concerns culminated in the City Council creating an ad hoc citizen Street
Reconstruction Financing Task Force in 1992. That Task Force concluded that"...replacing
.
streets on a forty year cycle would be a tremendous drain on the City's general fund".
Therefore it recommended "...that an assessment procedure be established for the
reconstruction of streets", and that"...the special assessment rate be established at 33 percent
of the cost of a standard 24 foot street with a rural cross section (no curb and gutter)". This
special assessment policy is based on the recommendations of the Task Force Final Report
dated August 18, 1992, attached to this policy as Appendix A.
1
.
.
SECTION II - SCOPE AND PURPOSE
This policy is intended to provide for a fair, equitable, and consistent means of recovering
and distributing the cost of street reconstruction improvements to already existing streets.
This policy does not apply to new construction nor to maintenance functions which are
defined as patching, seal coating and overlay. Street reconstruction is considered to be any
street improvement over and above these maintenance functions.
2
SECTION III - DEFINITIONS
Adjusted Front Footage: A method for determining the average front footage for odd-
shaped lots which would be equivalent to the footage of a rectangular shaped lot of the
same area and depth.
Building Site: An area of land on which a building exists or an area of land meeting city
code requirements on which a building could be constructed.
Construction Cost:
Amount paid to contractors for constructing the improvements.
Construction Interest: Cost of financing the improvements from the time the project is
initiated until the assessment roll is approved by the City Council, less any interest earned
on invested funds. The interest rate will be at the expected assessment rate.
.
Equivalent Residential Units: Equivalent residential units are the number of assessment
~-
units into which a large or unplatted parcel of land, which abuts a City functionally classified
collector or arterial street, is divided in order to determine an assessment rate. The number
of equivalent residential units is determined by dividing the adjusted front footage of the
parcel by the average street footage of the project.
Front Footage: The shortest dimensions of existing or potential sites abutting the streets. .
Lot: Land occupied or to be occupied by a building and its accessory buildings, together
with such open spaces as are required under the provisions of this zoning regulation having
not less than the minimum area required by this Zoning Ordinance for a building site in the
district in which such lot is situated and having its principal frontage on a street, or a
proposed street approved by the Council.
Lot: Corner: A lot situated at the junction of and abutting on two (2) or more intersecting
streets; or a lot at the point of deflection in alignment of a single street, the interior angle
of which is one hundred thirty five degrees (1350) or less.
3
.
'.
Project Cost (Total Cost of Improvements): All construction costs, plus costs for
administration, engineering, legal, fiscal, easement acquisition assessing, and any project
related work previously done but not assessed.
Residential Unit: A residential unit is a platted single family residential lot which, in
accordance with the City of Shorewood's zoning and subdivision regulation, cannot be
further subdivided.
Side footage: The longest dimension of existing or potential corner building sites abutting
the street.
4
SECTION IV - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS CONCEPT
A. Benefit Principle
Special assessments, as authorized by Minnesota State Law, Chapter 429, may be
levied only upon property receiving a special benefit from the improvement. In
Minnesota, the Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the
following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments: 1) the rate must
be uniform and consistent upon all property receiving special benefit: 2) the
assessment must be confined to property specially benefitted; and 3) the amount
of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit.
The special assessment is a financial tool employed by the City of Shorewood as a
means of allocating the costs of specific improvement projects to the benefitted
properties and spreading those costs over a number of years as specified by the City
Council.
.
Special assessments are billed to the property owner along with real estate taxes.
There is, however, a distinct difference between taxes and special assessments. Real
estate taxes are a function of the real estate value as determined by the municipal
assessor, while special assessments are a direct function of the enhancement of value
or the benefit which a specific improvement gives to the property.
.'
".
B. Consistent & Equitable
Once an improvement project is initiated and it is determined that the improvements
are necessary and desirable, the special assessment procedure is intended to equitably
and consistently allocate and levy the cost of specific improvements to the benefitted
properties. Minnesota Statutes and the courts have extended broad authority to City
Councils for determining assessment methods and policies.
5
.
'.
The City must recover the appropriate portion of the expense of installing public
improvements, if undertaken, while ensuring that each parcel pays its fair share of
the project cost in accordance with these assessment guidelines. It is important that
assessments be implelrumted in a reasonable, consistent and fair manner.
This policy sets forth the general assessment methods and policies to be utilized by
the City Administrator and City Engineer when preparing assessment rolls for
approval by the City Council so as to assure uniform and consistent treatment to the
various properties from year to year. The following policy is general in nature, and
that certain circumstances may justify deviations from stated policy as determined by
the City Council.
6
SECTION V - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
A flow chart on the Shorewood Public Improvement Process for Special Assessment projects
giving a detailed explanation of the process is shown on the next page.
A. Initiatin2 the Proceedin2s
Improvement proceedings may be initiated in anyone (1) of the following three (3)
ways:
1.
By a petition signed by the owners of not less than thirty-five percent (35%)
of the frontage of the real property abutting on the streets named as the
location of the improvement;
:.
2. By a petition signed by 100% of the owners of real property abutting any
street named as the location of the improvement. Upon receipt of a petition
of 100% of the abutting property owners, the City Council must determine
that it has been signed by 100% of the owners of the affected property. After
making this determination, a feasibility report shall be undertaken and the
project may be ordered without a public hearing; or
3.
By the initiative of the City Council.
.
Petitions for improvement shall be referred for Administrative report and estimated
budget. A simple majority vote of the City Council is needed to start the
proceedings. Whether initiating the proceedings or accepting a petition requesting
such proceedings, the City Council may simultaneously order a feasibility report on
the proposed improvement. Feasibility reports shall be paid for by the City in the
case of street reconstruction projects and recouped once the project is completed
under the terms of this policy.
7
City of Shorewood
Public Improvement Process
for Special Assessment Projects
Staff Activities/Tasks
:::W;:::::::::::::::-"::::::::::::X:::::::::::::::-~":::::::::::~::-:::::::::::'":~::-X::::::::::~"X:::::::::::,"*:::::::::::::x:::::::=-:~::m::::::::::x::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::x-.."
:::;::::::::':
I ~:;"=:~:~~::Pp%r.:&
::~:::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::'::::::--::::::::::;:;:::::::::::::::;:::::;:;::::'-:::-":::':::::::::X::::::;:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::x::;:::;:;::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Feasibility report; prepare cost estimate, project
budget, and schedule; determine benefited area
and proposed assessments
::::::;::::::::--::::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::::=:::::::::::::::::::;:::;:::-:::::=::;::::::::::=::::::::::;:::::;:;:::::;:::::;:::::::::::::;:;::::-,::;::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~::::::::-~>":
=::::::::::::::::::::::::m::::::::::::::::;:::::::::::
1:111[[: Mail hearing notices; prepare engineering
:~:~:~:t
[::l~~~ agreement
:~::':~~::::::::::::::::::::::=:::;::::::::::::::::::::*::;::::::::::::::~::::=:~:::::::::::::::>>-::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"~::::::;:::-":::::::::::::--:::;:
::::::::::::::::::'=*:::::::::::::
Prepare plans & specs
:::<:;:
:::;:::':
:~:::OX.;"":::::::::::::X:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::;;::::::::::::::::::::::;:::::.%:::::=::::::x:::::"-:::::=;::=::::::::::::::::::::::;::::::"-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::x::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::
Take bids, compare with estimates
~r:::::~~:f.:::::"~>"}"::x::::::::m:::::::~~~::::~-:::"$:w..~......-=it:m::::::::::~~~""",:::::::::::::::::::W:.~:%:::*:::'f.
III Prepare & execute contract; initiate & adminis-
;l*j ter construction; prepare fInal assessment roll
f:f:;:~:
rm~:::::::::::::"-:~:::::'":--:::::::--::::::X:::::::::-.x:::::::::::~~~~:::::::::::::::::::~::--:::::-.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::%':::::::::--:--:::-.mx::::::x:::::::--:~::::"-<<~
:.:-:.;.
~~I
:~:~::
:.:.:-:.
.;-:-:.;
Prepare & mail hearing notices
~~~x:~:.:::::::::::::::~::::;.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.t-.::::::::::::::::::::::::::::W;":~-::-::::::::::X:~:::::::::1=1=X::~:::~:~X::::::~:::~~,}"';*:~~>>"';:.t..;.-:X::::::X~:::::-:X::'
:-:-::~
:::::~:
~:m~ Certify assessment to County Auditor
.;.:.:.;
:.:.:.:.
~<<~
8
~ity Council Decisions
~::r:e;;;;:::;;...l
or
resolution declaring adequacy of petition,
and
resolution ordering preparation of feasibility report
..
:::::::::~::::::~1=~::~1=::::-;'~:::*:1=:":XX::~-::-:'-::::~-::-::-::-::~:::-..;.x-:..;.x::-;,::X":..;.:"..;.:m~~::~:~"1=-;x.:m::"JX::-;'x~:~~~::::::"<<:x:*::wx::'PXX:;';>'~:;-
Accept report and call for hearing
:.:-:.:.:-:-:-:.:-:.:.:.;.:.:-:-:->>:.X<<.;.:-:-:.:.:-:<<-:-:-:-:.:.:.:-:->>:o:.:-:.:.:.:-:-:.}:.>>:-:.:.:.:-:-:-:<<-:-:.:-:-x-:-:<<-:.:-:-:-:.;.:.:.x.:-:.:-:<<<<.:.:-:-:<<-:-:-:-:-:->>:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
:.:-;.:-:-:-~:.:::
Hold public hearing on the proposed project; order
the improvement and preparation of plans; ap-
prove engineering agreement
,.
(
::-:~-:::::.:-:-:.X::-:.,.>>:.:-:::.:.:-:.:.:-:-:-:-:->>:-:.:-:::<<-:-:<<::::::::.X:::>>>>:.:->>:-::>>:-:~>>:::<<<<<<:=::-::>>:<<<<::-:<<<<-:::...;.:.........:::~~~~:::
Approve plans and order advertisement for bids
::.::.:~::::::::.:.:::.:::-:.:::::.:-:-:.:::~.:.:::~~~::::::-:.>>::>>X:~~.:::::-:::.,.:.::::*:~.:::::::::x~-:-:-:-:::::::-:{-:<-:~~.:::::.:~::-:-:::<<::-:::::x<<::::::-:.:-;.w.,...-:::::-:~<<:>>:-:::
-:-::::::
Accept bid and authorize contract
::::-:.:->>:x::<<-::::::::::::::::::~ ...... .... ....:~....:....::::~:::J.~.e=e::..:J...,...OO..:..:.:o:.o:.::.:.l:.m:=.H :::~'~.:'f
Accept work & call for final hearing on pro-
posed assessments
..
::~':::~:::X-:-:::::~:'-::'::",,:':::-:::-:::::-:::X:W-:::"":-:-::-:~($>>:-:-::::'-::::::':-:::-::::-..;.:':Y.-::::,,-:...:;.:...r;.;'~W"',(,::::::::X:::::-"'''y.;>>m::o:~.. ..... ..~~(.<::~~;;
Hold fInal assessment public hearing
and
adopt assessment roll
.
B. Preparin2 the Feasibility Study
An improvement project which is initiated by action of the City Councilor by a 35%
petition may be''ordered only after a public hearing. Prior to adopting a resolution
calling a public h~aring on an improvement, the Council must secure from the City
'.
Engineer a report advising it in a preliminary way as to:
1. Whether the proposed improvement is feasible;
2. Whether the proposed improvement is consistent with Capital Improvement
Planning;
3.
Whether the improvement should be made as proposed or in connection with
some other improvement;
.
4. The estimated cost of the improvement;
5. A proposed project schedule; and
6. Any other information thought pertinent and necessary for complete Council
consideration.
.
C. Holdin2 a Public Hearin2 on the Improvement
Improvement projects which are initiated by a 100% petition may be ordered by the
City Council without a public hearing if the City Council determines the project may
be undertaken without unreasonable changes to the Capital Improvement Finance
Plan or the petitioning property owners agree to pay 100% of the cost of the
improvements.
9
.;
In the case of a Council - initiated project or petition of less than 100% of abutting
property owners, the Council must adopt a resolution calling a public hearing on the
improvement project for which mailed and published notices of the hearing must be
gIVen. The notice of public hearing must include the following information:
1) The time and place of hearing;
2) The general nature of the improvements;
3) The estimated cost; and
4) The area prop~sed to be assessed.
.
Not less than ten (10) days before the hearing, the notice of hearing must be mailed
to the owner of each parcel in the area proposed to be assessed. The notice of
public hearing must be published in the City's legal newspaper at least twice, each
publication being at least one week apart, with the last publication at least three (3)
days prior to the hearing.
At the public hearing, the contents of the feasibility study will be presented and
discussed with the intent of giving all interested parties an opportunity to be heard
and their views expressed.
D. Ordering the Improvement and Ordering Preparation of Plans & Specifications
.
. Following a public hearing a resolution ordering the improvement may be adopted
at any time within six (6) months after the date of the hearing by a four-fifths (4/5)
vote of the City Council, unless the petition was initiated by a 35% petition in which
event it may be adopted by a majority vote. The resolution may reduce, but not
increase, the extent of the improvement as stated in the notice. At this time a
special assessment is considered to be "pending" for all assessable properties in the
improvement area.
10
After the order of an improvement project, the City Council must order the
preparation of plans and specifications which may be included as part of the
resolution ordering the improvements. When the Council determines to make any
improvement, it shall let the contract for all or part of the work, or order all or part
of the work done by day labor, no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the
resolution ordering such improvement unless a different time limit is specifically
stated in the resolution ordering the improvement.
E. Advertisin2 for Bids
If the estimated cost of the improvement exceeds $25,000, bids must be advertised
for in the legal newspaper and such other papers and for such length of time as the
City Council deems desirable. If the estimated cost of the improvement exceeds.
$100,000, the advertisement must be in a paper published in a first class city, or in
a trade paper, not less than three (3) weeks before the last date for submission of
bids. The notice must contain the following information:
1. The work to be done;
2.
The time when bids will be publicly opened, which must be not less. than ten
(10) days after the first publication of the advertisement when the cost is less
than $100,000, and not less that three (3) weeks after publications in all other
cases, and
.
3.. A statement that no bids will be considenid unless they are sealed and
accompanied by cash, a cashier's check, bid bond or certified check for such
percentage of the bid as specified by the City Council.
"
11
.
.
F. Awardin2 Contracts
Following receipt of the bids, the City Council must either:
1. Award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder; or
2. Reje~t all bids.
~.
The contact must be awarded no later than one (1) year after the adoption of the
resolution ordering the improvement unless that resolution specifies a different time
limit.
The City Council may purchase the materials and order the work done by day labor
or in any manner it deems proper if:
1. The initial cost of the entire work does not exceed $25,000;
2. No bid is submitted after advertisement; or
3.
The only bids are higher than the engineer's estimate.
G. Preparin2 Proposed Assessment Roll
After the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the completion on an improvement
have been calculated as defined in Section VI-C Project Costs, the City Council must
determine the amount it will pay and the amount to be specially assessed. The City
Engineer and Administrator/Clerk must calculate the amount to be specially assessed
against every parcel of land benefitted by the improvement. The area to be assessed
may be less than, but not more than, the area proposed to be assessed as stated in
the notice of public hearing on the improvement. The assessment roll should contain
a description of each parcel of property and the assessment amount including any
12
deferred assessments. The assessment roll must be filed with the City Administrator/Clerk
and be available for public inspection.
H. Holdinl: Public Hearinl: on Proposed Assessments
A public hearin~ on the special assessments must be held following published and
mailed notice thereof. The notice of the assessment public hearing must include the
following information:
1. The date, time and pl~ce of the meeting;
2.
The general nature of the improvement;
3. The area proposed to be assessed;
4. The total amount of the proposed assessment;
5. That the assessment roll is on file with the Clerk;
6. That written or oral objections will be considered;
7.
That no appeal may be taken as to the amount of assessments unless a written
objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Clerk
prior to the hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the hearing; and
8. That the owner may appeal the assessment to the district court by serving
notice on the Mayor or City Clerk within three (3) working days after the
adoption of the assessment and filing notice with the court within ten (10)
days after such appeal to the Mayor or the City Clerk.
The notice of the assessment hearing must be published in the legal newspaper at
least once, not less than two (2) weeks prior to the hearing.
.
.
13
.-, ,.-,,",'~'.' ..,:-..~,:~-.-.:..~-.~
. , ..-.
.
.
The City Clerk must mail notice of the assessment hearing to the owner of each
parcel described in the assessment roll at least two (2) weeks prior to the hearing.
The mailed notice must also include, in addition to the information required to be
in the published notice, the following information:
1. The amount to be specially assessed against that particular lot, piece or parcel
of land;
2. The right of the property owner to prepay the entire assessment and the
person to whom prepayments must be made;
3.
Whetber partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by
ordinance;
4. . The time within which prepayment may be made without the assessment of
interest; and
5. The rate of interest to accrue if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period.
I.
Adoptin~ the Assessments
At the assessment hearing or at any adjournment thereof, the City Council may adopt
the assessments as proposed or adopt the assessments with amendments. If the
adopted assessment differs from the proposed assessment, the clerk must mail the
owner a notice stating the amount of the adopted assessment. The adopted
.. assessment roll shall include any and all deferments ~n large or unplatted parcels of
land along the City's street system.
14
J. Transmitting Assessment to County Auditor
After the' adoption of the assessment, the City Clerk must transmit a certified.
duplicate copy of the assessment roll, including all deferred equivalent residential
units, to the County Auditor.
15
.
.
SECTION VI - SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES
It is the policy of the City of Shorewood that all properties shall pay their fair share of the
cost of local improvements as they benefit. It is not intended that any property shall receive
. .
the benefit~ of improvements without paying for them. These policies relate to street
reconstruction projects.
A.
Establishing an Annual Rate
.
An annual assessment rate shall be established by the end of February by City
Council Resolution upon recommendation of the City Engineer. The City Engineer
shall undertake a study to determine the per foot project cost of a "typical" 24 foot,
rural cross section street (with no curb and gutter), in the metropolitan area,
adjusted for typical Shorewood soil conditions (see appendix B). When determining
an annual rate with construction costs of the previous construction season the
construction cost index as published by the "Engineering News Record" or consumer
price index II?-ay be used. The annual Assessment Rate Resolution is appendix C of
this document.
.
B.
Assessable Street Reconstruction Projects
Street reconstruction projects are not likely to require the same amount of work
throughout the entire length of the project. That is, some sections may need to be
fully excavated and back-filled while other sections may need simple reshaping. It
is the policy of the city that a project is assessable when it's aggregate cost is
estimated to be at least 150% of a simple 2 inch overlay project.
16
C. Project Costs
Project cost shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
A. Total Construction cost including intersections
B. Engineering fees
C. Administrative fees .
D. Right-of-way / easement acquisition/condemnation costs
E.
Legal fee~
.
F. Fiscal Fees
G. Capitalized interest
D. Term of Assessment
Assessments for street reconstruction should be assessed for a ten (10) year period .
unless the City Council determines that some other period of time is more
appropriate.
E. Government Owned Properties
'Properties belonging to government jurisdictions, including the City, will be assessed
the same as privately owned property.
17
.
.
F. Non-developable Land
Special Assessments shall not be levied on properties deemed unbuildable due to
the ~xistence of: undeveloped lands lying wholly and completely within zoned
wetlands, flood plains, DNR protected wetlands and/or having restricted soils as
determined by the City Building Inspector. However, all parcels of land are assumed
to be buildabl~ until proven otherwise by the owner.
G.
Interest Rate
The interest rate charged on assessments for all projects financed by debt issuance
shall not exceed two percent (2%) of the net interest rate of the bond issue. This
is necessary in order to insure adequate cash flow when the City is unable to reinvest
assessI?ent p'repa~ents at an interest rate sufficient to meet the interest cost of debt
or when the City experiences problems of payment collection delinquencies. In the
event no bonds are issued then the rate of interest on assessments shall not exceed
two (2) percent greater than the average rate of interest on all bonds issued in the
previous calendar year or the current market municipal bond rate. Interest on initial
special assessment installments shall begin to accrue from the date of the resolution
adopting the assessment. Owners must be notified by mail of any changes adopted
by the City Council regarding interest rates or prepayment requirements which differ
from those contained in the notice of the proposed assessment.
H.
Payment Procedures
The property owner has four available options when considering payment of
assessments:
1. Tax l?ayment - If no action is undertaken by the property owner, then special
assessment installments will appear annually on the individual's property tax
statement for the duration of the assessment term.
18
. .
2. Full Payment - No interest will be charged if the entire assessment is paid
within 30 days of the date of adoption of the assessment roll. In the initial
year, the property owner may at any time between that date and
November 15, prepay the balance of the assessment with interest accrued to
'December 31 of that year.
3. Parti?J. Payment - The property owner has a one-time opportunity to make a
partial payment reduction of any amount against his\her assessment. This
option may only be exercised within the 30-day period immediately following
adoption of the assessment roll.
4.
Prepayment - The property owner may, with the exception of the current
year's installment of principal and interest, pay the remaining assessment
balance at any time, prior to November 15 without further interest charges.
Thereafter, the next installment, with interest through December 31 of the
following year, will be levied for collection with the real estate taxes payable
the ensuing year. The principal balance will be reduced by the amount of the
installment.
.
I. Appeal Procedures
.
No appeal may be taken as to the amount of any assessment adopted unless a written
objection signed by the affected property owner is filed with the City Administrator's
office prior to the assessment hearing or presented to the presiding officer at the
hearing. The property owner may appeal an assessment to District Court by serving
notice of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator within 30 days after the
adoption of the assessment and filing such notice with the District Court within 10
days after service of the appeal upon the Mayor or City Administrator.
19
.
.
J.
Reapportionment Upon Land Division
When a tract of land against which a special assessment has been levied is
subsequently divided or subdivided by plat or otherwise, the City Council may, on
application of the owner of any part of the tract or on its own motion, equitably
apportion among the various lots or parcels in the tract all the installments of the
assessment against the tract remaining unpaid and not then due if it determines that
.
such apportionment will not materially impair collection of the unpaid balance of
the original,assessment against the tract. The City Council may require furnishing
.
of a satisfactory surety bond in certain cases as specified in Minnesota Statutes
Section 429.071, Subd. 3. Notice of the apportionment and of the right to appeal
shall be mailed to or personally served upon all owners of any part of the tract. In
most cases, dividing the assessment balance evenly on a unit or lot basis would result
in an equitable apportionment. If equitable in a particular case, such a procedure
would be most practical and administratively effective.
.
20
SECTION VII - ASSESSMENT METHOD
Once an assessment rate has been established for the year, that rate will be utilized for each
project, no matter the width, design, or type of street being reconstructed.
The City Council may utilize one of two methods of assessment for each project, "unit" or
"front foot". The City Engineer shall recommend the method and prepare the proposed
assessment roll based upon which method results in the most fair and equitable assessment
roll for that project. The unit method is to be utilized when the front footage of the
assessable properties are of relatively equal length or the benefit to the properties is similar.
The front footage method is to be utilized when there is a significant differential in the front
footage, or benefit, of the assessable properties.
.
A. Unit Method
The unit method of assessment is most commonly used when the benefitting
properties are of similar benefit, but not necessarily similar geometry. For instance,
road reconstruction along a particular road will likely benefit the several properties
on a private drive as much as it benefits those properties directly abutting the road
being improved. In such a case, simply assessing the abutting front footage would
not be equitable.
.
A unit assessment shall be derived according to the following formula:
Annual assessment rate X project length X 0.33 / number of assessable units.
The number of assessment units assigned to each parcel of land within the
assessment area shall be equal to the maximum number of potential lots which could
be possible on that parcel as determined by the City Planner. A lot shall be defined
in accordance with the City's Zoning Ordinance.
21
B.
.
.
Comer lots shall typically have one-half (0.5) of its assessable units applied to each
street. However, the entire number of assessable units can be assessed in
conjunction with the street improvement project done first. This approach would
normally be taken where a single lot derives a majority of benefit from the
reconstructi~n of the first project due to lot, driveway, and home location.
Front Footal:e Method
The actual physical dimensions of a parcel abutting a street reconstruction project
shall NOT be construed as the frontage utilized to calculate the assessment for a
particular parcel. Rather, an "adjusted front footage" will be determined. The front
footage assessment rate shall be derived according to the following formula:
Annual assessment rate X project length X.33 / total adjusted front footage.
The purpose of this method is to equalize assessment calculations for lots of similar
size. Individual parcels by their very nature differ considerably in shape and area.
The following procedures will apply when calculating adjusted front footage. The
selection of the appropriate procedure will be determined by the specific
configuratfon of the parcel. All measurements will be scaled from available plat and
section maps and will be rounded down to the nearest foot dimension with any excess
fraction deleted. Categorical type descriptions are as follows:
1. Standard Lots 6. Irregularly Shaped Lots
2. Rectangular Variation Lots 7. Comer Lots
3. Triangular Lots 8. Flag Lots and Back Lots
4. Cul-de-sac Lots . 9. Double Frontage Lots
5. Curved Lots
The ultimate objective of these procedures is to arrive at a fair and equitable
distribution of cost whereby consideration is given to lot size and all parcels are
comparably assessed.
22
1. Standard Lots. In this instance, the adjusted front footage
for rectangular lots wi11 be the actual front footage of the
lot. The frontage measured shall be the lot width at. the
~ront lot line. .
MAIN: .AVENLE
~o 90
A 's
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 50'
Lot B.- 90'
2. Rectanqular Variation Lots. For a lot which is
approximately rectangular and uniform in shape, the adjusted
. front footage is computed by averaging the front - and back
sides of the lot. This method is used only where the
divergence between front and rear lot lines is 20 feet or
less.
MAN AVEt\t.E Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
90' 70' Lot A - 90 + 110 - 100'
2
Lot B - 70 + 80 = 75'
A 8 2
110' 80'
3. Trianaular L~ts. For a triangular shaped lot, the adjuste~
front footage is computed by averaging the front and back
lot lines.. The measurement at the back lot line shall not
exc~ed a maximum distance in depth of 150 feet.
MAIN
AVENUE
120'
. .100'
I~O'
_L~
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 100 + 40 :=: 70'
2
Lot B - 40 + 130 = 85'
2
Lot C - 120 + 0 "'" 60 ,.
2
.
.
23
I
t
4. Cul-de-sac Lots. The adjusted front footage for those lots that
exist on cul-de-sacs will be calculated at the building line as
defined by the Shorewood Zoning Ordinance.
.
A
8
110'
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A -75'
Lot B - 1.1.0'
Lot C - 80'
5. Curved Lots. In certain situations such as those where lots are
located along curved streets, road patterns create curvilineal
frontages. In such instances the adjusted front footage will be the
width of the lot measured at the midpoint of the shortest si~e lot
line.
.
...-.........
7~' -,
8 - C
ISO'
A: 90',
-_.-
70'
24
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 70'
Lot B 90'
Lot.C - 1.50'
6. Irreqularlv Shaped Lots. In many cases, unplatted parcels that are
legally described by a metes and bounds description are irregular and
oddly shaped. The adjusted front footage will be calculated by
measuring the lot width at the building setback line based upon the
zoning district in which the lot is located.
MAIN AVENUE
'." 1<40' 125'
/. SBLj
-
-1
8
A C
7. Corner Lots.
Adj. Front_Footage
EXAMPLES I
Lot A - 115'
Lot B 140'
Lot C - 125'
SBL = Setback Line
.
a. Residentially Zoned Corner Lots. The adjusted front
footage will be assessed on the short side. A 150 foot
side lot allowance credit will apply along the adjacent
side street. Any remaining frontage will constitute an
additional assessment. The short side will be assessed
in those cases where the improvement" may exist on one
side only as well as for improvements abutting on both
sides. "
Adj. Front Footage
EXAMPLES
Lot A - 95'
Lot B - 225'
A
I
.
I
I
.
.
.- I
~ 8 I
I
I
ISO' I 100'
AVENLE
-.,
Q)
1251
fv1AN
.
25
7. Commercial Zoned Corner Lots.
b. No allowance relief will be granted because of the
higher inherent property value associated with improved
traffic frontage and greater visibility along business
district intersections. The adjusted front footage
shall be the entire frontage measured along the setback
line comprising the building envelope.
.
Adj. Front Footage
EX.~'\f'?!.ZS , _
J
J
I
J
J .
I~
- I
or
A !:l
I
130J I
------ - __.__.l
~
C\l
o
o
'"
!.<It A
!.<l t .a
280'
390 ,.
.0
~
I
r
I
~1
I
J
f.., 8
,- 27~1
L----------------~-l
)3 .
300.
I~~
MAN
AVEN..E:
1 ' 1
8.
Flaq lots and back lots. Properties which utilize a narrow private
easement or maintain ownership of access to their property exceeding
a minimum length of 125 feet, thereby 'having a small frontage on a
street, will be assigned an adjusted front footage based on the
minimum lot width for the zoning district in which it is located.
This dimension is consistent'. with the zoning ordinance which
prescribes such length as the minimum lot width along a public
roadway. The adjusted front footage, for flag lots whose driveway
access is under 125 will be measured at the building setback line from
the access terminus.
.
tuE.
Adj. Front Footage
E:G.MP!:.ES
A
I
~ 8
!.<It A
Lot B
SO I.
90'
~
170'
26
9. Double Fronta~e Lots. If a parcel, other than a corner lot,
comprises fronta.ge on two streets and is eligible for
subdivision, then a.n adjusted fr9nt footage assessment will
be .charged along each street. For double frontage . lots
lacking the necessary depth tor subdivision, on~y a single
adjusted front footage will be computed.
Adj. Front Footage
~XAMPLES
MAlN AVE.
110'
MAIN AVE.
eo'
Lot A 220 ·
Lot B - 80'
-., A
r-
C\I
-~ B
110'
.
.
27
SECTION VIII - DEFERRED ASSESSMENTS
The City Council may defer Special Assessments:
1. On portions of large tracts of land as allowed in this chapter so as to
minimize the influence of the proposed improvement on the development of
said land.
2. On homestead property owned by a person who qualifies under the hardship
criteria set forth below.
. Procedure
The property owner shall make application for deferred payment of special assessments on
a form prescribed by the Hennepin County Auditor and supplemented by the Shorewood
City Administrator. The application shall be made within 30 days after the adoption of the
assessment roll by the City Council and shall be renewed each year upon the filing of a
similar application no later than September 30.
.
The City Administrator shall establish a case number for each application; review the
application for complete information and details and make a recommendation to the City
Council to either approve or disapprove the application for deferment. The City Council
by majority vote, shall either grant or deny the deferment and if the deferment is granted,
the City Council may require the payment of interest due each year. Renewal applications
will be approved by the City Administrator for those cases whereby the original conditions
for qualifications remain substantially unchanged.
If the City Council grants the deferment, the City Administrator shall notify the County
Auditor who shall in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 435.194, record a notice
of the deferment with the County Recorder setting forth the amount of assessment.
28
Interest shall be charged on any assessment deferred pursuant to this Section at a rate equal
to the rate charged on other assessments for the particular public improvement projects the
assessment is financing. If the City Council grants an as~essment deferral to an applicant,
the interest may also be deferred, or the interest may be due and payable on a yearly basis
up until the assessment period terminates and only the principal is deferred. The decision
as to whether the principal and interest or just the principal is deferred is decided by the
City Council when considering the application.
A. Large Tracts of Land
Upon application, the City Council may defer the assessments on large tracts of land
.
that may be subdivided or developed in the future. It is the intent of this policy to
grant deferments of special assessments to large tracts so as to minimize the
influence of the proposed improvement on the premature development of said land.
The deferment granted pursuant to this section may be of indefinite duration subject
to the occurrence of:
.
. The subdivision of the property resulting in the creation of a new, buildable lot
. If the City Council determines there is no continuing need for the deferment
..
.
B. Conditions of Hardship
1.. Any applicant must be 65 years of age, or older, or retired by reason of .
permanent and/or total disability and must own a legal or equitable interest
in the property applied for which must be the homestead of the applicant,
and,
2. The annual gross income of the applicant shall not be in excess of the income
limits asset forth by family size in Hennepin County's Section Eight guidelines.
Calculation of the total family income shall be determined by the summation
29
.
.
of all available income sources of the applicant and spouse. Income specified
in the application should be the income of the year proceeding the year in
which the application is made, or the average income of the three years prior
to the year in which the application is made, whichever is less, and,
3. The special assessments to be deferred exceed $1,000.00.
4. Permanent and/or total disability shall be determined by using the criteria
established for "permanent and total disability" for Workman's Compensation,
to wit:
a.
The total and permanent loss of the sight of both eyes.
b. The loss of both arms at the shoulder.
c. The loss of both legs so close to the hips that no effective artificial
members can be used.
d. Complete and permanent paralysis.
e.
Total and permanent loss of mental faculties.
f. Any other injury which totally incapacitates the owner from working at
an occupation which brings him \her an income.
An applicant must substantiate the retirement by reason of permanent and/or total
. disability by providing a sworn affidavit by a licensed medical doctor attesting that
the applicant is unable to be gainfully employed because of a permanent and/or total
disability.
30
C. Termination of Hardship Deferment
The Qption to defer the payment of special assessments shall terminate and all
:.
amounts accumulated plus applicable interest shall become due upon the occurrence
of anyone of the following events:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The death of an owner when there is no spouse eligible for deferment.
The sale, transfer, or subdivision of all or any part of the property.
Loss of homestead status on the property.
Determination by the City Council for any reason that there would be no
hardship to require immediate or partial payment.
Failure to file a renewal application within the time prescribed in A. above.
The end of the term of the original special assessment.
.
5.
6.
Upon the occurrence of one of the events specified in this section, the City Council
shall terminate the deferment. Thereupon the City Administrator shall notify the
County Auditor and County Assessor of the termination, including the amounts
accumulated on unpaid principal installments, plus any applicable interest, which
shall become due and payable as a result of the termination. The City Administrator
may negotiate and establish a payment schedule on the principal and interest owed
after the deferment terminates.
.
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the City Council from considering an
application of hardship on the basis of exceptional and unusual circumstances which
are' not covered by the standards and guidelines as set forth in this ordinance. This
consideration and determination must be made in a non-discriminatory manner so
as not to give the applicant an unreasonable preference or advantage over other
applicants.
31
.
APPENDIX A
MAYOR
3aro aranc~1
COUNC: L
Kr''U1 SC09"lI!r
300 G..qn~
Roo Dauqn~rTV
DanIel L~.......
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331 . (6121 474.3236
ML"10 TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
street Reconstruction Financing Task Force Members:
"Robert. McDougal, James Finstuen, and Robert Shaw
Kristi stover, Council Liaison
Robert Bean, Planning Commission Liaison
James C. Hurm, City Administrator
Joel Dresel, city Engineer
Al Rolek, Finance Director
.
DATE:
August l8, 1992
R1;'o
~.
Final Report
.This report is the result of the charge assigned the street
Reconstruction Financing Task Force in the IIPurposell and 1I0bjectives'"
portion of Resolution No. 54-92 dated June 8, 1992. The Task Force met
on June 24th and 30th; July 1lth and 28th; and August 11th. The Task
Forces conclusions are as follows:
Ob;ective 1. - Define a reconstructed street.
The Task Force defines maintenance as patching, seal-coating, and
ierlayo Reconstruction is defined as any street improvement over and
ove these maintenance functions.
When the City determines that a street should be reconstructed it TN'ould
be rebuilt to its current width.' Current width could be adjusted by
the City Council upon request of the property owners or.by the Council
following public hearing if traffic counts or safety considerations
suggest wider street is warranted.
The Task Force broke the streets down into four categories:
1) MSAjCollector 28'+ Curb & Gutter
2) Standard Local 24'+ Curb & Gutter where necessary
3) Substandard
Local 20-24' Cu,rb & Gutter where necessary
4) Other Less than 20' Curb & Gutter where necessary
A Residential Community on Lake Minnetonka's South Shore
Obiective 2 - Review street reconstruction needs and review funding
options.
The Task Force dete~ined ~~at the only tHO feasible funding sources
are from ~~e City I S general fund and froI:l special asseSS4:l.em:s to
abutting property owners.
Projections show that replacing streets on a forty year cycle would be
a tremendous drain on the City's general fund.
Obiective 3 Develop a program to match projected revenues with
projected needs.
It is very difficult to project when a street is going to bre~~ up.
Perhaps a pavement management system could be utilized to attempt to
make better proj ections of street needs. The Task Force however
believes that it is likely that the needs in the foreseeable future
will be greater than our current revenues will handle.
Obiective 4 - Propose a fair and equitable method and procedure of
financing reconstruction of streets.
'.
The Task Force recommends ~~at an assessment nrocedure be established
for the reconstruction of streets. We found in our analysis tb,at
utilizing only general funds results in high valued properties paying
a disproportionately high portion of street improvement costs
throughout the city. Some form of special assessments to pay for
street improvements is very standard in municipalities throughout the
State of Minnesota. A special assessment procedure would require a
public hearing. This gives the property owner a formal way to offer
innut into the reconstruction of the street. In addition there is a
fairness argument to consider. Should a resident who just paid for a
new street be required, through the general property taxes, to pay for
street improvements throughout ~~e City for the next forty y,ears?
Perhaps those residents who abut a street w'hich is being approved
should be required to pay a percentage of that improvement.
.
The Task Force recommends that the special assessment rate be
established at 33 percent of the costs of a standard 24 foot street
width a rural cross-section (no curb and gutter). Each resident, no
matter which of the four categories they would fall, would be required
to pay this same rate established annually by the City council after
study and recommendation by the city Engineer. That means that in any
one year any street of ~~e city which is being reconstructed whether it
be a 28 foot MSA road wi~~ curb and gutter, or a 20 foot local road
with no curb and gutter would pay the same rate. Again it is worth
noting ~~at any changes to the current wid~~ or .street standard would
have to be made by the city council only after public hearing.
2
The last question considered by the ~ask Force was "Method of
Assessment". In ~stablishing a policy for this it is recommended that
the guiding principle should be:
special assessments may be levied only upon property receiving a
special benefit from the improvement. In Minnesota the
Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placi~g the
following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments:
~) the rate must be uniform and equal upon all "property receiving
special benefit: 2) the assessment must be confined to property""
specially benefited; and 3) the amount of the assessment must not
exceed the special benefit.
A survey of methods used by municipalities similar in nature to
eShorewood indicated that some have chosen to determine the IIMethod of
Assessment" on a project basis in view of the fact that the IIFront
Footage" method may be most equitable in some cases and the "unit"
method in others. Following in depth discussion the Task Force
recommends that the City of Shorewood and its citizens and property
owners would be best served by choosing this course. In doing so, it
would be necessary to develop policies for applying both methods.
It is the opinion of the Task Force that its assignment as defined in
Resolution No. 54-92, has been satisfied in his report.
e
al/taskforcc..st
3
Ie
21.
Drawn By:
P.S.H.
QSMaorr
Schelen
Mayeron Sc
Associates. Inc.
Enclneers _ Arcbltec:u _ Planoers _ Sur'leyora.
300 Park Place Center _ :177:1 Wayula Boulnard
IIlnneapoll.. IIN ~4Ul-l228 _ eIZ-:lg:;,-:lm
Date:
2-4-93
APPENDIX B-1
50' R/W
J
24'
4" TOPSOIL
2%
1!j2" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE
W I ROLLED BIT. CURB
3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE
6" CLASS 5/GRAVEL (1001. CRUSHED)
BASE COURSE
1'SUBCUT WI SELECT GRANULAR BACKFfLL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NO SCALE
Drawing Title
Comm. No.
TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ASSESSMENT PURPOSES
PER ORDINANCE
Sheet no.
L
2/.
Drawn By:
P.S.H.
QSM.orr
Schelen
Wayeron ~
Associates. Inc.
Enelneers _ Architects _ Planners _ Surveyors
300 Park PI."e CeDler _ ~775 W.yule Bouln.rd
IIIDDeapoll.. 11M 55416-1228 _ 612-595-577~
Date:
2-4-93
APPENDIX B- 2
50' R/W
J
24'
21.
4" TOPSOIL
SUB-DRAIN
1'12" BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE
3" BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE
6" CLASS 5/GRAVEL (1001. CRUSHED)
BASE COURSE
11 SUBCUT W / SELECT GRANULAR BACKFILL
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NO SCALE
Drawing Title
Comm. No.
TYPICAL SECTION FOR
ASSESSMENT PURPOSES Sheet no.
ALTERNATE WI SUB-DRAIN