The URL can be used to link to this page

041408 CC Reg AgPCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MONDAY, 14 APRIL 2008 AGENDA 1. 2. 3. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING A. Roll Call B. Review Agenda APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Lizee Woodruff Turgeon Bailey Wellens A. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2008 (Att. - Minutes) B. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 24, 2008 (Att. - Minutes) C. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 24, 2008 (Att. - Minutes) CONSENT AGENDA -Motion to approve items on Consent Agenda & Adopt Resolutions Therein: NOTE: Give the public an opportunity to request an item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Comments can be taken or questions asked following removal from Consent Agenda. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (Att.- Claims List) B. Authorize Expenditure of Funds to plant a prairie at two locations (Att. -Building Official & City Engineer's memorandum) C. Proclaiming Arbor Day on Apri125, 2008 (Att. -Resolution) D. Concession Operation Services Agreement for 2008 (Att. - Director of Public Works' memorandum, Agreement) E. Park Coordinator Services Agreement (Att.- Director of Public Works' memorandum, Agreement) F. Video Taping Service Agreement for Council Work Sessions (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum, Agreement) G. Waterford PUD Amendment -Beer and Wine License (Att. -Resolution) Applicant: Waterford Center LLP Location: 19905 Highway 7 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. H. Authorize Expenditure of Funds for Purchase of Rain Barrels (Att. -Engineer's memorandum) CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA -14 APRIL, 2008 PAGE 2 OF 2 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR (No Council action will be taken.) 5. REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS A. Update regarding City Administrator position (Att. -Sharon Klumpp, Sprinsted memorandum) B. Richard Glidewell, LMA Development Director, presentation and request for funding for milfoil treatment on Phelps Bay (Att. Acting Administrator's memorandum) 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. PARKS -Report by Representative A. Report on Park Commission Meetings Held Apri12 and April 8, 2008 (Att.- Apri12 Draft Minutes) 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative A. Setback Variance (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Draft Resolution) Applicant: Joel Blatz Location: 5520 Sylvan Lane 9. GENERAL/NEW BUSINESS A. Off-Sale Liquor Store Hours of Operation (Att. -Planning Director's memorandum, Draft Ordinance) B. Discussion on City Survey (Acting Administrator's memorandum) C. Discussion regarding settlement matter, 5795 Country Club Road (Att. -Acting City Administrator's memorandum) D. Discussion. regarding the use of golf carts on City streets (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) E. Discussion regarding E-waste for Spring Clean-up (Att. -Acting Administrator's memorandum) 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff B. Mayor & City Council 12. ADJOURN cn'ti or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Executive Summary Shorewood City Council Regular Meeting Monday, l4 April, 2008 6:00 PM -Joint meeting of City Council and Planning Commission Agenda Item #3A: Enclosed is the Verified Claims List for Council approval. Agenda Item #3B: Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds from the City Park Budget to plant two prairies. The Park Commission unanimously authorized up to $500 for planting prairies at the April 8, 2008 meeting. Staff is requesting approval to use $500 of the $8000 General Supplies 2008 Park Budget to plant the two prairies. Agenda Item #3C: The 136th anniversary of Arbor Day is Friday, Apri125. The National Arbor Day Foundation encourages cities to recognize Arbor Day with a proclamation. For the past several years, the City has adopted a resolution proclaiming Arbor Day and encouraging residents to observe Arbor Day by protecting our trees and woodlands and/or planting trees. A resolution Proclaiming Arbor Day on Apri125 has been prepared. Agenda Item #3D: Concessionaire, Russ Withum, has agreed to perform concession services for the year 2008 at Freeman Park, Eddy Station. It is being recommended that Mr. Withum carry liability insurance, and that the fee he is to pay the City be reduced by the amount he has to pay for the insurance. Therefore, the fee for 2008 will be $660 plus $100 for every tournament. Staff is recommending approval of the contract. Agenda Item #3E: Community Rec Resources (CRR) has provided park coordinator services for the past four years. They continue to provide efficient management of park events. The fee for services remains unchanged from last year. Staff is recommending approval of the agreement for Park Coordinator Services with CCR. Agenda Item #3F; At its January 28, 2008, Regular meeting, the Shorewood City Council approved the cablecasting of City Council Work Sessions. The City is responsible for making arrangements to have someone be the camera operator for the Work Session meetings. The fee for video taping Council Work Sessions is set at a flat fee of $50 per meeting night. The attached Video Taping Service Agreement with Don Rogers has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and is provided for Council approval. .' j!®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 14 April, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Agenda Item #3G: At its last meeting the City Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Waterford P.U.D. that would allow a family restaurant to apply for a beer and wine license. A resolution to that effect has been included in your packet. The resolution also adjusts the hours of operation for the restaurant, allowing it to open at 6:00 A.M. instead of 7:00 A.M. Agenda Item #3H: Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds from the City Stormwater Fund for purchase of 75 rain barrels. The rain barrels are estimated to be $60 each, for a total of $4,500. The rain barrels are not budgeted in 2008 and as the rain barrels are distributed, the Stormwater Fund will be reimbursed. Agenda Item #SA: Sharon Klumpp, Springsted, Inc., will provide an update on the City Administrator search. Agenda Item #SB: LMA Development Director, Richard Glidewell, will provide a presentation and request for funding for milfoil treatment on Phelps Bay. Agenda Item #7A: Director of Public Works Brown will report on the April 2nd Park Commission Work Session, and Park Commissioner Hensley will report on the April 8th Regular Park Commission meeting. Agenda Item #8A: Joel Blatz has requested a setback variance to build a 5' x 6' enclosed entry on the front of his home at 5520 Sylvan Lane. The house was built in 1967, and the City allowed it to be 17 feet from the front property line, despite a 50-foot setback requirement at the time. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation to grant the setback variance, with a stipulation that the 33-foot setback discrepancy be made up at the rear of the lot. Ample room still remains for additional improvements to the home. A draft resolution, reflecting the Planning Commission's recommendation is included in your packet for your review. Agenda Item #9A: At the Council's direction, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Shorewood City Code that would allow on-sale liquor operations to remain open to 10:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. The Commission recommended that the local code be changed to reflect the recent change in state law. Agenda Item #9B: Staff will prepare sample questions for the city survey and deliver these under separate cover. Agenda Item #9C: At the March 24, 2008 City Council meeting, City Attorney Keane was directed to determine the anticipated legal costs for perfecting judgment in the matter of Pastor Linus Nyambu, as it relates to the property located at 5795 Country Club Road. Mr. Keane has reported the costs to perfect judgment would range between $250 to $500. Mr. Keane will be at Monday's meeting to report any new findings. In addition, background materials were previously distributed to the City Council per Councilmember Turgeon's request. The City Council will need to determine if it would like to proceed with perfecting judgment, based on the anticipated costs. Executive Summary -City Council Meeting of 14 April, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Agenda Item #9D: During the March 10th, 2008 City Council meeting, Councilmember Woodruff indicated that two requests had been received by City Council members for the use of golf carts on public roadways. Information regarding this type of use is provided in Council's packet. If the City Council determines that an ordinance to allow for the operation of golf carts is desired, Council should direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for operation of Golf Carts on Local Roadways. Agenda Item #9E: The City Council has expressed an interest to include the recycling of electronics during the Spring Cleanup day. Hennepin County will pay for the recycling of electronics, if the City will pay transportation costs. Hopefully, staff will be able to document costs by Monday night for discussion. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2008 MINUTES 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CONFERENCE ROOM 6:30 P.M. 1. CONVENE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, Wellensand Woodruff Absent: None B. Review Agenda Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, Approving the Agenda a presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. INTERVIEW CANDIDATES FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO THE SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION A. 6:30 p.m. Missy Vilett, 22780 Murray Street B. 6:45 p.m. Malinda Schmiechen, 22785 Murray Street 3. OTHER There was no other b1~si~te.ss for ~I i ~cussion. 4. ADJOiTRN Wellens moved, Bailey: seconded,Adjourning the City Council Special Meeting of March 24, 2008, at7:08 P.1VI. Motion passed S/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk #2A CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2008 7:00 P.M. MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 7:17 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Turgeon, ~'cllens and Woodruff; Attorney Keane; Acting Administrator/Director of Public. Works Brown; Finance Director Burton; Planning Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Acting Administrator Brown requested Item 3.C, Street Sweeping Agreement with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Christmas Lake Road, Lift Station 12, be removed from the agenda. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approvi~tg the Agenda as Amended. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTT'C A. City Council Work Sctision Minutes, March 10, 2008 Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Work Session Minutes of March 10, 2008, as Amended in Item 2, Page l,Paragraph 4, Sentence 5, change "some portion of recyclable material." to "some portion of recycled material.". Motion passed 5/0. I3. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes, March 10, 2008 Woodruff nuwed, Wellens seconded, Approving the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of March 10, 2008, as Amended in Item 12.B, Page 8, Paragraph 3, Sentence 2, change "to have an open house from 10:00 A.M. -Noon on Saturday, April 1, 2008," to "to have an open house from 10:00 A.M. -Noon on Saturday, April 12, 2008,". Motion passed 5/0. C. City Council Special Meeting Minutes, March 17, 2008 Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving the City Council Special Meeting Minutes of March 17, 2008, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Lizee reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda. #ZB SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 10 Turgeon moved, Bailey seconded, Approving the Motions Contained on the Consent Agenda and Adopting the Resolutions Therein. A. Approval of the Verified Claims List (This item was moved to Item 9.C, under General/New Business). B. City Clerk's License List C. Street Sweeping Agreement with Minnehaha Creek .Watershed District for Christmas Lake Road, Lift Station 12 (This item was removed from the agenda.) D. Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 08-023, "A Resolution Accepting Estimates and Awarding Contract for Well Abandonment Portion of the 2008 Woodhaven Well Demolition Project, City Project OS-Ol. E. Approve Agency Review of the Draft Comprehensive Water Resou>i•cc MOnagement Plan (This item was moved to Item 9.D,undcr Gener~al/New Business). F. Amending Resolution No. 08-004 to appoint Martin Wellens to Park Commission Liaison for Apri12008 and for September -December 2008, and to appoint Jeffery Bailey for Park Commission Liaison for May -August 2008. G. Accept Agreement for Executive Scarch,Services with: Springsted, Inc. H. Special Event Permit Application Registration Councilmember Turgeon questioned if Attorney Keane had the opportunity to review the agreement with Springsted, Inc. Keanestated he had eeviewed it and pl-ovided comment. Motion passed ~!0. 4. '1I:~TTERS FKOM THE FLUOR There ~~ cry itn matters from the'floor pr•csented this evening. 5. REPORT'S AND PRE fi 1, NTATIONS None. 6. PUBLIC HEA>~Et 1.1 G None. 7. PARKS A. Report on Park Commission Meeting Held March 11, 2008 Commissioner Norman reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 11, 2008, Park Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Councilmember Bailey asked Commissioner Norman to elaborate on the topic of an attendance policy. Norman stated over that past two years the Park Commission had. experienced some attendance issues. The Commission researched if the City had an attendance policy or standard, and if not could the Commission establish a policy. When the Commission became aware that the importance of attendance was being stressed during the interview process for the Park and Planning Commissions, the Park Commission thought there was no need to adopt a written policy. The Park Commission decided that if a commissioner missed three consecutive meetings then maybe they should reconsider their commitment to the Commission and possibly resign from the Commission. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had suggested that topic be discussed. She explained that the Park Commissioners were also expected to attend Arctic Fever planning meetings, which were not well attended by all the Commissioners. She commented that during asix-month period when she served as Park Commission Liaison there had been one Commissioner wlzd rarely attended the Commission meetings. §~ Acting Administrator Brown stated the Commission had agreed thaf if a Commissioner had not attended two-thirds of the scheduled meetings then Staff and/or the Park Commission Chair would ask the Commissioner if they had a desire to continue to serve on theComniission. 8. PLANNING -Report by Representative Commissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered. and actions taken at the March 18, 2008, Planning Commission meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). A. Conditional Use Permit ..Applicant: Stephen Doyle 'Locatii~n: 26785 Edgewood Road Director Nielsen .stated Stephen ~I~oyle owned the. property at 26785 Edgewood Road. Mr. Doyle had applied for a conditional, use permit to construct'a detached garage. The floor area of the new garage would put' he property in excess of 1200 square feet of accessory space, necessitating a conditional use permit, The new garage would ~replacc an e.~i~ting detached accessory building and would be located on the westside of the site. Theproperty was zoned R-lA, Single-Family Residential and contained 2.5 acres of land. Nielsen reviewed the property. survey which showed the location of the existing house and attached garage, as well as an eai~ling shed which would be demolished. The proposed single-story detached garage would contain 1_~ 1.1 square feet of floor area. When that area was combined with the existing attached garage, the art~~unt of accessory space on the site would total 2112 square feet. The house contained 2510 square feet of floor area above grade, not including the porch on the rear side of the house. Nielsen reviewed how Mr. Doyle's request complied with the four criteria specified in Section 1201.03 Subd.2.d.(4) of the City's Zoning Code for granting a conditional use permit for accessory space in excess of 1200 square feet. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 10 The total area of accessory buildings (2112 square feet) did not exceed the floor area (2510 square feet not including the porch on the rear side of the house) above grade of the existing home. 2. The total area of accessory buildings did not exceed l0 percent of the minimum lot size for the R-lA zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). 3. The proposed garage would comply with R-lA setback requirements. Hardcover on the property would be well under 25 percent. 4. The architectural character of the new building would he the same as the existing house. The siding and roofing would match the house. Nielsen noted the plans submitted with the application showed vertical siding on the proposed garage and horizontal siding on the existing house. He stated the applicant had explained to the Planning Commission that the garage drawing was taken off of the interest, but the siding on both the house and proposed garage would be horizontal and it would be, the same color. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Nielsen stated Stephen Doyle was present this e~~ening to answer any duestions Council may have. In response to a question from Councilmembe~~ Turgeon; Mr. noyle stated he spelled his first name Stephen; it was spelled incorrectl~~ in the resolution. Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 08-024, "A Resolution Granting a Conditional Use Permit for Additional Accessory Space to Stephen Doyle, 26875 Edgewood Road" as amended to correct the spelling of-his first name. Motion passed 5/0. B. Waterford PUD Amendment-Beer and Wine License Applicant: `Waterford Center LLP Location : 1990° Highway 7 Director I~iclsen stated the Waterford 'Shopping Center was located at 19905 State Highway 7. He explained the Waterford commercial element of the Waterford PUD agreement was approved in September 1990.` Shorewood Resolution No. 100-90 specifically addressed two uses to be included in the Center: 1) a convenience store with gas pumps; and 2) a family restaurant. The resolution set forth conditions as to how the ttivo uses would be operated. In the case of the family restaurant, hours would be limited to between 7 A.N1. and 11 P.M. and the restaurant would not eligible for any kind of liquor license. To date, no restaurant had occupied space in the Shopping Center since it was built. Nielsen stated the owner of Waterford Center LLP had recently requested an amendment to the original Waterford PUD agreement that would allow the owner to market to potential tenants on leasing space for the expressed purpose of adding a family restaurant that would be able to serve beer and wine. He related the owner had stated he was not pursuing any specific tenant, but all of the potential tenants the owner had spoken with had expressed interest in wanting to serve beer and wine. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Nielsen explained when the Waterford Shopping Center was originally approved, residents had expressed concern that the restaurant may end up being more of bar (particularly a sports bar) than a restaurant if the sale of liquor was allowed. Two things would probably preclude that from becoming the case -the hours for the restaurant were limited to 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M., and the applicant had only requested a wine and intoxicating malt beverage (i.e., beer) license. The City had recently received correspondence from individuals in the area south of the Center (in particular the Waterford Townhomes). The individuals were open to a restaurant and almost unanimously wanted it limited with regard to the sale of liquor (which beer and wine would somewhat do). Some individuals had suggested the sale of beer and wine be limited to individuals who were at the restaurant to dine; that could he an option as the City had a number of types of liquor related licenses. Nielsen then explained the Planning Commission suggested the hours of operation for the restaurant be changed to 6:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. to allow a restaurant owner to serve an earlier breakfast; the hours of operation for the convenience store with gas facility were 6:00. A, M. - Ylidnight. Nielsen commented that he had been somewhat surprised that there were no residents at the Public Hearing held about this request. Nielsen stated the Planning Commission unanimously reconnnended approval of an amendment to the Waterford PUD agreement which would restrict the hours of operation for a restaurant to 6:00 A.M. - 11:00 P.M. and restrict the sale of beer and wine to individuals dining in the restaurant area; and an amendment to the protective covenant recorded, against the Waterford commercial property. In response to a question from Councilmember'I'urgeon, Director Nielsen explained that some time ago there had been a previous inquiry by an interested restaurant owa~er about the possibility of a liquor license if the restaurant owner were to lease space in the Cenler but a formal application was never submitted. Nielsen then explained atthat time the interested party was encouraged to discuss his desires with the residents in the Waterford development. Turgeon moved, Woodruff .seconded,' .directing... Staff to prepare a resolution amending the commercial element: of the Waterford PlaunedUnit Development agreement to restrict the hours of operation for a restaurant to 6.•OO A.M. - 11:00 P.M. and to restrict the sale of beer and wine to individuals dining in the restaurant area;-..and amending the protective covenant recorded against the tiVatcrford commercial property. Motion passed 5/0. 9. GENEI2AL/NEW BUS l NESS A. Planning Commission Appointment Acting Administrator Brawn explained that during a Council special meeting earlier this evening Council had the opportunity to interview two candidates for the open seat on the Planning Commission. The candidates were Missy Vilett and Malinda Schmiechen. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 08-025, "A Resolution Making the Appointment of Missy Vilett to the City of Shorewood Planning Commission effective March 24, 2008, through February 28, 2011." Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 6 of 10 B. Discussion regarding settlement matter, Ascending Praise Church Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff had been scheduled to meet with Pastor Linus Nyambu on March 19, 2008, relating to the settlement regarding Ascending Praise Church (APC). Pastor Nyambu had committed to delivering the remaining settlement at that time; he had previously made payment of $1,000 of the $4,000 settlement. Brown explained that he had placed calls to Nyambu numerous times but to no avail, and none of his calls had been returned. Brown reviewed a list of options available for addressing this settlement issue: - Stop pursuing the settlement and release all claims. Council would have to weigh the cost of pursuing the settlement. - Continue to try and meet with Pastor Nyambu and negotiate the best collection efforts. - Ask to meet with another representative of the Church. - Do nothing for a period of time, and then .try to Wilke contact with representatives from the Church in 30, 60, or 90 days. - Turn the issue over to a collection agency.. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was her understanding that. APC no longer existed. Attorney Keane stated APC had merged with Livingword Church during 2007; APC as an entity no longer existed. Keane explained the City had reduced the situation to a confession of ,judgment, and that was a personal obligation for Pastor Nyambu. Mayor Lizee clarified APC had merged with Livingwaters Church. Councilmember Turgeon stated she had asked Director Button to research what the legal fees had been incurred relative to this pursuit. Burton stated that amount was approximately $8,700 and that was for invoices through January 2008; she assumed there were additional fees yet to be billed. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon,.~Attorney Keane explained the confession of judgment could be filed with~the Court or County Recorder which would result in it becoming an obligation. He then explained if Pastor Nyambu. made a credit application (for a mortgage or a loan) the existence of theobligation wouldhe disclosed. He stated he was not sure if there was a cost to file the judgment Councilmcn:Ler Wellens stated Lis experience with collection agencies had been that an agency received one half ol'the debt it collected: Attorney Keane stated his experience had been that the agency received 30 - 40 percentof~ the debt collected. Mayor Lizee stated the City had been pursuing a settlement for past due rent and utilities and for damages for over one year. She noted that the legal costs incurred through January 2008 were substantially more than the remaining settlement owed. She stated the City entered into a contract with APC, and Council considered it to be a charitable deed; the City entered into the arrangement with APC in good faith to help a Hurricane Katrina family. Unfortunately the situation did not work out as Counci] had hoped it would. She questioned how much longer Council wanted to pursue this matter. Over the last year it had been difficult for Staff to convince Pastor Nyambu to meet with them, and APC was no longer an entity. Based on past practice, the chance of receiving any of the remaining settlement was not very great. She recommended the City stop pursuing the settlement and reduce all claims. Councilmember Woodruff stated he was frustrated with the lack of progress on settling this matter. He stated he thought the approximate cost to the City for past due rent and utilities and for damages was SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 7 of 10 $18,000 plus there were the legal fees. He did not want to release all claims. He requested Attorney Keane research the cost to file the judgment, and if the cost was reasonable the judgment should be filed. Once that had been completed, should Pastor Nyambu apply for credit that perfected judgment would surface and that could be an impetus for him to pay the settlement. He did not think the City should pursue the use of a collection agency. Councilmember Turgeon agreed with Woodruff. Councilmember Bailey stated he would happy to receive an estimate of what it would cost to file the judgment from Attorney Keane, but he did not think the City should spend another dime on this process. Councilmember Woodruff stated he agreed with Bailey, but it would be good to know the cost. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, directing Attorney Keane to ;research the cost to perfect the confession of judgment. Motion passed 5/0. C. Approval of the Verified Claims List This item was removed from the consent agenda at Councilmember Woodruffls request.. Councilmember Woodruff questioned if the $40,304 invoice from Ready Watt Electric. was for outdoor warning sirens. Acting Administrator Brown explained the sirens had been installed and were ready to be tested, and he was trying to get information from Hennepin County. nn what the monthly cost would be for monitoring and maintenance of the sirens. Woodruff moved, Turgeon seconded, approving' the, verified claims ~ list as presented. Motion passed 5/0. D. Approve Agencyl2eview of the Draft Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan This item was removed from he consent ~iQenda at Councilmember Woodruff's request. Councilmember W oodruff stated there were a tcw corrections he suggested be made to the very lengthy Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan before the Plan was submitted to various agencies for review. The Plan stated there were no agreements with other entities; if Item IO.A on the agenda was approved the .Plan should be updated to reflect that agreement. In Section VIII the Plan referenced a City Manager; that. tih~uld be changed to City Administrator and the Planning Director should be added to that section. Woodruff then stateri he was confused about the statements in the Plan relative to flood areas. Early in the Plan it was stated the there were no flood plains in the City. The Plan included communication from the Federal Emergency Ivlauagement Agency (FEMA) which discussed flood insurance was required for certain structures and lots. Engineer Landini explained there were many flood plains in the City which were covered under FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). Councilmember Woodruff noted that in Section 1 Page 2 it was stated there were no FEMA flood plains in the City. Landini concurred that statement would need to be corrected. He explained he had spoken with Steve Gurney, with WSB & Associates, about having a page in the Plan directing individuals to the FEMA website for access to the FIRM maps. Acting Administrator Brown suggested Council approve this draft so this effort could remain on schedule. He explained that it was not unusual to forward the draft for review to the various agencies and SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 8 of 10 then revise the Plan with recommended changes. He stated Staff would update the Plan with the recommended changes before the Plan was submitted for review. Woodruff moved, Wellens seconded, accepting the Draft Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan and authorizing distribution of the Draft Plan to the appropriate agencies for review and comment, subject to Staff making the changes identified by Councilmembers. Councilmember Wellens stated he had provided Staff with a list of five items that should be considered for modification. Motion passed 5/0. 10. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS ~. A. Wetland Conservation Act Joint Powers Agreement with MCWD Engineer Landini explained at its March 10, 2008, meeting Council approved a resolution delegating Local Government Unit authority for Wetland Conservation Act administration f~~r lands inside Shorewood within the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District jurisdiction to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) contingent upon adoption of a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the MCWD. Landini then explained the MCWD had since offered to administer the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Work in Public Waters permitting. "hhe Work in Public Waters permitting for lands inside the City within the RPBCWD had fallen bacl: to the DNR as of February 25, 2008. Having a State agency process the permits resulted in additional processing trine for City residents. The benefits of having the MCWD administer the process would be a faster permitting process for the residents, and a consistent procedure;C~ity wide. ~ .- Landini stated Council h~~~l hr~•n i~ro~~i<Icd «~ith a revised JPA this evening for consideration. The JPA addressed admini`strati~~n ~~I'the both,~1~'A per~nitsand Work in Public Water permits for lands inside Shorewood with the KPB(r:WD jurisdiction. He stated there was a recommended change to the revised JPA; the MCWD recommended Section 4. l b~ changed to reflect advance termination notification of 90 days rather than 60 days. He then stated tl~e 90 day period should provide the City with adequate time to implement hr~~c~~dures for handling the permitting. Councilmember Woodruff qucscioned if 90 days would be adequate based on the effort recently expended to prepare .fore the passibility of the City assuming WCA permitting responsibilities. Engineer Landini stated he thought it would be sufficient time as the City has a draft ordinance already prepared. If for some reason that was not sufficient time for the City, the Board of Soil and Water Resources would assume that responsibility, but that would result in a moratorium on that permitting. Wellens moved, Woodruff seconded, Approving RESOLUTION NO. 08-026, "A Resolution Authorizing the Mayor and City Administrator to Enter Into a Cooperative Agreement with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for Wetland Conservation Act Administration and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Work In Public Waters Administration" subject to changing Section 4.1 to reflect a 90 day advance notification of termination. Motion passed 5/0. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 9 of 10 11. STAFF AND COUNCIL REPORTS A. Administrator & Staff Acting Administrator Brown stated at the EFD Governing Board meeting held on March 19, 2008, Chief Gerber presented the EFD 2007 Year End Review document which had been distributed to attendees. He commented he had copies of the document if any of the Councilmembers wanted to review it. He stated the list of EFD accomplishments was impressive. He stated the new civil defense sirens would be tested on April 2, 2008. He then stated Springsted, Inc., either had or would be scheduling time to meet with Councilmembers. Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission had discussed the issues sections of the chapters in the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Commission be scheduled to review the issues. There was consensus to schedule a joint meeting of theCouncil and Planning Commission to discuss issues identified in the Comprehensive Plan for 6:00 P.M. on April 14, 2008. B. Mayor & City Council Mayor Lizee stated there was an SLMPD Strategic Planning work: session scheduled for 4:00 P.M. on March 26, 2008. In response to a comment from Councilmember Wellens, Acti»g Administrator Brown stated he was researching what other cities were doing with reg~ird to golf cartsoli city streets. In response to a question firom Counciln7ember Wellens, Attorney Keane explained that he had contacted the Director of the I_,eague of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust and was told that in order to have insurance through the LMC T~•ust an .organization had to belong to the LMC. CouncilmemberTurgeoll reminded Council that it-had committed to updating the City Administrator's performance"appraisal formprior tothe inteeviewing of candidates. She suggested that task be scheduled for a work session. Mayor Lzcc suggested. Sharon Klumpp with Springsted, Inc., be asked to provide Council with guidance on that: as she probably had access to examples. There was col~sensus to schedule a work session for 6:00 P.M. on April 28, 2008, to review the City Administrator's performance review form. In response to a comment from Councilmember Wellens, Acting Administrator Brown explained that Chief Gerber had stated the EFD and SLMPD had made some minor changes to a few of the medical response protocols for automatically initiating calls to fire and rescue. With regard to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Director Nielsen explained with regard to the issue with a blue storage container in Ward 4, the City had been represented in Hennepin County Court four times on the issue. The first time the offender did not appear. The Court then issued a bench warrant for the offender's arrest. The offender was arrested and posted bail. At the arraignment the offender asked for an extension to the arraignment, which was granted. A pre trial was scheduled for April 8, 2008, and a trial had been scheduled for May 5, 2008. SHOREWOOD CITY COUNTIL REGULAR MEETING March 24, 2008 Page 10 of 10 12. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, adjourning the City Council Regular Meeting of March 24, 2008, at 8:16 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MONDAY, MARCH 24, 2008 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 8:25 P.M. Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Bailey, Administrator/Director of Public Works Director Nielsen; and Engineer Landini Absent: None A. Review Agenda 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS Following the Regular City Council meeting Turgeon, Wellens and Brown: Finance Director Woodruff; Acting Burton; Planning Wellens moved, Turgeon seconded, Approving the Agenda as ~~resented. Motion passed 5/0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -ROADWAY TEMPLATE Director Nielsen stated that the City's 2008 Goals and Priorities containedan item to "Develop Roadway Project Templates". When Staff was consideringthe timeli~ie torthe projects, it questioned what the expectation was for that project. because the City already had standard street templates as part of the Shorewood Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. He commented that often developers would. paste the City's Detail Plates for new streets on to their plans. He stated the Transportation Chapter of~the. City's .Comprehensive Plan allowed for a lesser standard in instances where existing substandard streets were in need of reconstruction; it stated the City would allow for the driving surface to h~ ~e~~ than the ?~-font-wide :standard but no less than 20 feet wide (per the requirement: in the Fire C~>d~ i. Nielsen noted that Staff could ~3~~ rccomnieiid reconstructing any roadway to have a driving surface less than the 20-foot wide requireneflt specified in the Fire Code. Also, the City Attorney had advised Staff that not satisfying the Fire Code requirement for reconstructed roadways would expose the City to potential serious liability in the e~~cnt that something would happen on that reconstructed roadway. Nielsen explained the Comprehensive Plan stated the City would install curb and gutter where it was necessary to control drainage. He stated that often times heavily traveled narrow roadways fail because vehicles travel on the edge of the driving surface; without the heavy concrete edge the bituminous surface deteriorated more rapidly. Nielsen reviewed the standards for new roadways and reconstructed roadways. The recommended standard for new roadways was a 24-foot-wide driving surface plus a 28-inch-wide surmountable curb and gutter on each side of the driving surface. For reconstructed roads the recommended standard was a minimum 20-foot-wide driving surface and 12-inch-wide edge control (concrete ribbon) on each side of the driving surface. #Zc CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Nielsen noted that in the case of the aborted Amlee Road /Manitou Lane /Glen Road road reconstruction project, residents were concerned about the fact that existing trees would be lost along Glen Road when the roadway was widened as well as the width of the proposed street. Residents wanted to maintain the current roadway width which had a driving surface which was less than 20 feet wide. Nielsen stated Staff believed it was the City's duty to take responsibility for the City's infrastructure; it was the City's responsibility to ensure a roadway was repaired in a timely manner so the cost to repair it did not increase significantly as time lapsed. He then stated the process followed for road reconstruction projects may need to be refined, and it should include explaining the rationale for the City's standards to the residents early on in the process. The identification of issues early in the process could help in avoiding spending a great deal of money only to eventually abort a project. Nielsen stated from Staff's vantage point the City had roadway templates; if Council wanted different standards then it should determine what they would be. Couneilmember Woodruff stated. from his perspective that action item for Staff was torefine the process so major issues were identified early in the process. With regard to the aborting of the Arrtlee Road / Manitou Lane /Glen Road road reconstruction process, he stated from his vantage point the reason the project was aborted was the City was not able to obtain the »ccessdry easements without invoking the process of eminent domain. He recommended that for future roadway reconstruction projects Staff identify the issues that would result from reconstructing a roadway to have a minimum of a 20-foot-wide driving surface with a 12-inch-wide edge control on each side of the surface; those issues could then be discussed in a Council work session. Couneilmember Wellens stated the reason he made a motion o abort the project was the lack of drainage easements. He then stated it did not make sense toreconstruct a roadway without concrete edging; it was prudent to adhere to the 20-fo<~t-:vide minimmn driving surface standard plus the 12-inch-wide edge control on each side ofthesurfa~c for reconstructed streets. Director Nielsen stated if Council agreed with Couneilmember Wellens's perspective on the standards, then Staff would include the' e~istirg ternp ates in the. Comprehensive Plan. With regard to the process, Staff would work~on refining itso anajor issues 1~cr~identified early on in the process; survey work must be done early in the process which results in up-front expense. Councihnember Woodruff questioned what would happen if there would be a situation where a proposed reconstructed r~~adway would i~ot meet the minimum width for a driving surface yet the roadway was in need of repair;. should there be various scenarios defined in advance for dealing with that type of situation or should that be addressed when a situation arose, and if scenarios were identified should they be included in the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Lizee stated that could be addressed as part of the twenty- year comprehensive inti•astr~ucture plan which would include roadway repairs and maintenance; that plan would be updated annually. Director Nielsen stated if a roadway deteriorated to the point where the surface became gravel or bits of bituminous it would cost residents more to maintain that gravel road. He questioned why residents in other parts of the City should have to pay for that extra maintenance because the residents on the street did not want a wider reconstructed street. He stated it took courage to stand before residents and say the City was going to enforce its standards when the residents thought a change in the width of the road would result in a change to the character of their neighborhood. He noted that it did not cost the individual property owners more to have a wider roadway because the City did not assess for its roadways. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2008 Page 3 of 4 Councilmember Woodruff stated his primary reason for aborting the Amlee Road /Manitou Lane /Glen Road road reconstruction project was the City's inability to obtain the necessary drainage easements. Director Nielsen stated if that reason would continue to be the foundation for making a decision about reconstruction then roadways where that could become a problem should not even be considered for reconstruction. Mayor Lizee clarified that project started as a project for Amlee Road and Manitou Lane; Glen Road was added to the project later and that increased the engineering costs incurred prior to the project being aborted. She stated there were many factors that contributed to the inability to move the project forward. Councilmember Turgeon stated the City had not been able to obtain the necessary easements on Amlee Road; therefore, the project would not have been done even if Glen Road had not been added. Acting Administrator Brown stated when the Amlee Road and Manitou Lane project was started Staff presented the roadway standards to Council; the discussions quickly, turned to how narrow the roadways could be and that impacted the easement needs. He then stated if Council and Staff :agreed in advance to roadway standards then it would be much easier to identify the other requirements early in the process. Councilmember Turgeon stated it was her understandin;thc standard for reconstruetedroadways was they would be constructed to their current driving surface width .provided that width was not less than 20 feet. She went on to state it would be difficult to prepare a Long-range roadway improvement plan with meaning if Council was not willing to enforce standards when there was resistance from residents. She suggested surveys should not ask residents if they wanted edge control, or a ditch, or curb and gutter if that was what was needed; Staff and Council should agree to items 1%kethat in advance. Councilmember Woodruff stated the minimum driving suci=ace standard for reconstructed roadways should be 20 feet and it should. inchide either 12-inch edge control on each side of the surface or curb and gutter depending on the need tc~ control drainage. b There was consensus the roadway standards for both r~ew roadways and reconstructed roadways would remain as they were. In response to aiquestion fi-on; LOUncilnlen~ber Bailey, Acting Administrator Brown stated he would provide him with a copy of the pa~~ement project matrix and that information would be incorporated into the 20-year Capital Improvement Program for roadways. 3. GOALS AND PRIORITIES TII1lELINE Acting Administrator Brown explained that Councilmember Turgeon had previously requested Staff prepare a graphical timeline depicting when the 2008 goals and priorities would be worked on. Staff had compiled best estimates for the various projects. He stated the time frame for projects would shift based on other activities occurJ~inb and after a better understanding of the project scope was developed. He suggested Council be provided with quarterly updates. Councilmember Bailey requested that when Staff determined a project would not be completed during the year that Council be informed of that. Councilmember Woodruff stated he wanted the City Hall renovation completed in October 2008; he suggested that be the target date and if that date had to change that was fine. He did not mean to imply that all furniture would have been purchased and installed; he was referring to the building envelope, etc. Acting Administrator Brown stated that was "substantial completion" and he would change the description to say that. Director Nielsen noted landscaping would not be done until the spring of 2009. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES March 24, 2008 Page 4 of 4 Director Nielsen stated the Planning Commission's work program focused primarily on updating the Comprehensive Plan. 4. DISCUSSION REGARDING CITY SURVEY Acting Administrator Brown stated Staff was in the progress of gathering information to prepare a draft survey for Council to review and revise. He stated it was his understanding that Council would like to consider an on-line survey; Survey Monkey appeared to be a good tool and cost effective. He had obtained other cities' surveys (both in-state and out-of-state) off of the intert~et as well as Decision Resource's surveys that had been done in the past. s In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Burton explained the City did a mass mailing of the City's monthly newsletter to all residents. Aeting Administrator Brown stated some residents had chosen to receive their newsletters electronically: Turgeon stated there. was a company that did something like a "blast email" at a cost of three cents. Ucr email. Brown stated that Julie Moore, the Communications Technician for the City, had experience with conducting surveys for.. the Minnetonka School District. Councilmember Wellens questioned if Survey Monkey would ' E~r~~hibit an individual from taking the survey multiple times. Acting Administrator Brown was unsure but he would check on that. There was consensus to have Staff draft a survey: and. Councilmembers would provide input after they received the draft. Councilmember Wellens questioned what the City would do differently as a result of the survey results. Councilmember Bailey stated ~ suir~mary report ~~f the survey results would be provided to survey respondents and the Council 5. OTI-IER There was nn other busin~~,s fordiscu»i~~n. 6. A U. I OURN Wellens nio~~ed, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of March 24, 2008, at 8:SS P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk PAYABLES APPROVALS For 04/14/2008 Council Meeting L-~rry Brown, Acting City Administrator ,. ~~~, PAYROLL APPROVALS For 04/14/2008 Council Meeting o-, Prepared by: a~_--~~ d ,fi' Date: Michelle T.~ Nguyen,, Sr. Accounting Clerk ~ Reviewed by d~ Date: ~ 6~- ~ ~ ~~ Bonnie Burton, Finance Director Approved by; zs Date: ~' O ~'~v~ arry Brown, Acting City Administrator SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ° (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator, Director of Public Works FROM: Joe Pazandak, Building Official , =~ - James Landini, City Engineer (} J DATE: April 10, 2008 RE: Authorize the Expenditure of Funds to plant a prairie at two locations Mr. Joe Pazandak presented a prairie planting proposal to the Park Commission on April 8, 2008. The presentation described possible locations to plant prairies in Shorewood. The Park Commission selected two locations as exhibited on the two attached maps. One location is at Freeman Park near the entrance on Eureka Rd. and the other is along the north side of HWY 7, west of the Skate Park. Some of the advantages of planting a prairie are: ^ Reduced water run-off. ^ More snow holding capacity. ^ Reduced maintenance and cost after establishment. ^ Deeper root structure to hold. soil in place. ^ Vegetation. system that is more sustainable in difficult weather conditions. ^ Different, more natural aesthetics. ^ Public education. ^ Reduced energy consumption due to less mowing and maintenance. ^ Reduced irrigation. ^ Reduce phosphorous. ^ Reduce pollution, carbon sequestration. ^ Reduced chemical applications. ^ Reduced weeds. ^ Additional information can be found at sites like www.mnnwgpa.org. The Park Commission chose two locations due to the unknown public perception and to see how it looks and interacts with the park system. The Park Commission voted unanimously to authorize up to $500 be spent to plant a prairie at the two designated locations. Staff requests approval of the expenditure of funds up to $500 to plant two prairies as recommended by the Park Commission. .m ~ ) r®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ ~ ~} Mayor and City Council Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for plant a prairie at two locations April 10, 2008 Page 2 of 2 The 2008 Park Budget has $8,000.00 budgeted for rock, dirt, fertilizers, seed, etc. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds from the Park Budget for the planting of a prairie at two locations as exhibited on the attached maps. ~~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 2008 TO: Mayor and Council Members k FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk ~~< RE: Arbor Day Proclamation In 1872, J. Sterling Morton proposed to the Nebraska Board of Agriculture that a special day, Arbor Day, be set aside for the planting of trees. Arbor Day is held the last Friday in April. The 136th anniversary of Arbor Day is Friday, April 25, 2008. The National Arbor Day Foundation encourages cities to recognize Arbor Day with a proclamation. For the past several years, the City has adopted a resolution proclaiming Arbor Day and encouraging residents to observe Arbor Day by protecting our trees and woodlands and/or planting trees. A resolution is attached for Council's consideration. Recommended Action: Approval of a Resolution Proclaiming Arbor Day on Friday, April 25, 2008. -, , t~ ~ ~,~ , ~~ es ~~ s. F® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO.08- A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING APRIL 25, 2008, AS ARBOR DAY WHEREAS, trees use up excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and turn it into life-giving oxygen; and WHEREAS, trees help conserve energy; that is, three properly planted trees around a home can cut air conditioning bills by ten to fifteen percent; and WHEREAS, trees turn urban "heat islands" into cool and comfortable "oasis", making the concrete jungle livable for all of us. NOW, THERE BE IT RESOLVED by the Shorewood City Council that the City of Shorewood hereby proclaims Friday, April 25, 2008, as the 136th anniversary celebration of Arbor Day in the City of Shorewood, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Shorewood City Council encourages all residents of Shorewood to celebrate Arbor Day by protecting our trees and woodlands, and planting a tree, thereby hoping to ensure a green Shorewood and Minnesota in decades to come. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, this 14th day of April, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk crrr or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: .Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator/ Director of Public Works DATE: April 9, 2008 RE: Concession Operation Agreement for 2008 At its meeting on September 5, 2007, the Park Commission agreed that Mr. Russ Withum be asked to continue to provide concessionaire services in 2008. The Commission also requested the City consider whether the concessionaire be required to carry general liability insurance. Staff is proposing that Mr. Withum carry general liability insurance, and to reduce the amount paid to the City by the cost of this liability insurance. Last year, Mr. Withum paid the city $1300, plus $100 for every tournament. This year, the fee will be reduced to $660, plus $100 for every tournament. Mr. Withum has provided concession services for the past few years, and Staff is pleased to have the opportunity to work with a good, honest, and reliable concessionaire again this year. The contractor will provide concession services beginning around May 1, or whenever the first organized sports events begin. Concession services will be provided Monday through Sunday from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., through August 1, or whenever the summer sports organization use of Freeman Park ceases. The contractor will pay the City $660 plus $100 for each tournament, and carry general liability insurance. Payment will be due to the City by August 22, 2008. A copy of the Agreement is attached. Council Action Approval of the Concession Operation Agreement for the year 2008. .f ~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~~ Independent Contractor 2008 Concession Operation Agreement By and Between City of Shorewood and Contractor THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2008, by and between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation with its offices located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (the "City") and Russ Withum (the "Contractor") . RECITALS WHEREAS, the City is engaged in the business of providing municipal services including park and recreation opportunities within the corporate limits of the City. The City has constructed a concession/restroom/picnic facility in Freeman Park within the City known as Eddy Station; and WHEREAS, the City desires to provide concession services to the patrons of Freeman Park through the facility of Eddy Station; and WHEREAS, the City further desires to enter in to an agreement with the Contractor for the operation and provision of concession services. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1.) Schedule of Operation. Contractor agrees to provide concession services Monday through Sunday, from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m., commencing on or about .May 1 or whenever the first organized sports events begin. Concession operations will continue through August 1, or whenever Freeman Park ceases its summer use by MGSA, Adult Softball and Tonka United Soccer. Contractor agrees to coordinate operations with the Park Scheduling Coordinator. 2.) Contractor Responsibilities. a.) Contractor agrees to be present each day for opening, training of sales volunteers, and all duties involved with closing the operation at the end of the day. Contractor agrees that if for any reason he is not able to be present for any period of time, while the concession operation is open, he will be available by pager or cell phone for immediate assistance at the site. b.) Contractor agrees to be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the concession area. 3.) Contractor Payment. The Contractor agrees to pay the City $660 for the year 2008, plus $100 for every tournament. Payment due to the City by August 22, 2008. 4.) Purchasing. The Contractor agrees to purchase the necessary products and supplies associated with concession sales at Eddy Station. 5.) Equi mp ent• The City agrees to provide the hot dog machine, popcorn machine, cash register, pop cooler, refrigerator and coffee machine. 6.) Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause or reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Either party may terminate this Agreement without notice for cause. "Cause" includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty, failure to meet deadlines, criminal conduct, or breach of this Agreement. 7.) Status of Contractor. As intended by both parties, this Agreement calls for the performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. a.) The manner and means of performance of Contractor shall be entirely at Contractor's discretion. Contractor is free to employ personnel to assist Contractor in providing services to the City, but such employees shall be Contractor's responsibility and not that of the City. The City shall not provide Contractor or Contractor's employees or agents with any benefits from the City such as workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, health insurance, income tax withholding, or social security contributions. The City does not control the performance of Contractor and Contractor accepts all risk of profit and loss flowing from the services provided under this Agreement. All expenses must be borne by Contractor and shall not be reimbursed by the City. Those expenses include furnishing Contractor's place of work, payroll expenses, taxes, and insurance. b.) Contractor shall conspicuously identify himself to all persons and organizations as an independent contractor and shall not represent or imply that this Agreement authorizes Contractor to act as an agent for, or on behalf of, the City. Neither the City nor Contractor shall be responsible for any agreement, representation, or warranty made by the other, nor shall the City be obligated for damages to any person or organization for personal injuries or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of the conduct of Contractor's business or caused by Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct or negligence. 8.) Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person arising from Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct, or negligence while performing services pursuant to this Agreement unless such damage or liability arises from or in connection with faulty or defective materials or facilities provided by the City. Contractor agrees to carry Commercial liability insurance in the amount of $300,000. 9.) Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and no amendment hereto shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. There is merged herewith all prior and collateral representations, promises, and conditions concerning Contractor and the City. This Agreement supersedes and nullifies any preexisting agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement All agreements as to payments to be made to Contractor for particular projects must be in writing. 10.) Severable. In the event any portion of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 1 l.) Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if it is in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to Contractor's residence or to the principal office of the City, which ever shall be applicable. 12.) Governin Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHOREWOOD CONTRAC-T-0 By: By: Its: ~ Its: ~ ~a~,:,~~~ (ITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ®SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator /Director of Public Works DATE: Apri19, 2008 RE: Park Coordinator Services Agreement Community Rec. Resources (CRR) has provided Park and Recreation Coordinator Services for the City for the past four years. CRR has provided sound and efficient management of the scheduling of park events in the City. The sports organizations and staff are very pleased with the service provided by CRR. The Park Commission discussed the CRR Services Agreement at is April 8, 2008, meeting, and expressed its desire to continue the Agreement for Park and Recreation Coordinator services with CRR. Attachment 1 is the .Agreement for Park and Recreation Coordinator Services. There is no change in the fee for services from last year. Council Action Approval of the Park and Recreation Coordinator Services Agreement with Community Rec. Resources, for the amount "not to exceed" $20,250. ~~, _-- . ~~ ~~. .f j®«~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Independent Contractor Agreement For Park and Recreation Coordinator Services THIS AGREEMENT, made this 1st day of January 2008, by and between the City of Shorewood, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation, with its offices located at 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 (the "City") and Community Rec. Resources, 1408 Baldur Park Road, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (the "Contractor") RRC',TTAT,R WHEREAS, the City desires to engage a vendor to provide services to assist with the operation and management of certain park facilities within the City; and WHEREAS, the City further desires to enter into an agreement with the Contractor for the operation and provision of park and recreation management services. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Services. Based on the detailed Scope of Services and Request for Proposals of 2002, Community Rec. Resources will provide (but is not limited to) field scheduling, coordination, liaison services on behalf of the City of Shorewood with the various sports organizations as an immediate pathway to a solution. a. Utilize appropriate software to schedule field specific uses for the City Parks. b. Assist the City of Shorewood with the coordination, preparation, and execution of seasonal meetings with sports organizations. c. Issuance of agreements in accordance with park policy. d. Collect, accept, and review appropriate documentation from each candidate organization. e. Issuance of "field permits" to utilize facilities. f. Work with staff to coordinate equity based on City Policy. g. Provide continuity in representation to the Sports Organizations and the City. h. Prepare and distribute quarterly and annual progress reports regarding field usage and continued improvements to the Park Coordinator Position. 2. Fees for Professional Services. The minimum estimated time allocation equates to approximately 150 - 225 Contractor hours each spring and fall period, with additional hours during the course of the seasons. Additional services, or time, may be requested by the City Attachment #1 during the course of the year, that are beyond the services listed in this proposal and subject to approval by both parties. The City shall compensate Community Rec. Resources for completion of professional services described above including, but not be limited to, the Scope of Services and additional services. The fees will be set up at an hourly rate in coordination with the City not to exceed $20,250, or approximately 450 total hours, for the annual season. Miscellaneous Expenses: The City agrees to reimburse Contractor for approved costs incurred for postage, photocopies, and other materials relative to the services provided at Contractor's actual cost. These costs must be reimbursed within 30 days of submission of receipts. 3. City's Responsibility to Provide. a. Program support with one individual representing the City's interests (i.e. Director of Public Works or Park Secretary). b. Payment of all fees and expenses associated with the execution of the stated tasks. 4. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, without cause or reason, upon thirty (30) days' written notice to the other party. Either party may terminate this Agreement without notice for cause. "Cause" includes, but is not limited to, dishonesty, failure to meet deadlines, criminal conduct, or breach of this Agreement. 5. Status of Contractor. As intended by both parties, this Agreement calls for the performance of the services of Contractor as an independent contractor and Contractor will not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. a. The manner and means of performance of Contractor shall be entirely at Contractor's discretion. Contractor is free to employ personnel to assist Contractor in providing services to the City, but such employees shall be Contractor's responsibility and not that of the City. The City shall not provide Contractor or Contractor's employees or agents with any benefits from the City such as workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, health insurance, income tax withholding, or social security contributions. The City does not control the performance of Contractor and Contractor accepts all risk of profit and loss flowing from the services provided under this Agreement. All expenses, other than pre-approved travel expenses, must be borne by Contractor and shall not be reimbursed by the City. Those expenses include furnishing Contractor's place of work, payroll expenses, taxes, and insurance. b. Contractor shall conspicuously identify himself to all persons and organizations as an independent contractor and shall not represent or imply that this Agreement authorizes Contractor to act as an agent for, or on behalf of, the City. Neither the City nor Contractor shall be responsible for any agreement, representation, or 2 warranty made by the other, nor shall the City be obligated for damages to any person or organization for personal injuries or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of the conduct of Contractor's business or caused by Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct or negligence. c. No taxes shall be withheld from payments by the City to Contractor. Contractor agrees to pay all taxes associated with payments from the City to Contractor and shall indemnify and hold the City harmless for any failure to pay necessary taxes on those payments. Contractor shall provide the City with a federal tax identification number for purposes of payments to Contractor. 6. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims by or on behalf of any person arising from Contractor's actions, failure to act, conduct, or negligence while performing services pursuant to this Agreement unless such damage or liability arises from or in connection with faulty or defective materials or facilities provided by the City. 7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties and no amendment hereto shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties. There is merged herewith all prior and collateral representations, promises, and conditions concerning Contractor and the City. This Agreement supersedes and nullifies any preexisting agreements between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. All agreements as to payments to be made to Contractor for particular projects must be in writing. 8. Severable. In the event any portion of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. 9. Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficient if it is in writing and sent by registered or certified mail to Contractor's residence or to the principal office of the City, which ever shall be applicable. 10. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year first above written. CITY OF SHOREWOOD COMMUNITY REC. RESOURCES By: Its: ~> Kristi`Anderson _.~ r n ~y ,. ' f Sally ~Ifeefe ~'~ ~_ .,1 3 c~Tr or SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0125 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM DATE: April 10, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator ' ~~ RE: Video Taping Service Agreement for City Council Work Sessions At its January 28, 2008, regular meeting, the Shorewood City Council approved the cablecasting of City Council Work Sessions. The City is responsible for making arrangements to have someone be the camera operator for the Work Session meetings, as the LMCC is not obligated to provide this service. The LMCC currently provides a camera operator for the Regular City Council meetings. Staff contacted this individual, Don Rogers, to inquire if he would be able to provide video taping for the Work Sessions. He indicted he would be available to do this. Staff also contacted the LMCC to inquire how much they pay their operator for videotaping the Regular City Council meetings. The fee for this service is $73. I1pon staff's request, the LMCC also made a recommendation as to the fee for the Work Session video taping. They recommended an amount between $40 - $60, depending on the time and length of the meeting. Staff is recommending the fee for video taping Council Work Sessions be set at a flat fee of $50 per meeting night. This would cover Work Session meetings that are held before or after the Regular City Council meeting, as well as Work Sessions that begin before the Regular meeting, and continue after the Regular meeting. This amount is acceptable to Don Rogers. The attached Video Taping Service Agreement has been reviewed by the City Attorney, and is provided for Council approval. Council Action Staff recommends approving the Video Taping Service Agreement, effective January 28, 2008. ~" .a ~®~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER VIDEO TAPING SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR COUNCIL WORK SESSIONS THIS AGREEMENT is made between DON ROGERS (Camera Operator) and the City of Shorewood, 5755 Country Club Road, Shorewood, Minnesota (Shorewood). Shorewood wishes to contract with the Camera Operator to provide video taping services for all Shorewood City Council Work Session meetings. IT IS THEREFORE AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Video Taping Service. Staff members from Shorewood City Hall will contact Camera Operator to notify him/her of the day and time of the City Council Work Session to be video taped. This is an agreement for services and does not constitute an employment relationship. 2. Equipment and Sup lies. The Equipment needed for video taping is provided at Shorewood City Hall in the City Council Chambers. Media will be provided by the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission (LMCC). The Camera Operator is responsible for picking up the media from the LMCC. 3. Charges. $50 per City Council Work Session meeting night. 4. Billing. Camera Operator shall invoice Shorewood, listing each Council Work Session meeting date. Upon receipt of invoice, Shorewood agrees to submit each invoice with the next bill list or other applicable expense authorization list to be considered by the City Council or the authorizing official of the Council. 5. Cancellation. This Agreement maybe canceled at any time by either party, subject to a thirty (30) day written notice. 6. Term. This Agreement shall become effective on January 28, 2008, and shall continue in force until canceled. Dated: ~ ^ ~ ~ G> Camera Operator G-'j Dated: Shorewood Mayor Shorewood City Administrator/Clerk CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING WATERFORD CENTER. LLP REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO TERMS OF P.U.D. AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SALE OF LIQUOR WHEREAS, Waterford Center, LLP (Applicant), is the owner of the Waterford Shopping Center (Subject Property) located in the City of Shorewood at 19905 State Highway 7, legally described as: "Lot 1, Bloclc 1, Waterford 6t'' Addition, Hemlepin County, Mimiesota"; and WHEREAS, the Subject Propertty is subject to the requirements of Shorewood Resolution No. 100-90, attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof and which sets forth the conditions of approval for the cormnercial portion of the Waterford Plamled Unit Development (P.U.D.); and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 100-901imits the hours of operation for a family restaurant to be located in the Waterford Shopping Center and precludes the restaurant from applying for any type of liquor license; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City for an amendment to the teens of Resolution No. 100-90 that would allow the family restaurant to apply for a license that would allow beer and wine to be sold in the restaurant; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's application was reviewed by the Shorewood Plaiming Director, and leis recommendations have been set forth in a memorandum to the Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council, dated 11 March 2008, which memorandum is on file at the Shorewood City Offices; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and the Applicant's application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 18 March 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at the Shorewood City Hall; WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting on 24 March 2008, 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 The Subject Property is zoned P.U.D. and is subject to the requirements set forth in Shorewood City Council Resolution No. 100-90. 2. A family restaurant is an allowable use in the Waterford Shopping Center. Hours of operation are currently limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M. In addition to Resolution No. 100-90, the restrictions applicable to the Waterford Shopping Center are recorded in a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants, dated 27 June, 1991, on file at the Hennepin County Recorder's office. CONCLUSIONS A. The Applicant's request for an amendment to Shorewood Resolution No. 100-90 is hereby approved as follows: Conclusion number 3. is hereby amended to read: " 3. The hours of operation of the convenience grocery store and gas facility shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight. The hours of operation of the family restaurant shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m." 2. Conclusion number 4. is hereby amended to read: "4. The family restaurant may apply for a license for the sale of beer and wine, provided there shall be no bar seating area and that the beer and wine only be served with food orders." B. The Mayor and City Administrator are hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, an amendment to the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants recorded against the property, reflecting the amendment to Resolution No. 100-90. C. The City Clerk shall provide the Applicant with a certified copy of this resolution, suitable for recording with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Deeds. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of April, 2008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk -2- RESOLUTION N0. 100-90 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERFORD 3RD PHASE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Shorewood (City) approved the original Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for Waterford 3rd. Phase, apart of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as "Waterford" ; WHEREAS, Sherman-Boosalis, Inc. (Developer) has now submitted its request for a revised Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for said PUD to include a convenience grocery store with gas pumps and a family restaurant; and WHEREAS, the Developer's request has been reviewed by the City Planner, and his recommendations have been duly set forth in a Memorandum to the Planning Commission, dated 1 August 1990, which Memorandum is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held by the Shorewood Planning Commission on 21 August 1990, for which notice was duly published and all adjacent property owners duly notified; and WHEREAS , the matter was considered by the City Council at its regular meeting of 27 August 1990, at which time the Planning Commission recommendations were reviewed, reports were received from the City Staff and comments were heard from various members of the audience; and WHEREAS, after due discussion and deliberation and after consideration of the reports, comments, and recommendations of the City staff, the Planning Commission, and members of the audience, the City Council voted to accept cetain revisions to the Development Stage Plan and Preliminary Plat for Waterford 3rd Phase, and directed the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact in accordance therewith, to be presented at the next meeting . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council bf the City of Shorewood as follows: Exhibit A FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the Council has previously determined that the free-standing gas station originally requested by the Developer was not compatible with the neighborhood commercial development and would have to be replaced with "another commercial activity acceptable to the City. 2. That the Developer now proposes a convenience grocery store as such other commercial activity, with gas pumps as an accessory facility to the convenience grocery store. 3, That the proposed convenience grocery store, incorporated into the west end of the retail center, is compatible with the neighborhood commercial development and is an activity acceptable to the City. 4. That the accessory gas pump facility, covered by a canopy attached to the retail center with a continuous roof line, serves as an integrated unit with the grocery store and constitutes an additional convenience to the neighborhood retail center. 5. That two existing restaurants in the immediate area will be displaced as the result of a new intersection to be constructed at Vine Hill Road and Trunk Highway No. 7 within the near future. 6 . That the proposed family restaurant will serve a need in the community and provide an additional convenience to the neighborhood retail center. CONCLUSIONS That the Developer`s request for a revised Development Stage Plan for the PUD to include a convenience grocery store with gas pumps and a family restaurant, and the revised preliminary plat submitted therewith, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions and restrictions: 1. A detailed signage plan shall be submitted by the Developer for approval by the City. Said plan shall set forth specifications for ~, types of signage including wall, pylon and temporary signs, and the , requirements of said plan shall be incorporated into any lease agreements for the property. In no event shall pylons exceed the height of the individual buildings or a height of 20 feet, whichever is less. 2. All exterior sales and display racks, equipment, and appliances shall be prohibited, including soft-drink vending machines and ice machines. 3. The hours of operation of the convenience grocery store and gas facility shall be limited to between 6 :00 a. m. and 12:00 midnight. The hours of operation of the family restaurant shall be limited to between 7:00 a. m. and 11:00 p. m. 4. The family restaurant shall not be eligible to apply for any type of liquor license. 5. All site lighting shall be consistent with the Waterford Design Framework Manual, August 1984. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, lighting shall be tested for compliance. (, Lighting for the gas operation shall be reduced to one island after 10:00 p. m. -7 . The developer shall submit a detailed landscape plan, incorporating earth berms adjoining the service road and large trees along the north perimeter of the site. At least two, five-inch caliper trees shall be required at each of the two westerly entrances to the retail center. All other canopy trees along the retail center shall be a required minimum of three-inch caliper trees. 8, The fuel storage tank for the gas facility shall be of double-wall, fiberglass construction and will conform to State and Federal guidelines . 9. The final plans for parking lot grading and drainage shall be submitted by the Developer for approval by the City Engineer. 10, The two-family residential side yard setbacks for lots abutting streets shall be the same as the front yard setback requirement. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHORE OOD this 10th day of September, 1990. ( /^ 3a 'Haugen, Ma A .TEST ,, (,fir;,: vLC,~ ,~-~ Laurence E . Whittaker City Administrator/Clerk Roll Call Vote: Ayes -Haugen, Gagne, Stover, Watten Nays - Brancel ~' 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ®(952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator, Director of Public Works FROM: James Landini, City Engineer - ~, DATE: April 10, 2008 RE: Authorize the Expenditure of Funds for purchase of rain barrels The City of Shorewood received a Grant from Cynthia Krieg Watershed Stewardship Fund to host seminars on Low hnpact Landscaping and Yardcare workshops. The grant application stated we would offer rain barrels for sale at the workshops and at least 30 rain barrels would be financially subsidized by the grant. To receive the best price, staff partnered with Hennepin County to bid the purchase of rain ban els in quantity. Hennepin County opened bids on April 8, 2008 and will forward the contract to Shorewood when it is available. In 2007 Hennepin County purchased rain barrels for $58.50 each and distributed them to residents at a subsidized cost of $55.00 each (retail price was $116.00). Hennepin County sold out in 2007 and currently has a waiting list of over 50 residents to purchase rain barrels in 2008. Staff seeks authorization to order 75 rain barrels at an estimated cost of $60 each, for a total of $4,500.00. Staff would distribute the rain barrels at cost to the residents. At least 30 of the rain barrels would be sold at a lower subsidized cost, with funding from the Grant, to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District residents that attend the workshops. The Stormwater Fund will be refunded as the distribution of the rain barrels progresses. As this purchase is not in the 2008 budget, the Stormwater Fund will be reimbursed as the rain barrels are distributed. As of Apri19, 2008, 30 rain barrels have been reserved for the two workshops. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the expenditure of funds from the Stormwater Budget for the purchase of 75 rain barrels with the fund to be reimbursed as rain barrels are distributed. ®m ~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~~ Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887 Te1:651-223-3000 Fax: 651-223-3002 www.springsted.com MEMORANDUM T0: Shorewood City Council FROM: Sharon Klumpp DATE: April 9, 2008 SUBJECT: City Administrator Profile A draft of the Shorewood City Administrator Profile is attached for your review. The profile provides basic information about the community, the organization, and the position. It also provides a summary of the position requirements, the desired capabilities, immediate priorities, and professional challenges and opportunities compiled from information obtained in one-on-one meetings with council members and a staff focus group meeting. I will be present at the April 14, 2008 regular council meeting to receive your comments. To expedite Monday night's review of the profile, feel free to notify me at sklumpp ,springsted.com of any suggestions or questions that you would like me to address at the meeting. Please note the following: • We are working with city staff to locate additional photos of lake scenes, neighborhoods, community events, etc. • Staff are also looking for a better map. If they can't find one, we recommend deleting the map. • The entire salary range is listed in the profile. The median salary for city administrators in similarly sized metro communities is approximately $96,000. Listing the entire range is likely to result in more applications. A recent compilation of city administrator salaries in metro communities with a population of 5,000-10,000 is attached. • ICMA (International City/County Management Association) credential manager is listed as a preferred requirement. This was specifically noted by one council member; others indicated the importance of continued professional development. This preferred requirement is intended to address ongoing professional development. • The position will be open until filled, but review of resumes starts on May 12. In addition to the profile, we have also attached the job announcement that will be posted on various web sites. ~!~" . ~ a` Public Sector Advisors Announcement (may be edited based upon various website requirements or costs) Shorewood, MN (7,500) City Administrator. Salary: $74,760-$108,216 DOQ/E. Mayor & 4-member council. $8 M budget; 21 employees. Residential community located on the south shore of Lake Minnetonka, located 20 miles west of downtown Minneapolis. Bachelor's degree in public administration, business administration, or a related field, Master's degree preferred, & 4 years of responsible public management experience, or equivalent combination of education and experience. ICMA credentialed manager desired. The ideal candidate will have strong financial and communication skills and a demonstrated ability to develop and execute work plans. Must have experience supporting council policy-making and be able to achieve results through participation in joint powers organizations. Additional position information at www.springsted.com. Send cover letter, resume, and salary history to Sharon Klumpp, Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson St., Suite 300, St. Paul, MN 55101; 651/223-3053; fax 651/223-3002 e-mail shorewoodna,springsted.com. Position open until filled. Review of resumes begins May 12, 2008. EOE. I r~ 0 0 0 o N - r~ w r~ r~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 N N N N N tS) ~ O - r~ 0 0 N r ~ r~ o ~ m r~ m r~ 0 0 0 0 co ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N c] ~~J O ~~ N N N N = M ~ ~ ti f~ d' r r- ~ f ~ ~ ~~ ~ Rf t`7 O t- c ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ l ~~l C~? t J "CV N s~ __. ~ ~ G G~ G O O ~O 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ ~. . 0 0 0 ~O s0 ~O O O ~' o ~~ O O O N O O W N O ~ O CO 0 0 0 0 0 N ~ of C7 O N O tC) ~ N d' ~ CM CO O t~ O O H ~• ti O O I~ ti O ~ ~ tC) O ~' M O ~ O N O O O ~ O M ~ ~- 01 O M Q1 O f~ O M CO O M O ~' ct M ~M O O O CO tf) Cr1 Cfl M M 00 O ~ ~' tf) M O to M in M ~ M ~ d. M LA ~7 M JO O O O _~~ ~ aO O O O ~~S ~ ~~ ~ M ~c3~ ~ d} ~ ~ ~ o ~ 0 0 0 0 p ~O ~ O m0 ~ ~ ~O ~ O ' O O ~ o u7 O O N O 00 N O d' ~9 O O O o~ c~~ N f~ ~ Cfl N d' ~ ~ Ch CO O [~ O ~ 00 O !~ to f_ I_ I~ O ~ tS~ ~. -~ O ' I~ O N ~ O ~ O " O O ~ O I~ c~ ~ CJ CO M N d' M O to d ~ ~ s~ ~ M 00 O M tf') ~ O Lf) t M C to M tf) ~ ~ N c`i ~~~ ~O d) O 190 ~ ~M O O O ~ A ~ M O O ~ , 'v 0 ~ 0 O O m0 0 0 0 0 ~~~ 0 0 X67 ~O O O ti O. O (O O O 00 O O 'ct O ~ 0 0 to O O O ~ Q 00 M CO t~ O O ' O d' CO tt) 00 G ~'~ ~ CO O O ~ N ~ tf) f~ 00 O ~- r M M CO d d" ~ O lf) N O CO N r O N o (n ~ ~ ©~O 00 d' r ~~ M lC) .- d" a0 CO M M f~ O m ~ 1 ~ - ~ O O f~ Cfl f~ f~ Cfl f~ GO :O t~ 70 i'_ f _ - Imo- I~ M 6R ~ C 'a O O tL ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ 2 c a ~ ~ ~ Q L N ~ '~ . _ U _ U ~ ~ o ~i ~ Q v~ u~ ~ ~ Y C 7 O U 0 N .f.. m N N ~ cA = N C ~ _ ~ ~ 0 m CCU cn Q 6 n 3 z T 5 ~ ~ ` p ~ O . N ~- cv F- O .: ~ flo ~ ~ ~~ 0 L 0 L 0 O 'c ~ O O O O u, a~ w i n ' ~~ ' ~ o `m n ~ ' n ' n ' m c ~ ;c c c c 3 ~ ~ c . c c c ~ ~ ~ c a ~ a Q a 4 ~ .= ~ a Q a Q ~ U U U U U U~U Q U U J U ~J cv O o O X t~ 00 ci d" cv ct o I~ ~~ O c~~ N O r O M ~ G N o~ c~ N ~M c~ O r~ tf) tf) O to M O ~ O N o0 M ti ~ O ~ ti O M ti tf) CD 01 ~ M ~ ~Il~llilivll,,. (n S lV ~' > O O 'a ~ m > O N c '~ Y d _ ~ O cn ` ° O J O U o ~ w ~ o :~ a~ ~ ~ d o O ~ o w ~ 3 m ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ cv cv •~ ~ ~ o ~ Y o ~ • Q ~ ~ o o ~ a i c U ° Q. .~ .~: .~: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z O O ~ to cn to M c~ > L d Q ~a m a~ ~-~~ The Cit of Y ~~}- ~~~ Shorewood MN ~. °~ r_, ` ~_, Announces the Recruitment for City Administrator .~ y~ ~' FY S:yy P 2 , 7 ¢ ~~ '~ 4 P 1 ..{~;4 o~ Y rr ,~a~ ~_ f --.., ... __ ~ 1 ~h ___ - .~_ - .. Recruitment Process Conducted By: Sharon Klumpp, Vice President Springsted Incorporated 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101-2887 Telephone: 651.223.3053 Fax: 651.223.3002 E-mail: shorewood(u~sprin~sted.com ~~ F ~~ ~:.: ~ :" } t a ~ The Community Situated on the shores of Lake Minnetonka, the city of Shorewood is a residential community with a population of 7,500, known for scenic lake vistas, woods, and open space. The city includes three islands-Enchanted, Shady and Spray- which due to accessibility receive fire protection services from the neighboring city of Mound. ~~_ _ . __ -- ~ `'~~, _' ,;,, ~.. . ~~ w:. ~~ ;mss ~.~ ~ ~~ 1 '~ ~~ ;s .3- ^,.r _ .~ ;: „~„_'- 4 E 1' Shorewood is part of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. Downtown Minneapolis is a 30-minute drive. Six miles long and one mile wide, Shorewood covers 5.31 square land miles, surrounding much of the neighboring City of Excelsior. Excelsior's historic downtown area provides restaurants, shopping, and a variety of entertainment and service venues frequented by residents of the South Lake Minnetonka communities. Over 90% of Shorewood is developed, with 95% of its tax base in residential use. The City has 2,636 housing units, ranging from homes built at the turn of the 20th century to new homes under construction. N IStol'y Native Americans were the first inhabitants of the area along Lake Minnetonka, which means" Big Waters" in Dakota. Vital Statistics: In 1853, a group from New York founded the town of Excelsior within an area previously known as Excelsior Township. During the late 19th century, proximity to Lake Minnetonka and nearby Christmas Lake made this area a popular tourist destination. Luxurious hotels and inns dotted the landscape, and the railroad and State Highway 7 made for convenient access. As post-World War II suburbanization reached the Lake Minnetonka area, other municipalities within the township were founded, including Tonka Bay and Deephaven. Shorewood incorporated in 1956, essentially preventing the property remaining in Excelsior Township from being split up or annexed among neighboring cities. Median resident age: 38.7 years (2000 Census) Median household income: $96,589 year (2000 Census) Median house value: $435,400 year (2005 Census) Executive/Managerial Professional Occupation: 53% (2000 Census) Bachelor's degree or higher: 59% (2000 Census) 2 City Government City Council The Shorewood City Council is composed of a mayor and four council members. The mayor is elected at large to a two-year term, and the council members are elected to four-year terms representing one of four wards, by ordinance in 2002. Elections are held in even numbered years. In 2008 the mayor and three council members will be on the ballot. Two council members will be elected to four-year terms; and one council member will be elected to fill the remaining two-years of a four-year term. The city council typically meets on the second and fourth `- - - Mondays of each month at 7 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 5755 Country Club Road. Work sessions of the council often occur before or after the regular business meeting. The city council serves as the Shorewood Economic Development Authority (EDA). It also appoints the members of the city's planning commission and its parks commission. City Administrator and Staff The council appoints the city administrator who serves at the pleasure of the council. Under the policy direction of council, the city administrator plans and directs the general administration of city services and provides effective support to the city council. The city administrator is responsible for managing a 21-member staff.. Departments reporting directly to the city administrator include Finance, Public Works, Planning and City Clerk. Public safety services are provided through joint powers agreements with neighboring communities. The city administrator manages a 2008 budget of $8.4 million for all municipal funds and also serves as the executive director of the EDA. Public Safety Services Police and fire protection services are provided through joint powers agreements with neighboring cities. Shorewood and its partnering cities have invested over $12.3 million in astate-of--the-art police and fire facility which opened in 2004. The facility is located in Shorewood. Police Services The City of Shorewood receives police services through the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD) located in Shorewood. First established in 1973, SLMPD exists through a joint powers agreement of the cities of Excelsior, Greenwood, Tonka Bay and Shorewood. SLMPD employs 14 full-time licensed police officers and 20 volunteer reserve officers serving a population of 13,000 residents. ~'~ ~ ,~ =~~,_ . ~f- >~ ~, r~~;;~1 ~ ~E14 ~. 3 Public Safety Services (Continued} Fire Services The City of Shorewood is also part of a joint powers agreement for fire protection services through the Excelsior Fire District, located in the City of Shorewood, with an additional fire station located in the City of Deephaven. The cities of Excelsior, Deephaven, Greenwood, Tonka Bay and Shorewood are part of this joint powers agreement. The Fire District employs afull-time fire chief and 45 paid on-call firefighters. Shorewood's "Islands" receive fire services through an agreement between the Cities of Shorewood and Mound. Schools Most of Shorewood is located within the Minnetonka School District, although Island residents are part of the Westonka School District. Both districts are recognized for the success of their educational programs. Minnetonka School district was recently named one of "Eight School Districts in America to Watch" by the National School Boards Association for Communication with Parents and Community. Westonka School District was identified as one of twenty-two school districts in Minnesota to be "academic outperformers" by the Standard & Poor's School Evaluation Services. There are several private schools which also serve the residents of Shorewood. Parks and Recreation The City of Shorewood prides itself on its lakes and beautiful wooded surroundings. Within the city, there are six parks offering a variety of activities. Park programs and recreational sports in the City of Shorewood are handled by Minnetonka Community Education (MCE) and a variety of athletic associations. The city is represented on the MCE Board by one resident member. The city contracts with Community Recreation Resources to manage park usage and act as the city's liaison to athletic associations. The public swim area, Crescent Beach on Lake Minnetonka, is staffed with lifeguards from approximately June to August. Popular summer activities include a skate park, volleyball, basketball, and tennis. In the winter, ice skating, hockey, cross country skiing and sledding are among the many activities enjoyed in the parks. Three Rivers Park District Three Rivers Park District, formerly Hennepin Parks, is a natural resources-based park system located in the suburban Minneapolis metropolitan area that manages more than 27,000 acres of park reserves, regional parks, regional trails and special use facilities. The Park District offers year-round facilities including: three nature centers, four golf courses, a downhill ski area, extensive trails for hiking, biking, horseback riding and cross-country skiing; and areas for camping, swimming, boating, picnicking, ice-skating, and snowshoeing. 4 Position requirements Bachelor's degree in public or business administration or related field, Master's degree preferred, and four years of experience in a responsible public management position, or equivalent combination of education and experience. ICMA credentialed manager desired. The ideal candidate will have strong financial and communication skills and a demonstrated ability to develop and execute work plans. Must have experience supporting council policy-making and be able to achieve results through participation in joint powers organizations. Desired capabilities Conservative financial manager Operates in a fiscally responsible manner; ensures financial accountability by monitoring and reporting on actual to budget performance Skilled leader Comfortable working with people who hold divergent views and understanding competing points of view; challenges the status quo and helps policy makers find common ground by creating opportunities for compromise Trusted advisor Works effectively with council members, understanding what's important to each member and presenting options which address their collective interests; willing to present recommendations that may be unpopular Invigorating team leader Builds a proactive work environment and generates positive energy; challenges staff to find new ideas to respond to council policy direction Open communicator Approachable, accessible to council members and staff; provides timely information, reports and briefings to the council Customer orientation Demonstrates excellent customer service skills and establishes customer service expectations Focused on operations Develops a solid work plan with clearly defined expectations; effectively delegates work and holds staff accountable; provides frequent updates and delivers on commitments Joint powers experience Has experience working collaboratively with other organizations and can distinguish when to cooperate with others and when to advocate for the city Immediate Focus The city administrator's initial responsibilities will include oversight of the city hall remodeling project and establishing effective working relationships with city council members and staff. The administrator will also spend time getting to know city employees, observing municipal operations, and assessing the city's operational strengths and areas for improvement. As part of this review, the city administrator will be expected to refine the process for establishing staff work goals and conducting performance reviews. Other activities in which the city administrator will be involved are completion of a comprehensive plan update, addressing senior center funding issues and, assisting in the development of the 2009 budget. Because public safety services are provided through joint powers organizations, the administrator will be expected to build good working relationships with the administrators of neighboring cities. 5 Professional Challenges and Opportunities Clarifying roles, relationships and expectations Engage the city council and staff in establishing a shared direction for the city and clarifying roles and expectations, including the city administrator's working relationship with joint powers organizations which serve the City of Shorewood Infrastructure maintenance and replacement Assist the city council in developing long-range policies for infrastructure maintenance and replacement projects and related financing policies Extension of water service Research and develop policy options to guide the extension and financing of water service. Financing parks Review the process for programming and funding park improvements and recommend new policies as appropriate. Financing city services Analyze the cost of providing municipal services in a financial environment with flat market value growth and provide options for council consideration Environment Address drainage and storm water management issues and identify options for financing services Electronic Services Determine the options and costs of increasing city information and municipal services available electronically Compensation and Benefits Salary range from $74,760 to $108,216 commensurate with qualifications and experience. Competitive benefit package includes medical, basic life, short-term disability, long-term disability, and dental insurance; paid vacation and sick leave; holidays; attendance at annual conferences and other professional development programs; and participation in the Public Employees Retirement Association or an approved alternate plan. An optional Health Savings Account is available to employees. Medical insurance also includes reduced fees for approved fitness clubs. Relocation allowance negotiable. How to Apply To apply for this position, send a cover letter, resume, salary history and work-related references to Sharon Klumpp, Vice President, Springsted Incorporated, 380 Jackson Street, Suite 300, Saint Paul, MN 55101-2887, phone 651-223-3053, fax 651-223-3002 or email shorewood(a~sbringsted.com. Position open until filled. Review of applications will start on May 12, 2008. 6 MEMORANDUM 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator DATE: April 10, 2008 RE: Presentation and Request for Funding for Treatment for Eurasia Water Milfoil Mr. Richard Glidewell, the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) Development Director, will be present at the Monday night City Council- meeting to present a proposal and request for funding for treatment of Eurasia Watermilfoil within Carman, Grays and Phelps Bays on Lake Minnetonka for 2008. This proposal has been prepared in cooperation with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Attachments to this memorandum that outline the proposals and request are as follows: - Attachment 1: Letter of Request for funding and updates - Attachment 2: Lake Vegetation Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka -Carman, Grays & Phelps Bays - Attachment 3: Position Statement -Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Control - Attachment 4: LMA Newsletter, dated Winter, 2008 discussing Milfoil Control In Lake Minnetonka - Attachment 5: Location Map Carman and Phelps Bay - Attachment 6: Location Map Grays Bay As stated in Mr. Osgood's memorandum within the proposal, CITY nF ~ SHOREWOOD "The proposed treatments are prescribed in a Lake Vegetation Management Plan that has been prepared jointly by the two organizations and approved by the MN DNR. The proposed treatments would occur in late-April or early-May and are designed to provide bay-wide control of Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed (another exotic plant), but protect native plants. " i a. ~s p0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Mayor and City Council Request for Funding Eurasia Watermilfoil Treatment April 9, 2008 Page2of2 The proposal indicates the budget, and makes a request for funding as excerpted below: °Budget The budget for the proposed treatments in 2008 is: Caymans Bay Grays Bay Phelps Bay $43,000 $60,500 $56,700 The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has approved funding of $10, 000 per bay from their Save-the-Lake fund. In addition, the MN DNR has approved a grant to the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION for $8, 300 to $1 S, 000 per bay, depending on the number of bays receiving the treatments. With thesefigures subtracted, the remaining funds will be paid from lakeshore owners in the respective bays. Recent City Actions The City of Mound has recently committed $12, 000 toward the Phelps Bay treatment, contingent on the Cities of Minnetrista and Shorewood also committing a total of $12, 000. " Action This is a new request that has not been budgeted as part of the 2008 operating budget or Capital Improvement Funds for the City of Shorewood. Therefore, if the City Council desires to support this program, it is recommended that funds be utilized form the City's General Fund balance. .. `'~, s ~~~t ~ ~- .~ ASS®CIATIQN Memorandum to Cities -Three Bay Milfoil Treatments 2008 April 1, 2008 The L~IiE MINNETONI~1 ASSOCL~TION and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District are proposing to treat three bays (Caymans, Grays and Phelps) on Lake Minnetonka in 2008 to control Eurasian watermilfoil. The proposed treatments are prescribed in a Lake Vegetation Management Plan that has been prepared jointly by the two organizations and approved by the MN DNR. The proposed treatments would occur in late-April oy early-May and are designed to provide bay-wide control of Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed (another exotic plant), but protect native plants. Details of the proposed treatments and the Lake Vegetation Management Plan are available on our web site (www.Li~~L~~ssociation.c>r~r). The proposed treatments are designed to be restorative, meaning they will target milfoil for control while allowing native plants to recover. The proposed treatments in 2008 represent the first year of a five year plan. Due to a number of factors, including timing, we have initiated fundraising for the first year only and will address long-term fundraising early this year. The LAKE MINNETONI~~ ASSOCIr1TION is coordinating the fundraising and management of the proposed treatments. Several cities adjacent to the respective bays have either committed funds or have agreed to entertain a request to commit funding for 2008. This memo provides background for our funding requests. Budget The budget for the proposed treatments in 2008 is: Caymans Bav Grays Bay Phelps Bay $43,000 $60,500 $56,700 The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District has approved funding of $10,000 per bay from their Save- the-Lake fund. In addition, the MN DNR has approved a grant to the Lt1KE MINNETONK~1 ASSOCI~ITION for $8,300 to $15,000 per bay, depending on the number of bays receiving the treatments. With these figures subtracted, the remaining funds will be paid from Lakeshore owners in the respective bays. Recent City Actions The City of Mound has recently committed $12,000 toward the Phelps Bay treatment, contingent on the Cities of Minnetrista and Shorewood also coininitting a total of $12,000. Attachment #1 [.AKE MINNETC7NKA ASSOCIATIQN ~ P. Q. I~ox ~4t3, E~~e~Gior; MN '~~~_~"( 4 t9~?) !+iO-44=+9 ;` ~ -. ~~~~ ~ ~, ASSOCIATIGN Memorandum to Cities -Three Bay Milfoil Treatments 2008 April 1, 2008 We will be meeting with other cities (Minnetrista and Shorewood with respect to Phelps Bay), plus Orono and perhaps other as yet unscheduled cities adjacent to the other two bays to request funding and consent to treat municipally-owned lakeshores. Status of Lakeshore Owner Fundraising and Commitments At this point, our largest impediment is related to the season -many Lakeshore residents are away, so contact them has been a challenge. Despite that, I am pleased to report that our bay coordinators have worked very hard and have secured consent to treat the lakeshores of practically every Lakeshore owner they have successfully contacted -there are only one or two exceptions per bay. We have also received significant funding commitments - in excess of $20,000 in each bay. The LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION is proud of this response by our members who have stepped up. This demonstrates that Lakeshore owners are committed to protecting Lake Minnetonka for its long-term health. We believe we have a responsibility to contribute to the betterment of this public resource. We also believe that public, as represented by the Cities surrounding the lake, shares this responsibility In 2008, depending on the Cities' contributions, the Lakeshore owners have made commitments to funding the majority of these treatments - up to 80% of the total costs! Long-Term Plan /Long-Term Funding The proposed treatment plan is a five year plan. We expect that the treatment costs will decrease throughout this five year plan to a level of 20 to 25% of the first year costs. The reason for this is the treatments axe designed to control milfoil for multiple seasons and also allow native plants to recover. Following the initial treatments, follow up "spot" treatments will be enough to keep milfoil in check. Due to the decrease in project costs, we believe a funding formula, which should include both public and private funds, will be more sustainable. Indeed, we have developed a framework where the treatments could (and should) be expanded to other bays and replace the harvesting program (see the LMA Position on Milfoil Management on our web site) within the present budget. The LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION will be working with the LMCD, the Cities and our members during 2008 to develop along-term funding strategy to assure this program can be sustained. We sincerely believe this approach represents new thinking that is a sustainable, win-win solution for managing milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 I'. O. Ijox?~+f?, E~cc~~ior, MN 4ti~°~"( 4 ()5?) /+i0-~-~+49 t _~, ~ -~ ~ , ;. ~,.-->_. K ' If.i { { ASS®CIATIUN Memorandum to Cities -Three Bay Milfoil Treatments 2008 April 1, 2008 Questions & Concerns A number of questions and concerns have been raised. We will address these here. This is a five-year program, but this will not end after five years. True. The management plan will be re-evaluated after five years. We expect ongoing maintenance will be required at a level about 20 - 25% of the first year level. This, we believe, is sustainable. Compare this with the harvesting program which does not decrease the need year after year. This is experimental. False. The proposed treatments follow the demonstration project in 2006, which demonstrated a reduction in milfoil of greater than 95% and a growth of native plants. As well, these treatments are very common in other states and have been conducted for over 20 years. For example, the state of Michigan has permitted lake-wide selective herbicide treatments to over 300 lakes since 1989. • There are concerns with the use of chemicals. The chemical herbicides that will be used are safe and effective. The herbicides are tested and registered by the US EPA and permitted by the MN DNR. The standard at the US EPA is there must be less than a one in a million chance that the use of these products at maximum rates will harm fish, wildlife or aquatic organisms. The proposed rates in Lake Minnetonka are less than the maximum allowed. The herbicides break down into harmless byproducts. In fact, these herbicides are the only management tool available that will allow native plants to be restored in Lake Minnetonka. OK, if this is expanded, how can eve possibly afford to treat the entire lake? We believe these treatments should be expanded. Indeed, the Lake Vegetation Management Plan provides for expanding into other bays. However, this will not include the entire lake for the simple reason that milfoil does not grow everywhere. For example, milfoil is not a problem in Halsteds Bay or North Arm Bay (as well as other areas). Based on our analysis, we can afford to increase the total area treated compared to the harvesting program (see the LMA Position on Milfoil Management on our web site) -harvesting cuts 323 acres (2007) and this could be increased five-fold using herbicides within the same budget. Additional questions or comments maybe directed to Dick Osgood, Executive Director of the LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIr1TION (952-470-4449 or Osgnod(<L'LNIAssociation.org). LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 P. O. Box ~~-t3, E~~e~sior; ?~'IN ~`~~3'{ 0 X75?? ~~i0-~+-~=+`7 LVYiP - l~linnetonka (Caimans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 29, 2008 Lake Vegetation Management Plan: Lake Minnetonka -Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays February 29, 2008 l r ' ~` 1 _ ~ ._ C ' `.~.~ a H ~ . - i~.t. E -_ .i 3 ~' y- ~ ~; W ra n y~ fi Attachment #2 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1 LVMP -Minnetonka (Carmans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 29, 2008 INTRODUCTION The Lake Minnetonka Association and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District have cooperated to prepare this plan in response to ongoing concerns with nuisance plants in Lake Minnetonka, especially Eurasian watermilfoil. As well, the two organizations cooperated in a Eurasian watermilfoil demonstration project in 2006 that included three bays -Carmans, Grays and Phelps. This Lake Vegetation Management Plan, or LVMP, follows the template provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The LVMP was coordinated and developed by a project team and technical committee, listed below. In addition, numerous opportunities for public input were provided (see Section 3). The ongoing implementation of this plan will be overseen by the same Project Team and Technical Committee. Project Tearn Lake Minnetonka Association -Dick Osgood, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District -Greg Nybeck, Executive Director Project Members/Advisors (Technical Committee) Minnesota Department of Natural Resources -Chip Welling, Neil Vanderbosch US Army Corps of Engineers -John Skogerboe Three Rivers Parks -John Barten Hennepin County Environmental Services -Tony Brough University of Minnesota -Ray Newman Rep. Jim Ramstad's Office -Lance Olson Lake Minnetonka Association -Richard Glidewell Lake Minnetonka Conservation District -Tom Tanner, Herb Suerth LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2 LV>vIP -Minnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 29, 2008 LAKE VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Description of the Lake and Water Quality A. Lake name: Minnetonka -Caymans, Grays and Phelps Bays B. Lake identification number (DOW Number): 27-0133 C. County: Hennepin D. Acreage: The acreages below are taken from the MN DNR's LakeFinder. Acres' Inventoried Acrea~e2 Treated Acres' Caymans 403 (182) 172 95 Grays 175 (127) 160 160 Phelps 373 (272) 208 150 Entire Lake 14,004 1. Acreage (littoral acreage) from MN DNR Department of Waters 2. Acreage inventoried as part of this plan (see section 2 below) 3. Acreage within the each bay that is proposed to be treated in 2008 (see also section 6 below) Type of estimate: Dept. of Waters _Y_ or Planimetered (preferred): _ E. Acreage littoral: See above. F. Percentage littoral: See above. G. Classification of lake: _ Natural Environment Recreational Development X_ General Development H. Water Quality All water quality data are from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2006 (field year) water quality report. i. Clarity as indicated by Secchi disk observations in meters or feet (specify): For most recent year (Caymans), Mean value: 2.3 meters Range: seasonal average No. observations: 11 LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 3 LVi~IP -Minnetonka (Caimans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 2J, 2008 Trends: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Caimans Bay are lacking. For most recent year (Grays), Mean value: 3.1 meters Range: seasonal average No. observations: 12 Trends: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Grays Bay are lacking. For most recent year (Phelps), Mean value: 2.3 meters Range: seasonal average No. observations: 11 Trends: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Phelps Bay mirror this improvement. ii. If available, concentration of total phosphorus (parts per billion or ppb): For most recent year (Caymans), Mean value: 25 ppb Range: seasonal average No. observations: 11 Trends: There has been a general unprovement in water quality in I ake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Caymans Bay are lacking. For most recent year (Grays), Mean value: 35 ppb Range: seasonal average No. observations: 12 Trends: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Grays Bay are lacking. For most recent year (Phelps), Mean value: 30 ppb Range: seasonal average No. observations: 11 Trends:: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Phelps Bay mirror this improvement. LAKE MINNETONI{A ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 4 LVMP -Minnetonka (Caimans, Gxays & Phelps Bays) Fehxuaxy 29, 2008 iii. If available, concentration of chlorophyll-a (parts per billion or ppb): For most recent year (Caymans), Mean value: 6 ppb Range: seasonal average No. observations: 11 Trends: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Caimans Bay are lacking. For most recent year (Grays), Mean value: 4 ppb Range: seasonal average No. observations: 12 Trends:: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Grays Bay are lacking. For most recent year (Phelps), Mean value: 7 ppb Range: seasonal average No. observations: 11 Trends:: There has been a general improvement in water quality in Lake Minnetonka over the past 30-40 years, long-term data for Phelps Bay mirror this improvement. 2. Aquatic Vegetation All required aquatic vegetation data and analyses are contained in the supplemental report: Lake Minnetonka Invasive Aquatic Plant Management Demonstration Project -Draft Interirn Report, John G. Skogerboe, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, Spring Valley, WI 54767, 8 October 2007. 3. Public Participation A. Number of resident on the lake to which notice of intent was sent. See Appendix A. B. Number of meetings held to develop plan and number of attendees at each meeting: 13 July 2007 LMCD Exotic Task Force (LVMP Technical Committee) 5 September 2007 Stakeholder Meeting #1 -Problem Identification 26 September 2007 Stakeholder Meeting #2 -Goals and Objectives 12 October 2007 LMCD Exotic Task Force (LVMP Technical Committee) 24 October 2007 Stakeholder Meeting #3 -Management Alternatives LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 5 L~Ti~iP - tl~iinnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 29, 2008 30 November, 2007 LMCD Exotic Task Force (LVNIP Technical Committee) 12 December, 2007 LMCD Exotic Task Force (LVNIP Technical Committee) 3 January 2008 Stakeholder Meeting #4 -Management Actions and Financing 8 February 2008 LMCD Exotic Task Force (LVMP Technical Committee) C. Other means by which people were involved in development of the plan: Stakeholder Survey (Appendix A). 4. Problems to Be Addressed in this Plan Based on the results of the stakeholders meetings and the stakeholders' survey (Appendix A), the problems to be addressed in this plan are: • Eurasian watermilfoil is the most problematic plant in the three bays because it interferes with most recreational activities, creates a shoreland cleanup and maintenance chore and probably duni.nishes ecological health. Other invasive species, particularly curlyleaf pondweed, should be controlled as well. • Native submersed plants also interfere with recreational use and riparian access in some areas; but it is recognized that some kind of rooted submersed plants will ahvays be present, so control of native plants should be balanced with their protection. • Water lilies are sometimes problematic, although there is an appreciation that water lilies provide valuable habitat. • The overall plant management is poorly coordinated. 5. Goals and Objectives for the Management of Aquatic Plants Goal A. Eurasian watermilfoil and other invasive plants, such as curlyleaf pondweed, will be controlled throughout the respective bays in a manner that is safe and effective to reduce interference with recreational activities, reduce lakeshore cleanup and improve ecological health. Objective A-1. Eurasian watermilfoil (EWM) will be controlled to levels of 20% occurrence (littoral zone) during the year of treatment (year 1) and maintained to frequencies below 20% in subsequent years (years 2-5). curlyleaf pondweed (CLP) levels will be evaluated in the early season of year 2, then controlled to levels of 20% occurrence (littoral zone) during the year of treatment (year 1) and maintained to frequencies below 20% in subsequent years (years 2-5). A metric relating to the density or matting coverage of EWM will be developed during year 1 and EWM will be controlled to less than that benchmark in years 2-5. Objective A-2. The water clarity in the bays will not be diminished as a result of treatments. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 6 LV~~IP -Minnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 29, ?008 Objective A-3. An annual assessment of user perceptions with respect to the treatments' impacts on reducing interference with recreational activities and a reduction in Lakeshore cleanup chores will be conducted to provide an additional objective basis for evaluating treatment effects. Goal B. Native submersed plants should be protected, except in localized areas where they pose a nuisance (see Goal C) although control will be allowed in localized areas where native plants inhibit access to open water or prohibit recreation (see Goal C). Objective B-1. The overall diversity of native submersed plants, as measured by the mean number of native species per point (littoral zone), will be maintained or allowed to increase. The biomass of native submersed species will be measured from 35 random sites (per bay) in year 1, and that will be used as a benchmark such that native submersed plant biomass will be maintained at or above that level in years 2-5. Goal C. Provide limited individual nuisance or access control when bay-wide selective control applications are performed. Objective C-1. Any subsequent chemical treatments within the same season shall be subject to inspection and shall be granted no more than 50 shoreline feet, or half their lake frontage whichever is less, by 50 feet lakeward plus a 15 foot channel to open water. Offshore treatment of native submersed plants shall not be permitted. Should native submersed plants rebound to a large extent causing recreational nuisances, this limitation will be revisited. These treatments for submersed plants other than curly-leaf pond~veed or Eurasian water milfoil shall require a separate permit and shall require annual signatures for such treatment. No permit fee will be assessed to those already having paid a permit fee for early season control of non-native submersed plants. Goal D. This plan will be considered as a framework for possible expansion in the future to other bays in Lake Minnetonka. Objective D-1. This LUMP will be expanded to other bays in Lake Minnetonka, depending on a number of factors, including, but not limited to a) the outcomes of the control and protection actions in the three bays (this plan), b) interest or demand from other bays, c) a significant change in the EWM or CLP situation elsewhere in Lake Minnetonka and d) availability of financial resources. 6. Actions to Achieve those Goals Management actions are keyed to the management goals and objectives. Action A-1. Selective herbicides will be used in the three bays to control EWM and CLP. There are five herbicides (diquat, endothall/Aquathol K, fluridone, 2,4-D, and triclopyr) that can be used to control EWM and three herbicides (diquat, endothall/Aquathol h, and fluridone) that can be used to control CLP. In addition, treatment regimes can be fine-tuned using combinations of herbicides such as endothall +2,4-D and endothall + triclopyr. Most of the listed herbicides have both liquid and granular formulations. Granular formulations can extend exposure tunes in target areas but also increase cost per unit area. Selection of the herbicide is based on target species, expected herbicide exposure times, native species present in the target area, and herbicide use restrictions. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 7 LVNLP -Minnetonka (Caimans, Grays & Phelps Bays) I+ebxuaxy 2), 2008 The management objective is to control both EWM and CLP which dictates that either diquat, endothall, or fluridone will be required. Based on expected exposure times and native plant considerations, endothall applied as Aquathol K at 1 mg/L active ingredient (ai) for control of curly- leaf pondweed in early spring (April to early May) for maximum selectivity is recommended. Higher rates of endothall (1.5 to 2 mg/L ai) could be used to also control EWM, but this rate could also negatively impact coontail which is a major constituent of the native plant community which could also negatively impact water clarity. Research has shown that endothall can be combined with low rates of 2,4-D or triclopyr to control both target species with a very high degree of selectivity if applied in early spring. The initial application (year 1) should be endothall (Aquathol K, 1 mg/L ai) + 2,4-D (liquid amine formulation, 0.5 mg/L ai). However, current label restriction on 2,4-D make this formulation very difficult to use in NLinnesota. 2,4-D has recently gone through re-registration at the US EPA, and a new label is expect by 2009, which should make it's use much easier. The granular ester 2,4-D formulation could be used in place of the liquid amine formulation, but the desired application rate is unclear at this time and it is more expensive. Triclopyr is similar to 2,4-D, but does not have the same label restrictions currently imposed on liquid amine, 2,4-D. Triclopyr is also more expensive; however, when it is used at low rates in combination with endothall, the cost is manageable. Endothall (1 mg/L ai) +triclopyr (0.25 to 0.5 mg/L ai) is recommended to be used for the initial application in 2008 (Year 1). The lower rate of triclopyr can be used for large block treatments and the higher rate in small or narrow areas where exposure times maybe limited. The maximum allowed application rates for these herbicides are 5 mg/L ai for endothall, 4 mg/L ai for 2,4-D, and 2.5 mg/L ai for triclopyr. Year 1 (2008) Recommended Treatment Aquathol K (1 ppm) Renovate (0.25 ppm) Subsequent herbicide application recommendations (2009 and beyond) will depend on the results of the initial application and changes in herbicide labels. It is anticipated the number of acres requiring treatment will diminish (as noted below) over the five-year project. Years 1-5 (2008-2012) Anticipated Treatments Caymans Grays Phel s 2008 95 acres 160 acres 150 acres 2009 95 acres 160 acres 150 acres 2010 95 acres 160 acres 150 acres 2011 32 acres 53 acres 50 acres 2012 20 acres 32 acres 32 acres Based on the results of plant density and matting (see monitoring below), metrics for EWM will be developed by the Technical Committee. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT g LVMP -Minnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) Action A-2. No specific action. February 2), 2008 It is anticipated the proposed treatments will not result in diminished water clarity. This presumption will be monitored (see monitoring below) and evaluated throughout the project. Action A-3. The Project Tearn will conduct an annual assessment of user perceptions and the Technical Committee will review the results. This action will provide an annual "smell test" to assure lake users' expectations are realistic. Action B-1. No specific action. Objective B-1 is satisfied through action A-1 and will be evaluated following the annual monitoring (see below). Action C-1. Lakeshore treatments implemented by individual Lakeshore owners. Individual Lakeshore owners will initiate treatments as they choose and the DNR will issue permits in accordance with this LVMP. Action D-1. The Lake Minnetonka Association, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District or others may initiate further planning depending on the factors listed in Objective D-1. Through the normal management, monitoring and evaluation activities, this LVMP may be amended to allow for comprehensive plant management in other bays of Lake Minnetonka. 7. Conditions of Operations and Permits MN DNR staff will coordinate approval of any required variances in accordance with this plan (see Draft Variance Letter, attached). S. Responsibilities A. Individual Landowners: Individual Lakeshore owners on the respective bays will be responsible for submitting financial contributions to the Lake Minnetonka Association each year. In addition, individual Lakeshore owners choosing to conduct nuisance plant control activities adjacent to their Lakeshore will abide by MN DNR permit requirements (see Objective C-1) and this plan and will be responsible for paying for those treatments or treatment services. B. Lake Association: The Lake Minnetonka Association will coordinate the treatments within the three bays, collect funds from Lakeshore owners and perform other tasks and activities as specified in this plan. The Lake Minnetonka Association will share adlnir~istrative responsibilities with the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. The LMA and LMCD will operate under a letter of agreement between the two organizations. C. Local Units of Government: The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will share administrative responsibilities with the Lake Minnetonka Association and perform other tasks and activities in LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 9 LVMP -Minnetonka (Caimans, Grays & Phelps Bays) February 2), ?008 accordance with this plan. The LNIA and LMCD will operate under a letter of agreement between the two organizations. D. Department of Natural Resources: The MN DNR will perform task and services in accordance with this plan. E. Other Governmental Agencies: Other governmental agencies will perform tasks and services in accordance with this plan. 9. Monitoring Monitoring Required? X_ YES (See attached document -Monitoring Requirements) NO 10. Duration and Review of the LVMP The duration of this plan is five years. Review will occur as specified elsewhere in this plan. 11. Preparation, Approval, and Distribution of the LVMP: A. Preparation of the LVMP was based on results of a survey of the aquatic vegetation done by: John G. Skogerboe US Army Engineer Research and Development Center [Name -print] [Organization] B. The LVMP document was prepared by: Dick Osgood* Lake Minnetonka Association [Name -print] [Organization] *With assistance and oversight by the Greg Nybeck (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) and the Technical Committee. C. Signatures of Approval: [Signature] [Signature] D. Signatures of Agreement MN DNR Regional Fisheries Manager or designee [Date] MN DNR Other: [Date] LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1 LViVIP -Minnetonka (Caimans, Grays & Phelps Bays) [Signature] [Organization] [Signature] E. Distribution of Approved LUMP i. Division of Ecological Services: ii. Section of Wildlife: iii. Division of Trails and Waterways: iv. Other: [Organization] February 2), 2008 [Date] [Date] LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1 1 LV1~1P -Minnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) 1~eUruary 2), ?008 ATTACHMENTS & SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 12 Monitoring (Kequired) a. Aquatic Vegetation Aquatic vegetation will be inventoried by the US Army Corps of Engineers staff using the same methods as in this plan. In addition, vegetation density and matting will be measured in accordance with this plan's objectives and metric will be developed by the Technical Committee. b. User Perception The Lake Minnetonka Association will develop a user perception survey to be used during each year of treatment in accordance with Objective A-3. The Technical Committee will review the survey. The Lake Minnetonka .Association will mail the survey to the residents of each bay, compile the results and prepare a sulZ~rnary for use by the Technical Committee. c. Water Clarity Water clarity in the three bays will be measured bi-weekly from May through September using a Secchi disk. These data will be compared to three reference bays (Carmens/Upper Lake East, Grays/Wayzata, Phelps/Spring Park) in accordance with Objective A-2. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 12 LVI~IP - vTinnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) hebruary 2), 2008 DRAFT VARIANCE LETTER Date Permittee Dear Permittee: This letter constitutes a variance from the following sections of Minnesota Rule 6280 for portions of Cayman's, Gray's, and Phelp's Bays on Lake Minnetonka (27-133) . • Chapter 6280.0350, Subp. 4, A. This variance allows control of curly leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil with an aquatic labeled herbicide in an area greater than 15% of the littoral area and along more than 100 feet of shoreline per sit belonging to an individual property owner. • Chapter 6280.0350, Subp. 4, B. This variance allows for signtures to be valid for up to five years or until there is a change of ownership whichever occurs first. Chapter 6280.0250, Subp. 2, A. (2). This variance allows application of aquatic labeled herbicide to control curly leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil in areas that do not interfere with watercraft use, swimming, or other traditional recreational uses. Conditions of this variance are as follows: • Residents on Lake Minnetonka - Cayman's, Gray's, and Phelp's Bays will receive a variance to the 15% maximum chemical treatment limit of the littoral zone as well as a variance to the 100-foot maximum shoreline per property treatment. Residents on these bays will be allowed to treat their entire shoreline. Any subsequent chemical treatments within the same season shall be subject to inspection and shall be granted no more than 50 shoreline fee, or half their lake frontage whichever is less, by 50 feet lakeward plus a fifteen foot channel to open water. Offshore treatment of native vegetation shall not be permitted. Should native submersed macrophytes rebound to a large extent causing recreational nuisances, this lunitation will be revisited. These treatments for submerged aquatic macrophytes other than curly leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil, shall require a separate permit and shall require annual signatures for treatment. No permit application fee will be assessed to those already having paid a permit application fee for treatment associated with the early season treatment of curly leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil. An Aquatic Plant Management permit will need to be applied for annually. Signatures for near shore (within 150 feet from shore) treatment will be valid for 5 years or until change in ownership whichever occurs first. A map showing size and location of treatment area must be included with permit application. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 13 LV'~IP -Minnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) Febxuaxy 29, 2008 Monitoring data and plant survey results shall be submitted to the MN DNR's Aquatic Plant Management (APM) office in Saint Paul before the end of that treatment year. Results must be compiled and submitted in a manner that is readily reviewable by APM staff. This data must be received before a permit will be issued for the following season. Justification for a variance to MN Rule 6250 is based on the goals and objectives spelled out in an approved Lake Vegetation Management Plan. The goals and objectives of this approved plan included, but is not limited to, a reduction in the occurrence and biomass of curly leaf pondweed and Eurasian water milfoil, thereby reducing pesticide use, and enhance the native aquatic plant community for the benefit of fish and wildlife. Please follow the conditions of the variances, LVNIP, and your permits carefully. If you have any questions regarding these conditions please contact Neil Vanderbosch, Aquatic Plant Management Specialist in Saint Paul at 651-259-5816. Thank you for your cooperation. Plan Duration and Review It may be necessary to make minor adjustments to this plan in any one year. This may be done by mutual agreement. This plan will be in effect through 1 January 2013. At that time, all parties agree to review the plan and its effectiveness in reaching its goals. Adjustments to the plan based on this review can be made at that time and the plan renewed by mutual agreement. Sincerely, Steve Hirsch, Acting Director Ron Payer, Director Division of Ecological Services Division of Fisheries LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 14 LVMP - ~~finnetonka (Carmans, Grays & Phelps Bays) 1~eUruary 2), 2008 APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS This survey was sent to 755 in August 2007. The surveys were sent to various stakeholder groups: Stakeholder Grouti LMCD Member Cities Multiple Dock Facilities on Carmans, Grays, & Phelps Bays Minnetonka Municipal Docks Wayzata Bay Management Tonka Bay Marina EWM/Exotics Task Force Members Carmans, Grays, & Phelps Bay Residents 2007 Special Event Permit Holders In addition, the survey form was available on the LMCD's web site 14 5 29 73 251 10 352 21 The results from 101 respondents are summarized here. Several additional surveys were received following the tally of these results, but upon cursory review, the responses were substantially consistent with those reported here. The actual number of responses is indicated. The questions were open-ended (unless noted), so the answer categories represent a summary of the responses provided. Lake Minnetonka Stakeholder Survey 2007 Lake Vegetation Management Plan Eurasian watermilfoil has been in Lake Minnetonka for 20 years and has become a widespread problem. Curlyleaf pondweed, another exotic plant, is also in Lake Minnetonka and can be problematic. These plants interfere with recreation as well as doing ecological damage. Controlling milfoil or Curlyleaf pondweed does not necessarily mean the areas of the lake will be plant-free, as many native plants also grow (or could grow) in these areas. The questions below are designed to understand ho~v you perceive and experience any problems with milfoil or other plants. 1. Eurasian watermilfoil and Curlyleaf pondweed are exotic plants. Can you identify Eurasian watermilfoil and Curlyleaf pondweed [pictures included]? (91) Yes (5) No Number Sent LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT I S LVi~iP -11~Iiunetonka (Carnians, Grays & Phelps Bays) Should exotic plants be controlled? (97) Yes (2) No (2) Unsure Should native plants be protected? (63) Yes (17) Unless they are weeds or nuisances (10) Yes, in certain (limited) areas (7) Do not know or have enough information (2) No 2. Do plants affect your use of the lake? If yes, how? (57) Yes -Swimming (50) Yes -Water activities (28) Yes -Clogs props (19) Yes -Lakeshore clean up (25) Yes -Avoid areas (21) Yes -fishing (6) No Do you know what specific plants are valuable or problematic? (37) Eurasian watermilfoil, invasives, and/or curlyleaf pondweed (24) Yes (14) No (5) Water lilies (2) All bad February 29, 2008 3. How do you feel about the following current management of plants in Lake Minnetonka? Plants that are managed in large areas via the harvesters. (44) Short-term, small scale only (32) Not effective (16) Effective (3) Shoreline clean up Plants that are managed by individual lakeshore owners by raking or pulling, using herbicides or weedrollers. (67) OK as one element (17) Will not address larger problem (4) Concerns with using herbicides (1) Cities should remove fragments LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 16 LVNIP - l~linnetonka (Caimans, Grays & Phelps Bays) Nuisance plants are tolerated. (42) Not an option (16) Not preferred (7) Yes, without exotics (3) OK 4. Please list other concerns about managing plants. February 29, 2008 Herbicides (use them, concerns with side-effects), danger to swimmers, do not delay (action), make recommendations, ecological impacts (of exotics), be proactive, larger-scale control needed, the use of chemicals and lawn irrigation, lily pads, cost. Management Goals 5. Please provide your thoughts regarding management goals for the LVMP: (43) Eradicate or control Eurasian watermilfoil, exotics (8) Make sure to include prevention of other exotics (7) Comprehensive plan needed (6) Use herbicides (<5@) Look at runoff & fertilizers, make lake usable, plan or control not needed, protect water quality, be realistic, keep informed, continue to allow individual treatments, increase use of harvesters Management Actions Below are categories of possible management actions. Please comment on each: 6. Do nothing. This is always an option. (75) Not an option (4) An option (2) Obviously, `duh' 7. Mechanical control, including hand-pulling, raking or harvesting. (66) Can be part of an effective solution (32) Not effective 8. Herbicides, including small-scale spot treatments (as may be done by some individuals presently) or larger-scale selective (meaning selecting to kill target plants like milfoil, but to not kill leave non-target plants) treatments. (83) Yes, but if safe and protective of native plants (5) Yes (4) No LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 17 LVivIP - i~iinnetonka (Caymans, Grays & Phelps Bays) 9. Other comments about management actions. February 29, 2008 Opposed to large-scale herbicides (1), what are we waiting for? (9), need a coordinated effort (4), need research for biocontrols (1). About You How do you use the lake? (check all that apply) (24) Swimming (62) Fishing (94) Pleasure boating (20) Sailing (38) Waterskiing (27) Personal watercraft (87) Aesthetic viewing (68) Wildlife appreciation (5) Other Lakeshore owner (70): Which bay do you live on? (70) Wayzata, Libbs, Cooks, Phelps, Grays, Caymans, Upper Lake, St. Albans, Echo, Gideons Do you control plants now? If so, how? (55) (12) Lake User: (30) Yes (18) Rake shore (22) Mechanical (31) Herbicides No How, or where, do you get access to the lake? (21) Marina (5) Public access (2) Municipal docks (1) Various points LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION & LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1 g I ASSOCIATI®N Position Statement -Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Control Eurasian watermilfoil has been in Lake Minnetonka since 1987. In 1989, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) initiated a harvesting program to cut and remove milfoil from critical areas of the lake. At that time, mechanical harvesting was probably the best solution to milfoil in Lake Minnetonka. However, at this time, we have more modern technologies and our objectives have changed. Through the 2006 Milfoil Demonstration Project as well as the development of the Lake Vegetation Management Plan, we know there are herbicides that can control milfoil over large areas. We also know these herbicides are protective of native plants, thereby enhancing lake ecological values. For these reasons, an evaluation of the harvesting program in light of contemporary scientific advances is timely and appropriate. LMCD Harvesting Program Harvesting is an operation that uses a mechanical underwater weed cutter, which offloads the cut weeds onto a transport barge, which in turn offloads that to aland-transport truck. The disposed weeds are composted. Harvesting is a milfoil maintenance operation and not a milfoil control operation. Harvesting is akin to lawn mowing -not intended to get rid of the plant only to crop it. In Lake Minnetonka, the harvesting operation is intended to facilitate navigation and recreation in critical areas around the lake. Except for the accumulation of fragments on the Lakeshore, the harvesting operation has largely been effective for its stated purpose. However, the harvesting operation has become less effective over the years. The chart below shows the harvested acreage has been declining during its 19-year operation. LMCD Harvesting Record 1600 1400 ', II 1200 __ a 1000 i' = 800 :_ _ ___ `~ 600 ~ ~ U ~ ~ a 400 _ _--- __ ___ • +__ • ~• 200 ._ - _ _ 0 _ _ __ 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Attachment #3 LAKE MWNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 ~~~. (~. 13ox Z~t3, Fxce~sior, !~1N 5~~~~'{ 0 ~~)52} 4i0-4'~=i~9 o A55(3CIATION Position Statement -Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Control Indeed, the number of acres has decreased by 50°,/0. More recently, the number of acres harvested since 2000 has decreased 64%. From the LMCD's 2007 Eurasian watermilfoil harvesting report: "The 19th year of the EWM Harvesting Program represents an accomplishment that was only envisioned as a fond dream back in 1989. The investment in equipment and personnel has put the LMCD in the forefront of managing milfoil." The Lake Minnetonka Association does not believe that the "fond dream" in 1989 envisioned a program with steadily declining acreage of milfoil harvested. As well, mechanical harvesting is no longer considered the state-of--the art in managing milfoil. Stakeholders in the Three Bay Lake Vegetation Management Plan have also noted the limitations of the harvesting program. Indeed, only 16% of survey respondents thought the harvesting program was effective and 76% thought it is short-term, small-scale or ineffective. Harvesting has other limitations. Harvesting cannot commence each season until the milfoil has gown to sufficient height. So, harvesting starts by about mid June. The 10-week harvesting program visits various bays, sequenced on a three year rotation. About half of the harvested areas on the lake are not cut until mid July or later. The LMCD's harvesting program has invested in capital equipment, which makes their program less flexible in teens of budget and other control options. Simply, the LMCD is committed to this program due to its high capitalization. Finally, harvesting is not considered a milfoil control technique.' Contemporary Technology Selective herbicides are chemicals that target Eurasian watermilfoil (and sometimes curlyleaf pondweed, another exotic plant in Lake Minnetonka) and offer large-scale, multi-season control without harming native plants, which are good for a healthy lake. The use of these herbicides is designed to be a restorative as opposed to a simple maintenance measure. These herbicides are recommended by the North American Lake Management Society (excerpts):2 • The management and control of nuisance aquatic plants using herbicides is most appropriate in the context of a comprehensive or integrated lake management plan. Restoration and Management of Lakes and Reservoirs, Third Edition. Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson and S.A. Nichols. 2005. CRC-Taylor and Francis. z North American Lake Management Society Position Statement #4. i.f~KE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 P. U. 13vx.%=i~t~, Fx~elsior, ~1~ 5~3=~"( 0 (9`i.~) b~iO-4~+~+9 9 .-- . _ `_ ' -- t .y ~. a ,: S - AssociA~ioN Position Statement -Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Control • Native rooted aquatic plants are important to aquatic ecosystems and their control and destruction should be avoided or minimized. Once a lake is infested with anon-native species, its impact on native plants should be considered in its overall control. • More aggressive controls, including the use of herbicides, may be necessary to control non-native aquatic plants. Selective herbicides were the only technique considered appropriate to address the goals for the Three Bay Lake Vegetation Management Plan. A significant basis for this conclusion was the results of the 2006 milfoil demonstration project, which showed up to 99% reduction in Eurasian watermilfoil density and no harm to native plants. The advantages include: • Selective herbicides are safe and a restorative. • Selective herbicides will actually control milfoil over large areas and for multiple seasons. • Selective herbicides are applied early in the season. • There are no capitol investments. • Significant reductions in lakeshore cleanup are expected. • With a systematic and comprehensive approach, the use of herbicides diminishes over time. Costs/Financing The costs and financing for a transition from the harvesting program to a comprehensive milfoil control program on Lake Minnetonka will be sustainable. According to our analysis, the LMCD can divest in its harvesting equipment and shift its harvesting budget to the comprehensive control program over a 9-year period with no new additional funds. At that tune, the comprehensive control program will cover approximately 1,620 acres on Lake Minnetonka sustained within the LMCD's current harvesting budget. The fiscal analysis and assumptions are as follows: 1. The three bay 5-year budget is used as a baseline. 2. The project costs for each bay will be constant after year 5. 3. Three additional bays are added in years 3 and 5. 4. Bay lakeshore owners through the LMA will contribute 50% of the project costs (except year 1) 5. The MN DNR grant funds are assumed to be $40,000 for years 1 - 3, then $0 after that. 6. LMCD will divest and discontinue its harvesting program in year 3 (assume $100k). 7. Save the Lake funds will provide a bridge for years 1-3, then will not be needed. 8. LMCD's harvesting budget ($110 per year) will be applied to the comprehensive program beginning in year 3 (when the harvesting is discontinued). l.ax~ MINtJETONKA Assoc~~riorr 0 P. o. 13ox 2-+t~, Excel4ior; !~~iN ~~:~_~~( 0 (;?52? !~70-x:+49 s.. ;F t_ - AssoclATiocv Position Statement -Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Control Costs and Funding Scenario The total project costs for only the use of selective herbicides are included below. The LMCD's harvesting program is assumed to operate in years 1 and 2 with their current budget and funding sources, then be divested and rolled into the comprehensive milfoil control program beginning in year 3. This is one of several possible funding scenarios. Year LMA LMCD (STL) LMCD (Harvesting) 1 (3 bays) $130k $30k ($40k from DNR) $0 2 (3 bays) $100k $60k ($40k from DNR) $0 3 (6 bays) $180k $25k ($40k from DNR) $100k (divest + harvesting budget) 4 (6 bays) $140k $0 $110k 5 (9 bays) $205k $0 $205k 6 (9 bays) $165k $0 $165k 7 (9 bays) $130k $0 $130k 8 (9 bays) $90k $0 $90k 9 (9 bays) $75k $0 $75k * The total LMCD cost is $985k and can be covered by: o Save the Lake (years 1-3), $115k o Divesting in harvesting equipment, $100k o Annual harvesting budget @ $110/year, years 3-9, $770k Related Concerns Unfortunately, Eurasian watermilfoil is not the last invasive plant to threaten Lake Minnetonka. Other exotic plants that could be introduced into the lake include hydrillia, Brazilian elodea, water hyacinth and water chestnut. Of these, hydrilla is the closest and most concerning. Hydrilla is so invasive, it has been know to out-compete and crowd out milfoil. Unfortunately, there is no early detection or rapid response plan in place. As well, preventative measures are inadequate. LAKE MINNETONKA ASSOCIATION 0 l>. O. 13ox 2=i.8, Ex;~elsi~r, NIN ~~~3~( 0 (9~2) 4;~~-4~~-9 i ~ ; ~~.,< ~ ~ X _.._ ASSUCIATI©N Position Statement -Lake Minnetonka Milfoil Control Recommendations 1. The LMCD should divest and phase out its harvesting operation. 2. The LMCD should transition into a comprehensive milfoil control program for Lake Minnetonka. 3. The Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMCD should expand the Three Bay Lake Vegetation Management Plan to include the entire lake and serve as a guide for lake-wide vegetation management that includes the use of selective herbicides. 4. An equitable funding formula that balances private and public funding should be used to pay for the management of plants in Lake Minnetonka according to this plan. 5. A comprehensive aquatic invasive species prevention plan should be developed and implemented. 6. Early detection monitoring and a rapid response plan for new invasive plants should be developed and implemented. * Adopted by the Board of the Lake Minnetonka Association, February 25, 2008. LAKE M(NNETONKA A55OC(ATION 0 G''. O. Lc~x 248, Excelsior; ~1N 553'( 4 (95.7.? 4iO-44=+9 _. ~ ~L' ~lZ~? i~~zYZ~'t~~~I~~ ~1.sso~ir~tioz2 e~slette7~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~k~~~~~ ~, .,~ ,,,u.~~ i~ ~~~'s''~ - - ... _ _ .~'~i.~' ~~~~ t~ ~~ . y~ ~.- ~ t .. ;,= ' ~- ,. - - - • • M.i1:Eo.i1 has been. the scourge of Lake Mi.n.nctonka for 20 years. Lake Minnetonka was the first lake in Minnesota to gex milfoil, and it has spread. quickly around the lake. The LMCD established its harvesting program in 19b9 acid this has bee~1 the only lake-wide management effort. The harvesting program has served its purpose, but it may be time to shift to a more effective program. In 200b, the Lake Minnetonka Association and the LMC;D implemented a milfoil demonstration project in three bays. We learned that milfoil could be controlled without harm to native plants. Naw; eve are reac~ly to implement bay-wide treat-nents. But there are challenges and opportunities. The Lake Minnetonka ,association has provided "new thinking" to the milfoil .issue acid embraces these challenges and intends tc~ lead our community tc~ a more comprehensive program. We need the help and. support of our inernbers as well as public agencies. This Special Issue of On the Lake is devoted to informing our members and the cc~nnnnnit~~ about this issue and focusing community efforts at controlling this pesky plant and to manage pla~~ts overall. in I.a.ke Minnetonka. I ISSUE: ,.. ~. r ~<1 ~~~~~':~ f c~r~ ?17.x,.... ~F ~; fi _ _.~t e~ ( °, ~} ~~~ 4.A ~ ;~..~ f. ~ ._ - ~. Attachment 4 rti~,:v.l..tlASSOriation.c~~t FAt:: Vd!Nl" E ~:iH ~ ~ ~ '~ - _ ~ Nearl}~ all the preparations I 'are in place to proceed. with rnilfoil treatments in f' ~i Carmerrs, Grays and Phelps bays - if the '. ` ;residents of the bays come t.~ick Osgood up with the necessary funding. As I `write this, the Lale Vegetation r~~larnagement Plan is nearly complete, permits are likely to be approved, same funding is assured and a schedule has been developed.. `I"he- Lake 1Vtinnetonka Association and the. I.aake ~~Iinnetonka Conservation District, following ~~~~~~~ ~'~t'~r` the successful tc~c`~7rto~r3~tE:~ ct~1~1 clemanstration sr:~e:'ttc't~, lez,w~~t' project in 200b, trt~r~trrtc>-*ts t,~~t t began developilg a Lake Vegetation /t~ csf ~ Management flan r (~,rl;~•rfl zti, ~`1 for the three brays f.t.'1?ttt' 7F•t:3Li t it;Zt~ ~, this just sumnner. ttr~tit~e ~~l~xtzts This plan sets tine c'rttt c~c:c;ttt: stage for bay-wide treatments with. the. goal of controlling rnilfoil and alrlirleaf pondweed (another exotic plant) and protecting native plants. ~Xre heave come to the point where specific treatments have been. proposed and the costs heave been 44f,N 1111- 1 is a c~ta~srrer(~- ~e,i,li~ '~tiitn +~f eh,' l.alce~ l~inis€:•t(ml tea:. ic:i;tt~>r5, l'.E7. Iic1i ?~S, ; > i :ion-, 1t:"~ :i 1 ISSt:iF3 ?(}4I~:1 ~ y `d"ti:1~tY 2i)r}y ItE~30~' L~ t;EF ~ 1.'~c_"L'i 111; L.~_.~ l~`c~l~ .Site ivt '~iSS(JC1.ittlO17.551'~; ry Dick C}sgood, LR~1/1 l:xectativc Di~•ector determined for the five-}rear program. Eurasian waterrndforl is the nrunber one complaint among Lakeshore owners and users. Milfoil has been managed by the LMCD's harvesting pro ;rani in common areas of the lake or by irndividuals in front of their Lakeshore. However; these treatments have been band-aides because they are small irn scale and temporary. For example, the harvesting program cut 323 acres in 2007 irn the 14,000-acre lake. With new technologies and science, larger treatments that preferentially control rnilfoil while protecting native }?lams can occur. There are trade-offs, but on balance, these proposed treatments are. expected to offer bay-wide rnilfoil control t~lother trade-off will be that individual treatments will he restricted in the treated ba}=s as an off-set to tine bay- ~-vide treatments. >ti~lost of the technical and. regulatory matters are either completed or on track, leaving the question of how much v<rill it cost and u~ho will pay. yX~e ~vili he working with the Lakeshore ov~nners in the bays to facilitate the proposed treatments this sprung. Happy New Ye tr! I was elected as President of the I ake VLirtnetanka Association this Fall, so this is my first column in Un the Lake. I am committed to the good work. of the Lake ~~Iinnetonka Association anal as a board member for the last five years, I know I'm supported wills floe dedication and foazs of otu- staff ar~nd entire board. The big news is we are in a positio~~Z to provide relief to the rnilfoil prohlenn is three hays. VUhilc financing will 1x a challenge, I am confident these types c7E treatments will represent the "newt= thinking" for managing rnilfoil around the lake. I am proud the. Letlce ;~~Limaetor>ha Association Inns been faithful to our mission and vision of representing the interests of Lakeshore owners by initiating this project in the first place and advocating for equitable. funding formulas. yKte are also encouraging crther bays to come. forward and take the first steps in preparation for managing their hays. `~~e «Till again he sponsoring the 7th. t'lrnnual I_,ake )\~linnetonka Association Clean Up (June 21st) and the 2nd Annual I_:ake Minnetonka Association Charity Golf Classic (August 25th). Both events help raise awareness o~~E critical issues, help fi:nxi programs and are fun! Please plan on participating. Finally, we arc remaining ever-vigilant on keeping zebra mussels, and novv several. other exotics, on our radar screen. Not nearly enough is bring done to protect our lake. 'T'he. Lalce ~linnetonl<a Association is working at the international, national, state and local levels on this critical ecological c:laallenge. In fact, Dick Osgood, our Executive Director, is no«J serving as the. I'resiclcnt of the North. American Lake \~tanagement Society. In his c>pening remarks at the international synaapositrna in November, Diclc identified aquatic. invasive species as an issue more critical than other hinds of. pollution and ara issue that threatens to `change the game' for protecting anti managing lakes. So, I am excited about my term as President and ready to confi•ont the challernges facing Lake Minnetonka. I asl. for your help and support in this quest. _ti~ ~!, ~~ j~ '• f~ ~ ~ sec • `}~~' ASSOCIATION wv aon Listed. belo~~ are members who have jained or renewed since the last newsletter. The snore members eve have means a more solid. base of support. We thank you for your generosity! THANK YOIJ, CONTRIBUTORS SINCE LAST NEWSLETTER! CA€~ [AEy (S °I" . Bradlee Bowman John & Joan Brooks David Chizek Bill eS; Stcph ;;\~tege(c Glen & \4arill n ~lelson James & Sharon Nesn~om Norm ~~, Kathy 4~Iurphy Rickenlan Gregg & Denise Steinhafel Gcdnez~ & Emily Anne Illttle Tam ~ Tina Verburgt Rosita (7itaj Wriglu James & Kathlyn \X'yman ~k%iu & Barb Adams Walter & Jarle Barry Mike & Sallt Bosanko Nancy Brown 'Terry ~, Judy Bryce \ea1 & Florence Cohen Kirn ~; Carol Culp Gene & Carol Dahiin Bill ~; Kay Erickson Judy &' Tote Ess Stephen Fames Tom ~5; iblichele Fralun Richard Glidexrel! Dr, Stanley & Luiala Goldberg Ken & Kita 1-leimbach John & JoAnn llinnenthal Scott & Jamie Ann Honour ' Darryl Landsn•om ' Timothy McCarthy '. Rdike i,•lealev Ted & Jeanette Metz Wayne ~ Melissa ~~elson ', James &,lackie Neve Eldon ~; Valerie Oldie ' Rick &' Sonja Hutchinson Rohrer Dean S Carol Spatz Donald ~ Susan Swanson Carol. & Roger Swanson Ltinu ~ Caxol Truesdell Marjorie Yaeger' tst~;tc ;t Bcn & \[1rvJanc: Barnard John Benriau Paul Gerllc6 ~ Suzanne Blackburn Joan & Gat} Caper Roger ~~: Lnis Carlson Richard & Judith Corson L,evvis & Darlcnc Ceadit David E Cross Kemleth ~ Betty Dahlberg Chris & Lorene Dovolis Dolores Du `loft 1Villiam ~ Carmelita Ellis Fred ~ Judy Fey Florence Finnicum Patricia Florance John ~. Monica Frederick Lucille Goodvv~eue Jean Gray , Scott Hanson A4ark & Lisa Racoon Peter Harnvic(1 Itruce & Carol 1ledbhxn Dorvcc Hehllcr John Hinz 1-he. Uanberry Company Greemt-ood N[arina Lindho Landing A4arina Lord Flemher's b[d Lake Idldge hrancis Teann at SKY Sotheby`s Realty Thomas Painting and I,aRae Design, I:I.C The Stabecl< Group -Edina Realty Wla}'za[& TI TANK YOU, CON7"RII3LJTOR.S TO THE EXOTIC SPECIES FUND! h 7 t)0.r Patricia Florutce Tom ~ 4~liche(e Frahm Michael ~'. Nolli Johander i. Jim & Linda ti-leffcrt Rick &. Sonja Flutdlinson Rohrer I,J~/lA 1i11S11`~'~ ~5 Ml.r'i!113L1~S {~~C'c7S (' SIf(>~)07/ /{.~d ~UI~UIL'1 J!(~ li: ~:C-~Ti"~u t. Uarilt CSC-'S 1~J [7( c:0111)Yf71t18 /-U ~l'L' 1_~~1'li~: 'Theo Holster John ~~' Diane Huston 1~lichael &: No(li Johauder K;ltina Johnstone Steve ~ Deb Kind Norrmn ~ Elamc I arson Donald Zk,~ J03t11] Lt iVenwoCCh Peres ck l~tnis L.ee Duane N ~14arian Little. Allan c`Z !~1arv Luelurlann ~.etrt ~~; StacY' I~{aCICS Jim ~ 1~larie linden ~4cBridc Phil & Peggy McLaughlin 1\lichae( C, Brt:nda A~lecntslHo~ander Jim ~ Linda ~'ielfe:rt George e~ l~larilyn 1'lileusnic John rYLnahan Craig c`y Carol !bloleski rl4ark R-lorris Deanne ~ Paul 1Vloss Kate Pvul r ~ Tom Nelson Steven ~ Joan Nielsen 1"orn ~ Jane Norliug Charles ~ Susan Percival Molly n Ron Poole. Domul & Cleo Poty-ets Frank Preeopio Ron & Brooks Regan Charles Rosenberger Kethv ~; Nick Kuehl Hans & JoAnn Schaub ~~ill & Kathy .Skadsherg Bonnie Sl:adsberg Yale Smiley Tons ~~, Jeanne Sweep D n~e ik Patti W'essnei Susan ~'~ Rob White Bretta ~ Donald Wilber David ~ Jui1y Zoschke .A ~~ riima's Soh}[i'r Cluh Lisa L'rickson, Rcaltue i:~ndho Landur Alarina liuh ~ >>'iarti ltnre.r, Rrtltor, :lkstatt I'inanc al .5nari:;ics, lnc, (;rennulod ~b[arinc 1'ght Pro's Inc. Robert r1, Schneider :Ageilc[~ Blue Lagoon llarinc Hon ardti Point ~~{arinc Lend t~~etchcr's The Srabock f irouP - Caush, Inc. ~R ~oncs Lir[mr ~o~ nlr} (akul.od~~c 1-d~~t Rcsltti 11atieTCJ Crrunsclor Rc ~it} ,~ocl Hcutgcs ~y,lrlnir;3 l~cnna d, U~ortit \laho;am~ h,tl, Uou tit~~dola The Danbcrn~ Co. Lal~tr;ctn" Club blaiuic:Aiaz ~,1n,1~ti01Yi \,t~l Uz,l;in; (.~;., ]nc. h.dina Rcalts lfacrar; Lake A9innerorl~. Charter ~iaa~nard's Kcstaurant 1'hoi» as fainting 1=,' n~is'Icutl 1>nu 1ssu~:iatioo l?r~ disc Clraru> Cruises and LaK;~~c U«i~~n, I.LC ar JKl' Soihabs~s Itcalt;° Lalu~Lu~r 1G`eel.l~ Aens l;ar is Parente, :A1D ~ JOtN OR RENEW YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY! We appreciafe new or renewing members using this form-tbanksl € Please complete this farm and mail it witty your tax-deductible contribution to the Lake Minnetonka Association, P.O. Box 248; t Excelsior. MN 55331. Make your check payable to the "LMA. "Thanks! t Names}: E-mail: t t t t Address: ___- ____--_ t t City. State, Zip: Phone: ~ 7. I want to support the LMA at the following membership level: t n Basic $50 - $199 ~ Sustaining $200 - $499 t ~ Captain $500 - $999 i.-; Commodore $1000+ c~ Business $350 t 2. I want to support the "LMA Exotic Species Fund" ....................$ _ 3. Other or additional contribution ...................................$ ~ t The LMA is a 501(c)(3i tax-exempt organization. t t ~ ..:Y~ I .hd' .. >OCtfl2iG~l.b~i7 4-f~:~i~ ;;5 .. ;?ri0f.; We have receive-d strong sr.ipport for the proposed treatments; but ~~=e have also head concerns regarding whether or to what extent lakesh.ore owners should pay for the benefits to a public resource. For 2008, there naay be na other practiceal alternative, but hopefr.~lly this can. be negotiated. for future treatments. l~Te lay out the: issue here. A proppsed five-year treatment program is estimated to cost up to $"i9O,000 (Carrnens), $259,000 (Grays) and. $247,()00 (Phelps). ~~(~c have a good feeling for the costs the first year, but subsequent years' treatment costs depeiui on the results from the prior years, so our estimates are probably. high for the five-yeas program. For this reason, our discussions have. focused cni the costs for• the first year. In the. long run, if this program is st~istained, I expect tlae annual costs to be about one fifth of the first year costs to maintain essentially mrlfoil-free bays. The estimated costs for the proposes( treanneats in 2008 are::653,0()0 (Cannens), $75,000 (Grays) and $71.,000 (Phelps}. 'I"he good news is we will apply fo.r and hope to receive grants from the DI\?R that will reduce the local costs by $10,000 to $:15,000 (depending on bay size). The LMCD has committed. $5,000 per bay. So, the remaining costs will be: $33,000 (Carnaens), $60,000 (Grays) and $.51,000 (Phelps). With the anticipated state (DNR) grants, plus the LiVit~D contrihtition, the Lakeshore owners will be asked to contribute between H2 gild 8O'i<> of the project costs for 20{)8 -these percentages would go up in fugue years if the DNIt c7r I:i~~ICD funding are dropped. This is ~~-tong. Private contributions for the bay-wide rreatrnents arc tax-dedr.ictilzle. 11t the local level, eve have argued, as have many lakeslu}re owners in the three bays, that at a minirnunr the LMCD should contribute at least the. amount of honey that would be s}?errt on harvesting because there will be not harvesting in these bays if the treatments occur. ~y~e have estimated dais to be 531,000 based on the harvesting program's record averaging 30% in the three k>ays and an annual budget of $105,000. Simply, it is wring to ask the lakeshcu•e owners in these. bays to both pay a disproportionate share anci continue paying for the lrarvesring (tivith public funds)which will now occur in other bavs. In addition, the LMCD contribution comes frcun their Save-the-Lake Funcl, a fund v<~th a $205,000 balance that has been raised from private contributions and. is not public more}=. Lake Mizanetc>nka is a public resource for all to use and enjay. ~~'e believe the lakeshocc owners have a responsibility to make investments in keeping ir. clean and healday; but we also believe otu public agencies also have that responsibility. As it stands, there is ara unbalance. 'T'he window of opportunity for implementing this nailfoil control project in 2008 is small, as the treatments would have to occur by early-i~Iay. We will he asking the Lakeshore. owners to support this project with funding as Hated above,, but their support is entirely voluntary. Regardless of what they choose, this Level of private support is neither appropciatc nor sustainable in the 1<~ng run. h'o~r the sake of keeping Lake Minnetonka clean and healthy, ~.ve think the Local comnuuaities, thrcnigh the cities and LMCD, must also step up. ~-IHAT ABOUT OTHER. BAYS? An objective in the Lake Vegetation Management Plan states: "1'l7is It'.\~iP ~~=i11 lie ~Y1p<r~rclc~til to r~ti~er 1~<ry;; ir:~ I:i~l~.~~ r v~11.7t1t"C€~i~t:.<R. C f , '~;C{' ?; E)l'7 :I t l ".5(}f'T O~ ~~;§~.~t(>3:5, Lla~l[iC1tI1`~';, 1'3t.tt s` ~ ~' €~..~,i,-,.,1 i.~ .,1 ~' ., fTt-.~.,,~ '•` tl'1'` L~f}l7.tf:{7l 2~il.L"l. }hats i ~ .. ~ (this phrn;, b} it~tc~~~est f ~ or ~ ~ cz::rcr L~~y:~, ~ .c;;r2ific.at~t claan,,e ire the I,y~'1 ` ~~ (l,P situ~~i.icx~ c:lc~~~-hc~~:;~ ~t~ L,<cl<:e ~•Iiiuit~tr>~~kir <inc cli <c~adability s>f fitrc~seicl ,:e4orcrcc~s. We are a«Tare of a number of candidates based on commun- ications from meraabers as well as historic milfoil concerns. FSays such as Carsans, Gideoras and St. Albans «jauld be especially good candidates as they are reasonably self- axatained. Any bay to lie considered fora 2009 treatment must l~aave a vegetation survey completed in 2008. 'I~he Lake 1Vlinnetonka Association a?ill assist interested Bays to coordinate these scuwcys. 1~'a do this, we will need commitments and funding froth the respective bay residents within the next few months. Please call us to get additional information or to arrange to have our Execc.rtive I>u•ector nest with. inte.restecl bay representatives. We cannot guarantee at this tune that participating in a bay plant sucvc:v ti~>il) automatically qualify these bays #or treatments in 2009. I-Iowever, the Lake Minnetonka Association tic=ill prcivde assistance and support axasisten with the I.V~=1P's objective, stated. above. In the long run, managing aquatic. plants in La.lce Minnetonka is best and most effectively done under the guidance of a plan. The Three pay LV~IP is a template for such a plan. It only makes sense there be a single plan for the entire lalee. `I"he I akc ~%tinnetanka Association is a strong aclvocare for developing alike-wide plan.. There have been. discussions among severed parties, 1>ut no coznmitznents as of yet. A more comprehensive management plan, one that inchzdes water gt.zality, lake use etnd access, fishez~ies and other management concerns would also fit the l.~ill. The LMCD has a znanagcznent plan, but this is far ottt. of date -the baseline inventories and analysis are 20 years old. Lake Minnetonka Association members should ask their local representatives (City Councils, LMCD and ~X~atershed District Managers) to support, fund and implement a comprehensive management plan for Lake ?Vlinrtetonka. ~-R~~-hTIZIN~ i HE B ~IYS The Lalce Minnetonka Association has decided that to better facilitate communication of in~tportant activities amtmd the lake, we will re-institute bay representatives. ~'t~e are in the process of devising a map arrcl will have that ready cvitltin a couple months. In the meantime, we vvoukl like to know if there are bay organizations or homeowners' associations that are now active, as these vvould be logical places to plu~t; into. ~JHITHER H1~RVE5TING? It is tithe to re-evaluate the harvesting program in light of more advanced milfoil controls, such as are being proposed. Indeed, only 16% of survey respondents in this program thought the harvesting program vas effective and 76°% thought it is short-term, shall-scale or ineffective. Science has rrzovecl past harvesting as a m<ue effective long-terra remedy for milfoil and other invasive plants in Lalce Minnetonka. I-Ictrvesting versus selecxive herbicides is not a strict apple-to- apples comparison. I-Tarvestu~g cuts plants dowzt to a depth four feex. Harvesting is condz.tcted over about itch-week season from (ate-•June to early-August. As at result, about halt of the h<trvestecl areas dc> .not get cut until late stunmer. Also, 11<irvesting maintains channels but does not offer azly lonb term control. of milfoil. In 200%, there were ~i23 acres harvested. Selective herbicides target milfoil and protect native plants. Selective herbicides can be applied early in the season over larger areas. tlfter two or three years, the need for the amount of chemicals decreases (so does the cost) and long-term control is accomplished. 'Che I_,MCD's harvesting program is veil-ri.i_n anal has served an important. purpose for a long time. At this time, there are newer technologies that present, an opportunity to re-evaluate the overall. milfoil control approach. dJVfY. ... ... r i -s, 7J ,~ ~ f ~, ~1 p~~. ~ ~ ~ s a a r ~ t. ~ °'E ~.'Lc L.d:ei~linrlcro>>l.a t\ssociation 5ul?ntittec] tltcse rcantuncndaii~~~ns to the 1,~~iC_ll iii Deceml~~.r. '11~~ FuU rep~~i [ i~ appended [~~ the Sraee of nc~ Lake n port, ~>> ail~ibli: on ~>zu ~~-cb site. Ilecozizz~iendal f~.ctions izz Z1JO~ ' 1'hcac aerio3is ~~u1 br_~ in~pleu~ct~ted i~120Oti ~~it11 little if anv hud<;ctarv increases cc~ the L~1C'D. L C;~>nrinuc the ~a atercrzl~i in5l~ec(ions. `hhr prci:~-ram should E7c operltrd far the full crnltract pcrii;rl each seas~>n. ?. Tlic l l.IL~S ~co;cam has ~ern~n~i~ated ~ignificanr pr~siti~~e changes to b~aterbehavicu-continue this p~ or;ram with ei~hancetnents ' ~. Consider increasing 1>orh ti2e inspections and tlic 1-L1llS nu~nit~>rinr~ usii~~; Sa~~c-the-l.;tl:e 1~ttnds. «'itlz over a clirrrtcr o1 a million dc,llar hal<tnce, the_ f \ICL) sh~>i~ld convdc:~r using itrc~rc ~~f thesetunds its bass- thruu~,h rather th<ln as an endowmezit. ~}. "1'he Li~!IC:D should enforce its 1'1IS prczvisions for .Special Event participants tl~tat require all participating ~~-atercraft to l7e inspected (tltar is not now occurrin~l. tihe recomamend all ~p~trticipatir~g ~,vatercraft clemonsn~ate then cozitan~ no i~~ater in their live°° a-ells or nc> li~~°e hair. ). Largcnitnz[li lrlss eirus~ ,l,A~IL~V) is in Lake i~'linnetonka. Lar~;ettioutlt bats are stthlect tr, di~casc. and death diiriut; ~~~arul ~~~atcr months, fapeciall~° ~~~-hen strr~ssed. '1 h~~ L1'ICa~ sh<~uld work with the \I~ 1?'~R ro prohibit bass tournanlciit~s duringJuly and _lugust. G. Prig aec transport launching=s arc .i c~>ric~rn. ~V~ recommend the I AiC1? m~ estii;ate and prop ide assurance there arc adeyuatc.• safc~~u.trds iii place or implenicnt ~i pro~,ram similar to tlic Special Event prc»>ision~, ro protect the ial:e. Additional Ttecommendations flusc~ actions shcxild beconsidered for implementation in ~OO,~. l~ bile these will likely havcbutJger impacts, the.- arc critical t~> preventing AIS intrcxluctio2~sto Lalce . ~tilirulctonl:a. I. An earls detection ntonit~~rin~~ i,ro~;ram, esheciall~~ fo~~ h~-drill~~~ and other r~otic plants is critical, if there is to be ~ni~• timefv and effective rapid response shcnild th~~sc be introduced, Lacking an etu y detecti~ni }>rogr~ui~, rapid resp~>nses are rnocit. ?..f he insl-,ccnrm season that has. been from just prior to \~lemorial I~av tc~ jutit after I.abc~r bati. l his `srasc:~n" males sense 1~ir rcbra mussel because of zebra mussel's liic history. I-Ion-ve~~er, other t11S may be introdi.n_ed outside of this period, so the protection efEc~rts should similarly span Ion{;er times. rls of thiti ~~~riting, ~~c ha~~c nor rcccn~cd a <<~sp~msr from nc~ L~~1C~ll. ~.uatic Ian ~naen~ent lc l~za~s at the The SIN DI~R h ~s drafted t e~-ised rt.~les for man aging aquatic plants. These rttlcs restrict control acrititties fo.t aquatic. pla~zts - by mrnitnizi.ng the destruction. plants while allowing Lakeshore o~~~lers' to control nuisances caused by these plants. .Many I_:ake Minnetonka lakeshare o~=necs control mtis~~l7c~ plants to facilitate access, imlar-ove swimtning of to rid their lakefronts of weeds. For the most part, control acth~ities require a permit and the areas of contrr>l and sometimes the types of plants controlled are. restricted by the DNR rule. "I'he I~rraposed rules ~~=i11 affect Lakeshore. <>~~~ners in several ways. First, the area for cantrc>1 will likely be reduced. LJnder the proposed rules, Lakeshore owners may control nt.usanee plants along .100-feet c>f lakeshc>re or half their Lakeshore, whichever is less. It the control method is selective for milfoil, this restriction is eased. flnother propasecl change would remove tL~e `grandfathered' e~ceptic>n ro the `15% rule' for Carsons and St. L..ouis hays, which have been al ou=ed to treat larger areas th<u~ other lakes o~r bays since 1976. The grandfathere~cl exemption is proposed to be eliminated writhin five years, but the DMZ ~~>ill also prepare a bake Vcgct~t.ion il~lanagement I'la^ far these bays. The Lake ~Linnctonka association has supported some restrictions to individual treatments in the'Lhree Bays with the LUMP. In those cases, there «-as an acceptable tJ-adc- off between Less uldividuaL control and overall milfail control in all the bays. r'~s Hated elsewhere in this issue, we think an overall lake vegetation plan is the best way to manage lake plants in. Lake Minnetonka. ~ , L~=` r 11 C-~`f ~~. ~~! I~ ~f.~ ` _, r3l ~Pfft~ ~~t _~ [ -}~C~lt '~~I~i llr~t~J rr7 i~~i~ I1~1' .iF`(, ,ril ~~K~~[) bil}~-_~'~r ~:h sll~l~~- t~9~rliti iii ~~i1~` 'U 1~1~ lkf~l} I~iS ~ t~~~jl! it ~i ~ _ - ~"' s ~Pain~r' and .~a ~es~ L~.e ESTABLISHED 195 .. -___~. __ _..~.._.~ ..~r ~,_ W. i (95'x) 368-9391 Thane (972) 368-0374 Fax P LaraeChatm,tit.cam ~.. - _ - _ _T__.~.w.........__........._.,~~_ i,Cr~ rrc~l, ~c~rk1~ zi:~arjr+S` 1~r>?S~ (~tl~~j c,r~t~cllh"~Sl ~>>ua.rnru~i i>~,r~Cl ~~ (;~c~y srlj,~rld) s,ta!c~~Jruvy <<<~~ ' (~tz~fl z~1rz~Cv~a1) ut~u~zi ~rll u~1~u( (il;'i~ P,~t~~,lt;}~ f s"1 )!lU.l~ Plll.l;i'~j i;C~?fI ~t~~;t.r;-)1 ;t.rv~~,.r ~~~5~ 'oz~trl ,vf1 l ~i'~l'~I1i (~ft'~1 rrr.rl:% c~~.ro;~r) .+~~~;rsnatl ;ipf'rr~~ i,~~~~~ nl~ (~ti~t'fi srt,no.<<{J ~~r,~~,ra.;ri ?',1 'a~a~ni ~tauE~,~~) (tu.r~~ is~',~1) ~ar~i~rsa.r~ `ysit~~i rju~rurl;~ ~' y~st~rrnaisl j'~at~ s~a~zv~t{.} ~_?oc~>~~~(tY'~ r.,.~ref~r.rra~tr?~,~',~yt?~ t~1 ..,,F:,,~ ;7~„ NW `~ois~aox3 80 G 'oN tiuuad Q~~d a6atsod 'S'(1 9a011~OddNON (,'f_;~1ci (VW ':~~aiS~C-7.)x 3 N O 11`d D O S S b' ~~-.' ~ti; l r ~ ~ , _. G._ ~~ p f 4 ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ S> -r . _ E - , ~ i~i - ..~~ Sr 1 t f. _ .. t ~ _ ' of _ >'~ - .: ~ _ - - I v~ _ - a , ~t~ ~~. } -r'~ - ~~ v~~` ~ti III . - ~ - - r . s. .7 ~, ~ _, y ~, ~ h X • _ '~ N; i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~. I . _ Y E { - ~ _ - ~ ~ ' I 'i.Y ~ . y.~._ ~ 'I I ~ 3 _ ~~ ~ s .._ e n: c~ . -' ~ ~, ,;, , _ -i f .. ~ . n 1. ___. ' __..._ , _...._ Pro4! c~pn3 _ , i<1 Pn~FI gan3 --~ i 1 ~ ' F't _ _ ~ - _ _ t' ~. - ~- _ ~ ~~ i ~ I -_ lr; „ ~ y ~ Fr-tl iva'n ~__. lu eg ---euel ~In~le7 "" ~ 4"f^ .. ~ ~ _~~.t~ ~ . ~ S ' ` ~ ~~ .~ ~.P ` t __ ~ A c -- _ a $~. _ ..- eYY7 Uc xll~ ""S R ~ - _ _ ~ mJ~ ~~ ~_ _ X ~ t - ` ~ - ~~ f . m` ~ ~ V j / '{ 9 - ik'11 ~ ; ~1~; .i; ' ~ ') ' 1` ~ ~ 1 W ~ V - _ _ - ~ r ^ _ t C ~ - ~ _ _ } "1 e'- i 9 ~ ~ V ",~ ~j - ¢ k ~ t ` f ~ . . r~ ~ f ~ ~ { 4 ~ tt t1 . ~ '4,. • `\ ,,, i J , E:, r ~ ... ~ \_~ _ ~.. . v .. . _ •- ~ ~ .klhht -= ~- k - t~ I ~ . c . p-~ +~~ ~ ~~{ ~~ ?°f r' i ~' - -J ~ , a J 1 ~r -' {yt ice. ~ '+., ~ ~ v~ i7 .~ . , +~ °~' ~ _ a ~ l t~ , ® '-.~ _ .mot ,. - ~ -- ~ - 'J~9 ~ - _. 'fir' M~ w U GQ a, Attachment 5 ~' ~~,`~. I ,--;' ;' ` ' ~--- H * ,~ i r f ~y ~ ~ i fit. t ~,+ t ~, .~f: _,.._: :. ;: ~ '~ ~ L L , ~ - - i d. ~ Y t _ k. r- : _ `~~ ~ fi't' m , ~, . , Yf ~ -, .'~'_. ~ - - + .r ,_~~ ~' 1 ... s ..._: t _ ... - .. -.. ... ~ t ~ ~ Ids + ~S' ~ ~ $ +.. Gwd ~Iwx4lr.~k7 ~ ,1 ~ ~~ 1 - ,~ l ; ~ ~.,e...,.,. . ~+ ;~~_+ _ ~ r-~~, __ S +~ T._ ~ .- _ ~ _ r ~~;~ ~ -~:F, ~_1 : :, ~+ ~ ~~ r ( -- 1 s+ ~, I ~++ ~ `~I 4Z ~ ~ _ ~~ TI R ryj +_ s.w al 1 : ] ~ 3. 11 _ ti_ a . 11 ~ 1j r I - v . ,~,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ry.~ W , ~ _ 2 ~ "" s~'. ~ r' ~1i ., tI tY .? ~ li t ~ L ~. ~ ~. ,~ ~r ~, ~ ', - ~' U-:, ; L ~ ,= ~ _ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ( - ( 1 ` +r + i } - t .y - ~ ~ } ~f v. ~ ~'~. rt ,},~ T',' -.J ~ K ~~ C3L w t v j 'k.. ! 4 ~ ~ ~ , _ i ~: __ 'J.c - ~ t z ~ `'`try _ _ - _.. E Y 1- ~ - ~~ _° - i _ 8~ ~ ~ + ~ ' '~ ~, '.: ~ m + + t t + _ .,. r r aq ,. ~ ar __ __ - + t _. ~Sttachment 6 Background . 2006 Milfoil Demonstration Project . LMA, LMCD & others . 3 Bays (Carmans, Grays & Phelps) . Objective - Herbicide control of milfoil without harming native plants . Public/private partnership . Results - promising Lake Minnetonka Association H-t:tndouf- 4 -/4 ~og- Project Overview . Lake Vegetation Management Plan (LVMP) . DNR plan prepared by . Lake Minnetonka Association . Lake Minnetonka Conservation District . Provides for bay-wide milfoil treatments Lake Minnetonka Association Problems to be Addressed in this Plan Milfoil is the most problematic plant in the three bays because it interferes with most recreational activities, creates a shoreland cleanup and maintenance chore and diminishes ecological health. Curlyleaf pondweed should also be controlled. Lake Minnetonka Association Problems to be Addressed in this Plan . Some native plants are also a nuisance; . But, their control should be balanced with protection . Water lilies should be protected . Overall plant management is poorly coordinated Lake Minnetonka Association Management Goals & Objectives . EWM and CLP will be controlled in a manner that is safe & effective. . Native plants should be protected, except in localized areas where they pose a nuisance . Provide limited individual nuisance or access control when bay-wide selective control applications are performed. . This plan will be considered as a framework for possible expansion in the future to other bays in Lake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka Association ~:....._- l_,;c .J~'~U o~ .-' ... ..~! . ." . '2 . .. .'~ . Shorewo Jl :t..:-:..... ! Data use subject to license. @ 2006 DeLorme. Topo USA@ 6.0. ~": C sce 1CC,: Data Zoom 1 ~-: www.delorme.com CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, 1 APRIL 2008 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Gniffke called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Acting Chair Gniffke; Commissioners Hutchins, Ruoff, and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne and Geng APPROVAL OF MINUTES 18 March 2008 Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, Approving the Planuing Commission. Meeting Minutes of 18 March 2008 as presented. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Gniffke welcomed Missy'Villet to the Planning Commission. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -. C.U.P. AMENDMENT Applicant: Minnetonka School District 276 Location: Minnc~i~ashta E-lementary - 26350 Smithtown Road Acting Chair Uniffke opened the Public hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on an April 14, 2008, Regular City Council Meeting Agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated 1NSPEC, a consulting engineering firm representing the Minnetonka School Dist1-ici, had submitted plans for a tvvo-phase expansion of the Minnewashta Elementary School, located at 26350 Smithtown Road. The school property is located in the R-1A, Single-Family Residential zoning district and contains approximately 21.37 acres of land. Because schools are conditional uses in residential districts, the Dish~ict has requested a revised conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for its project. Nielsen explained the first phase of the project would add approximately 3000 square feet of space to the existing building for two ne«~ classrooms on the southwest corner of the building and some of the existing entry courtyard area would be. enclosed to accommodate various administrative functions. The second phase of the project would add 19,500 square feet space for six new classrooms on the west side of the building and a new gymnasium on the north side of the building. The current building contains 74,700 square feet of area. Nielsen reviewed a 1999 site plan which was submitted with this application; the site plan had been prepared when the last addition was put on the building. The school property is presently occupied by the school building itself, parking areas on the south and west sides of the building, playground facilities, a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLAIOTI~TING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 2 of 10 gazebo and ball fields to the north of the building, the City's water tower on the west side of the site, and a NURP (National Urban Runoff Program) pond on the far northwest. Nielsen stated the applicant proposed enlarging the NURP pond to acconnnodate the impervious surface that would be added for both phases of the project. Also, the stone water runoff from the parking area on the south would be routed to the NURP pond for treatment as opposed to flowing on to Smithtown Road. The storm water tl-eated in the NURP pond was ultimately released into. the wetland system located north of the pond. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained two key issues were identified when staff first met with District representatives -parking and drainage. These are addressed in the conditions set forth for public school facilities in residential zoning districts in Section 1201.10 Subd. 4.b. of the City's Zoning Code. He reviewed how the District's plans would comply with the Code: Parking -When the School District added on to the building in 1999 parking was noted as an area of concern. In order to comply with zoning.requirements, the District proposed to use the playground area on the north side of the building as overflow parking for special events. School personnel or volunteers were to make sure that the gate, which was no longer there, was open to this area and were to direct traffic to the overflow area. Staff was not sure that was happening. Residents advised Staff that cars frequently parked on Smithtown Road and Strawberry Lane; neither of the roadways had the width to accommodate on street parking. Even on a normal school day, Staff noted cars parked in aisles and lining the driveway on the west side of the building; lining the aisles can be a safety hazard because it could prohibit emergency vehicle access. The applicant had submitted a revised parking plan which was received after the meeting packet was prepared. Staff had not had time to adequately review the plan as of yet. INSPEC representatives had indicated to Staff that the angle of the parking spaces had been changed to 50° from 60°; 50° angled spaces had different aisle widths and stall depths than 60° angled spaces. There were currently 26 parking spaces at the front of the property. By replacing a small tot-lot play with parking area and changing the angle of the parking spaces, the number of parking spaces at the front of the property would be increased to 48. The entry and exit drives for the front parking area were proposed to be reduced to 15 feet in width, raising concerns for emergency vehicle access. The existing lanes were more than 20 feet wide. The Fire Code requires the width of a fire access lane to be no less than 20 feet. The Fire Marshal would be asked to continent on the proposed circulation for the site. The side yard setback requirement for a C.U.P. for school in a residential district was double the requirement for a residential. In the Rl-A District the setback was 10 feet for residential properties; therefore it would be 20 feet for a school. That same side yard setback applied to parking areas. The proposed parking area would not comply with that requirement; therefore the applicant would have to adjust the parking area slightly to comply. That adjustment could result in the loss of one or two parking spaces. Complying with the side yard setback requirement would allow more room for the perimeter sidewalk around the parking area and for additional trees. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 Apri12008 Page 3 of 10 The applicant had also submitted a plan for the overflow parking area which included using the school bus parking area for special events. Grading, Drainage and Utilities -The City Engineer had indicated (under separate cover from the Staff report) that the hardcover calculations submitted as part of the stol7nwater calculations handled the additional impervious surface of the new parking lot and the building addition spaces; it was unclear to the Engineer if it was designed to handle the relocation of the driveway. Building Setbacks -Both phases of the building construction would comply with the setback requirements for the R-lA zoning district. 4. Screening and Landscaping - No new landscaping had been included in the plans submitted to date. Because additional parking was proposed on the southeast corner of the property (replacing atot-lot area), additional landscaping, including some evergreen material, should be required along the east side of the new lot. This could necessitate shifting a proposed new sidewalk that circles the east side of the parking area. Since the existing landscape islands in the front parking lot would be demolished and replaced, the landscape plan should show how the new islands would be landscaped. Off-Street Loading -The redesign of the front parking lot would eliminate the parent drop-off area shown on the 1999 approved site plan. The applicant proposed that area would become a dual purpose area that would be used for parent-drop off before 9:00 A.M. and after that it could be used for parking. General C.U.P. Requirements -The general requirements for conditional uses were provided in Section 1201.04 Subd. 1.(d)(1) of the Zoning Code. Staff recommended the Planning Commission and Council take these provisions under consideration in evaluating the C.U.P. application. Nielsen stated based on the analysis of the case, Staff had originally recommended this request be continued to the 6 May 2008 Plamling Commission meeting agenda to provide the applicant time to revise the plans. Because the applicant had already provided revised plans for the front parking area, Staff suggested the request be continued to the 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting agenda, pending the following: A. A revised parking lot layout designed to Shorewood Zoning Code standards must be submitted. Plans should be subject to review and comment by the Fire Marshal. B. A landscape plan must be submitted showing landscaping on the east side of the parking lot and in the landscape islands within the parking lot. C. The applicant should submit an overall master plan for the site, similar to the one submitted in 1999. The plan should be accompanied by an up-to-date survey of the property, including the legal description of the property. D. The grading and drainage plans must be reviewed to ensure the hardcover calculations would handle the additional impervious surface of the new parking lot and the addition spaces and the relocation of the driveway. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 4 of 10 Director Nielsen stated Cliff Buhman, of INSPEC, was present this evening to answer any questions the Plamzing Commission may have. Mr. Buhman thanked Director Nielsen and Engineer Landini for their assistance. He clarified with regard to the stone water calculations and the enlargement of the existing NURP pond, the design calculus included the new areas for Phase 1 and Phase 2 as well as the relocation of the driveway. The calculations also included a contingency amount. That information had been communicated to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), and at this point it was satisfied with the information that was provided. The MCWD had granted the applicant permission to move forward with the demolition and grading aspects of the project. Bulunan stated he would discuss that with Nielsen and Landini. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gniffke opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Tn response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Mr. Buhman explained that the NURP pond would be increased by approximately 500 cubic yards which would result in a minimal increase in size. In response to another question, Director Nielsen stated the driveway would have to be moved slightly because of the addition; that slight shift would encroach on a wetland area near the water tower and therefore require the applicant to go through a wetland mitigation process. Director Nielsen noted that after both phases of the project were completed, the hardcover would be well within the allowable hardcover for the R1-A District. Mr. Buhman stated the overall increase in impervious surface would be approximately three-tenths of an acre. In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated the School District was responsible for maintenance of the NURP pond and there was already a maintenance agreement in place for that. Mr. Bulmnan stated that when the new store water management plan was submitted a new maintenance agreement with the MCWD was put in place; the area would be restored with wetland seed after it was increased. In response to a question from Council Liaison Turgeon, Director Nielsen stated people parked underneath the no parking signs on Smithtown Road. Turgeon stated if the City wanted consistent traffic enforcement that could be at an added cost because the SLMPD's patrol officer staffing level does not allow for that type of activity on a consistent basis. She then stated she did not think it should be the City's responsibility to pay for that. Acting Chair Gniffke stated he was somewhat appalled that people parked in the fire lanes of the parking lot; that could cause a disastrous situation if there was an emergency. He questioned who enforced no parking in fire lanes. Director Nielsen clarified that for fire access lanes it was the Fire Marshall's responsibility. Council Liaison Turgeon stated there were a large number of parents who dropped off their children at the school; she was concerned about having the proposed drop-off area being at the front of the building because it could cause a backup in traffic trying to enter the property to park in the lot. Mr. Buhman stated the revised parking lot plan indicated the parking spaces at the front of the building would be posted no parking before 9:00 A.M. so that entire area could be used for student drop-off; enforcement of that is a separate issue. Director Nielsen clarified that buses have different entry and exit drives and drop-off areas. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Hutchins expressed concern about the proposed drive through lanes next to the parking spaces being 15 feet wide. Mr. Bulnnan stated the entry and exit drives were shown as 15 feet wide because that width was typical for one-way haffic; the intent was to make them look like one-way lanes. He clarified the applicant would work with the Fire Marshall and the City to ensure fire access lanes were sufficiently wide. In response to a question from Hutchins, Director Nielsen explained the proposed landscape islands in the front parking lot could not be any closer than proposed. Mr. Buhman said the median areas that exist today would not be disturbed; existing curb and gutter would be removed. With regard to traffic enforcement, Commissioner Ruoff stated even though the crossing guards did a good job of instructing drivers where to go during the morning and afternoon on school days there still were problems with traffic congestion. If delivery vehicles or refuse vehicles came on site during those times the tl-affic congestion problem was exacerbated. He commented traffic congestion in the drop-off area was relatively normal at any school during the peals drop-off period. He expressed concern about traffic congestion at the overflow parking area on the backside of the building during events (e.g. parent- teacher conferences, holiday parties, sporting events, etc.); traffic problems spread onto Smithtown Road, Grant Lorenz and Strawberry Lane. Director Nielsen stated the playground area used for overflow parking had no stripping which resulted in inconsistencies in how people parked their vehicles. In response to a question fiom Acting Chair Gniffke, Director Nielsen stated there was room for more parking in the back of the building but some athletic facilities would have to be .sacrificed. Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, continuing the Public Hearing to a 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Gniffke closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -.SETBACK VARIAl~TCE Applicant: Joel Blatz Location: 5520 Sylvan Lane Acting Chair Gniffke opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Director Nielsen stated Joel Blatz, 5220 Sylvan Lane, had requested a setback variance to construct an enclosed entry to his house. The property was zoned R-lA, Single-Family Residential and contained 47,047 square feet of area. Nielsen explained the proposed entry would measure 5 feet by 6 feet; it would be consh•ucted at the front of the house, over part of an area currently covered by concrete slab and under an existing roof overhang, both of which extended across the entire front of the house. Because the house was located only 17 feet from the street right-of--way, a 33-foot variance would be necessary to accommodate the project. The entry from the garage into the home was currently located at the back of the garage, necessitating maneuvering around the front of the car in order to get into the house. The proposed enhyway would place the door in the front of the garage in a far more convenient location. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated the subject property and the location of the existing house had an interesting and even somewhat mysterious history. Birch Bluff Woods, the plat in which the home was located was platted in 1960, according to Hennepin County records. The house was built in 1967, before the road serving the plat was constructed. There was nothing in the City records that indicated why the house was allowed to be built 17 feet from the right-of-way. Staff could only speculate that the location of the house was the result of one or more of the following factors: 1) the City did not CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 Apri12008 Page 6 of 10 require surveys in the 1960s; 2) the absence of the paved street provided no spacial reference for the inspector; and 3) the topography of the site dictated the location of the building pad. The City allowed the house to be built where it is, in spite of its own zoning requirements and effectively granting a de facto variance. Nielsen stated it was clear that this situation was not brought on by the applicant, which was one of the things considered when evaluating variance requests. Also, the request was not considered to be economic in nature. The small addition would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood (the house was built before the other houses on the eul-de-sac). Nielsen explained Section 1201.03 Subd. l.k.(5) of the City's Zoning Code stated that where a structure was nonconforming because it was too close to one lot line; the City could require that the discrepancy be made up on the opposite side of the property. He stated Staff recommmended that as a condition of approval the rear yard setback should be increased to 83 feet from its current setback of 50 feet; there was sufficient room to put an addition on the existing house even if the setback was increased. That would mitigate the variance and ensure that the applicant's property would maintain the same amount of open space as similarly zoned, conforming properties. Director Nielsen stated that Tom Kasprzak, with Durabilt, the company doing the remodeling on Mr. Blatz's home, was present this evening to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Mr. Kasprzak stated Mr. Blatz was out of town this evening. He commented Mr. Blatz was doing major remodeling to his home. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Blatz earlier today and he related that Mr. Blatz did not think he should have to increase his rear yard setback as a condition of granting the variance because the road which caused his house to be nonconforming was installed too close to his house long after his house was built; Mr. Blatz felt he was being punished for something he had nothing to do with. Mr. Kasprzak commented Mr. Blatz understood he had the opportunity to address his concern at the 14 April City Council meeting; and Mr. Blatz did not think the rear yard setback condition would be a showstopper. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Kasprzak stated the proposed entry had been included as part of the original permit. When Mr. Blatz had a survey done of his property (which he was required to) he discovered his house was nonconforning with regard to the setback requirement. The City permitted the .interior construction to continue while the applicant applied for a variance for the entry way. He explained the existing concrete slab on the area for the proposed entry would be replaced with a wood floor. He also explained the large tree in the front of the house would not be impacted. In response to another question, Director Nielsen explained the existing house would be approximately 30 feet from the recommended rear yard setback. Commissioner Ruoff questioned if any of the other Commmissioners had seen the subject property. Hearing no response he stated he went to look at the property and the proposed area for the new entry. He stated the proposed entry was very small; it would be located under the existing roofline; and, over an area where concrete existed. The house was already nonconforming and the proposed entry would not make it any more noncompliant. If the applicant would ever want to build a shed on the rear of his lot he would be limited. He stated he was not in support of Staff's reconnnendation to increase the rear yard setback as a condition of the variance. The road was installed well after the house was built and that caused the house to become nonconforming. CITY OF SHOI2EWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 7 of 10 In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Director Nielsen stated from his perspective the northwest coder of the lot would still be buildable even if the rear yard setback was increased. Commissioner Ruoff stated the topography of the rear yard could limit the buildable area. Director Nielsen clarified the recommended rear yard setback increase was not an attempt to punish Mr. Blatz; it was to ensure that the applicant's property would maintain the same amount of open space as similarly zoned, conforming properties. In response to a question from Commissioner Hutchins, Mr. Kasprzak stated an existing concrete area would be taken out and replaced with a smaller wood floor for the proposed entry. Director Nielsen clarified that the 33-foot increase in the rear yard setback was determined by subtracting the existing 17 foot front setback from the 50 foot setback that is required. Commissioner Hutchins questioned if the variance could be approved without the additional rear yard setback requirement. Director Nielsen stated it was the Planning Cormmission's prerogative if it wanted to recommend the condition; the City allowed for that. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gnifflce opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:52 P.M. Ruoff moved, recommending approval of a setback variance for Joel Blatz, 5520 Sylvan Lane. Motion failed for lack of a second. Hutchins moved, Villet seconded, recommending approval of a setback variance for Joel Blatz, 5520 Sylvan Lane, subject to the rear yard setback being increased to 83 feet from 50 feet. Motion passed 3/1 with Ruoff dissenting. Acting Chair Gnifflce closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. 3. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING -CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING OFF-SALE LIQUOR STORE HOURS OF OPERATION Acting Chair Gnifflce opened the Public Hearing at 7:56 P.M. Director Nielsen stated the City had received a request from the owners of Shorewood Liquor, 23670 Highway 7, to change the City's Monday -Thursday hours of operation for off-sale liquor. He explained the hours of operation were regulated by the City Code Section 401 relating to liquor. The Code prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquor by an off-sale licensee before 8:00 A.M. or after 8:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday; the Code was based on State Statute regulations which were in effect when the Code was adopted. Approximately two years ago State Stahlte was changed to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor by an off-sale licensee before 8:00 A.M. or after 10:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday. He conunented Excelsior, Milmetonka, and Tonka Bay, all conform to the new State Statute. Nielsen stated Council discussed this request at its March 10, 2008, meeting; Council suggested the Planning Commission hold a public hearing to take public comment on the change. He stated he thought that request reflected highly on the Planning Commission. He explained an amendment to the Code would be required to change the hours of operation for off-sale liquor sales. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COlVIMI55ION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 8 of 10 In response to a series of questions Director Nielsen made the following clarifications. The City did not have to change its hours of operation to be consistent with State Statute. There were only two off-sale liquor establishments in the City. The probable reason for the request was increased business opportunity. The City had published this Public Hearing with sufficient notice. Acting Chair Gniffke stated the residents he heard from were in favor of the change. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on this case, Acting Chair Gniffke opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:58 P.M. Hutchins moved, Villet seconded, recommending approval of an ordinance amending Chapter 401 of the Shorewood City Code Relating to Liquor to reference the hours of the State Statute. Motion passed 4/0. Acting Chair Gniffke closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. 4. DISCUSS PLANNING DISTRICT 6 For the benefit of Commissioner Villet, Director Nielsen highlighted the more recent history of and discussions of Planning District 6 and the C-2 District. Nielsen stated discussion of redevelopment possibilities for the Shorewood Yacht Club (SYC) property began in 2005 when the SYC was put up for sale. All developers interested in the SYC property were also interested in the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company property, which was not for sale. Redevelopment discussions basically ceased once the SYC had been purchased by the current owners. Nielsen explained the current use of the SYC property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the L-R (Lakeshore Recreational) zoning of the property. In 2007 the new owners of the SYC property submitted a request to allow the SYC to use a portion of its boat slips for powerboat use; that requested required an amendment to the City Code and the issuance of an interim conditional use permit (C.U.P.). The request was approved after numerous discussions and after a public hearing was held. Nielsen went on to explain the SYC's 2007 request was the impetus for the Planning Commission to resume discussions regarding the commercial redevelopment potential of Planning District 6 in the City's Comprehensive Plan as well as the commercial properties located on the south side of County Road 19 across from Planning District 6. That combined area included the following commercial sites: 1) the Shorewood Yacht Club; 2) the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company; 3) the South Lake Office Building; 4) the Garden Patch Nursery; and 5) the property between the South Lake Office Building and the Garden Patch Nursery (the old Crepeau Dock location which was owned by the same individual who owned the Garden Patch Nursery). The South Lake Office Building property was zoned R-C, Residential Commercial; the R-C District was intended to transition from lower intensity uses to higher intensity uses. The Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company (MPDCo), the Garden Patch Nursery, and the old Crepeau Dock property were all in the C-2, Commercial Service zoning district (which had previously been named the C-4 District); the C-2 District was also a specialized district that was established to address existing industrial uses in that area. Nielsen stated the Garden Patch Nursery and the old Crepeau Dock properties could possible be rezoned to R-C, Residential Commercial, and that would make their zoning the same as the South Lake Office Building property. To rezone those two properties for higher intensity uses would depend on County CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 9 of 10 Road 19 access and the site soil correction; he did not think it would be inappropriate to rezone the properties for higher intensity uses. Nielsen explained the SYC and the Minnetonka Portable Dredging Company both had access issues. Currently both properties butted against West Lake Street right-of--way. West Lake Street served a residential neighborhood in Excelsior, but the portion of West Lake Street that could provide access into Shorewood was blocked off (but not vacated). Both of the companies currently use a driveway off of County Road 19; the driveway crosses over the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCIZRA) LRT Trail, and it is there by license fiom HCRRA. The HCRRA could revoke the license at its discretion. Access to the properties would then have to come from West Lake Street, which would require the City to prepare a compelling case to reopen the street. He commented those two properties could be suitable for a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Nielsen clarified the purpose of discussions in 2007 was to define the City's vision with regard to future development of the area, and to incorporate those changes into the City's Comprehensive Plan when it was revised in 2008. Nielsen stated the draft amendment to the Planning District 6 section of the City's Comprehensive Plan reflected the outcome of the Planning Cormnission's discussions regarding its vision for that area. He suggested action on the draft amendment be continued to the 15 April 2008 Planning Commission meeting when there would be more Commissioners in attendance. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was scheduled for 6:00 P.M. on 14 Apri12008 to discuss the issues identified in the chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Nielsen then stated there was a conditional use permit for the City Hall renovation project and continued discussion of the conditional use permit amendment for the Minnetonka School District 276 slated for the 15 April 2008 Planning Connnission meeting. The Study Session portion of that meeting would be devoted to continued discussion of Planning District 6 and updates to the Natural Resources and Land Use Chapters of Comprehensive Plan. 7. REPORTS Cormnissioner Hutchins reported on matters considered and actions taken at the March 24, 2008, Regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Comnussioner Hutchins asked Council Liaison Turgeon to comment on the situation regarding the settlement matter with Ascending Praise Church (APC). Turgeon stated it was embarrassing to discuss the topic but she would. She stated the City had spent $8,600 on.legal fees to recover $1,000 of the settlement owed. Pastor Linus Nyambu was scheduled to pay the remainder of the $4,000 settlement regarding APC on March 19, 2008; that did not happen. She cited the statement "no good deed goes unpunished"; the City was continuing to be punished for its good deed. The City was continuing to make an effort to recover the remainder of the settlement owed from Pastor Nyambu. She stated she was going to request this item be placed on the next City Council meeting agenda and it was her hope that Council would agree CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1 April 2008 Page 10 of 10 to have the current confession of judgment perfected; that would lessen the pain on the taxpayers slightly. Turgeon stated she recently learned that the Livingwaters Church had become inactive and APC had become active again in February 2008; APC had previously merged with Livingwaters Church. Council Liaison Turgeon suggested the Planning Commission consider if it had any questions it would like included in the City's upcoming survey of its residents. Director Nielsen stated Staff was compiling surveys other cities had done and he would provide the Commission with information on planning related questions in those surveys. In response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Council Liaison Turgeon stated the 12 April 2008 open house regarding the City Hall renovation project was publicized in the City's newsletter and the Sun Sailor. SLUC Nielsen suggested that Planning Commissioners should let him lalow by 15 April 2008 if they wanted to attend the Sensible Land Use Coalition session on "Great Neighborhoods -Great Places: Reality or Wishful Thinking?" scheduled for 30 Apri12008. Commmissioner Villet stated she would like to attend. Other None. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hutchins moved, Ruoff seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of 1 April 2008 at 8:24 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder 'T SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 28 March 2008 RE: Blatz, Joel -Setback Variance FILE NO.: 405 (08.06) BACKGROUND Joel Blatz has requested a setback variance to construct an enclosed entry to his home at 5520 Sylvan Lane (see Site Location map -Exhibit A, attached). The property is zoned R-lA, Single-Family Residential and contains 47,047 square feet of area. Exhibit B shows the location of the applicant's existing home and the proposed entryway. Mr. Blatz' request is explained in a letter, dated 3 March 2008 (see Exhibit C). The entry, shown also on Exhibit D, measures 5' x 6' and is proposed to be constructed at the front of the house, over an existing concrete slab and under an existing roof overhang, both of which extend across the entire front of the home. Since the house is located only 17 feet from the street right-of--way, a 33-foot variance is necessary to accommodate the project. Exhibit E is a photo of the front of the home. The entryway would be located behind the large tree shown in the photo. As stated in the applicant's letter, the entry from the garage into the home is cur7ently located at the back of the garage, necessitating maneuvering around the front of the car in order to get into the house. The new entryway places the door in the front of the garage in a far more convenient location. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION The subject property and the location of the existing home has an interesting and even somewhat mysterious history. Birch Bluff Woods, the plat in which the home is located was platted in 1960, according to Heimepin County records. The house was built in 1967, before .m ,-®r® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ~ ,a. Memorandum Re: Blatz Variance 28 March 2008 the road serving the plat was constructed. There is nothing in the City records that indicate why the house was allowed to be built 17 feet from the right-of--way. We can only speculate that the location of the house was the result of one or more of the following factors: 1) the City did not require surveys in the 60's; 2) the absence of the paved street provided no spacial reference for the inspector; and 3) the topography of the site dictated the location of the building pad. In any event, the City allowed the house to be built where it is, in spite of its own zoning requirements and effectively granting a de facto variance. Clearly, this situation was not brought on by the applicant, one of the considerations in evaluating variance requests. Also, the request is not considered to be economic in nature. Nor will the small addition adversely affect the character of the neighborhood (the house was built before the other houses on the cur-de-sac). Section 1201.03 Subd. l .k.(5) of the Zoning Code states that where a structure is nonconforming because it is too close to one lot line, the City may require that the discrepancy be made up on the opposite side of the property. This is suggested as a condition of approval for this case. Exhibit B shows the required 50-foot rear yard setback for the property. As a condition of approval, it is recommended that the rear yard setback be increased to 83 feet, which is also illustrated on Exhibit B. This mitigates the variance and ensures that the applicant's property maintains the same amount of open space as similarly zoned, conforming properties. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane Joel Blatz -2- -~ ~~~ .., ,,, ,~I -~ ~ ~ ~ air 33~ ',~ ^~ ~ ^i) K LL J Gl 2 ~ K al A ~ ^~ 0 021 tlN321f13 021 tlN32Jf13 '~ ^~ ~. .l~ 5 j -~ 'p S j 5 w 3 i o J 2 C Q 2 p ~ J ~ ~ N 3 ^+~ .. 021 M31~MOOtl3W -~ ~ ^~ ~ ^~ ~f .~.+ ~ V ~ ~ .~_~ ~ ~ ~ L ~~s ~° ~~ -~ 0 ~ ~ ~ o~y~_ 2~ o~, 9~, ~~s 0 r O O \ O N ~~e 5 z 3 0 N 0 r x r ~ Exhibit A -~ SITE LOCATION ~ a=`~ atz variance -~ ~~ a °~- ;;~' ~'a Ci,=-' A ~~,1 `yl J~ Y ~~ F~ J /~ W L ~ f i i 2 ', ' /.v ~%~ % .l~r° '~~~ /~. ~ i r": ~, ~- ~; ~;. ~ ~~ ~. o~ ~ ~ .~ ~~. AG.7'-'~ ~~ `~\++~~ d ~ `2'. ~\ ~, Ns\ vrGSi"~ ~ \~\ ' F pes. ~ y ri ~, s _~ ~ ~to \ oa ~ ~ ~..`` fi ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ /~S~' ` ~ \ s --',~' \ \ °. i ~ ~i~ ~- U- f { ~~~ ~ b - ~ .g V z ~~ ~ O ~. r O.~ °~~ ~~ ~, ;~~ ~~~ ~~~ b ~ ~- ~~~ r ~ ~~ /'aY1 X12 t~, Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY ~t"~~1 Ord, ~Q~ VU r ply~nt~ fcrr ~ v~r~~nc t~ the 0` fr~r~t S~t~~6€ r€~uErrran~. VV r~ d~~ 6`~ X`~ C~ltlcart ~C) ~$i~ ~C4~Cl~ ~~ ~I"1~ (1QGlS Ut14~t° ~11~ ~1StICt t"~~ S`fS~CfI. ~I"E Ct)t~tYl iS ~C? ~ ~!~ x~~Sls~n tc~ ~h I~~rtclry r~~rr? t~ t~n~ it r~c~r Ft~n~tl~r~l ~d ISS ~f ~ III hi~l°a hS b~rt v~ I°~rd t~ tas~. ~~Il~~~rin r the r~Sr~S v~r fil ~v~ h~v~ ~ h~rdS~ip. ~ f~~6 €~~ar ~ir~ur~°tSt~r~~~S are ~r~it~ Exhibit C APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER ate arc m m ~rn p~ rrn-~m 00~ CJDzD ZA~U i u -a Od 7J zyrb N ~A ~n ~ ~~ D O~O~ a ~ x P AOz m w w y<-~N -~mOr ~ A N O ~ D ~ D NO O ~ O - IZ .~ ~ p 3'-3" ' " 14 -I D A m A 3 N z d m Q _ t, D ~ _ ON -a O m ~ A ~ ~ z 7J A D O~ c N O ~ D - r ~ -~ = p ~I ~' z A a _ ~ . ~ m N ~? ~ s~ ~ N ~ ~ D 0 A A3 ~ ~ o; r N nD ( N .p -i d O p r rn i rn d O x ~ o ~ Orn p ~ Oc N ~ X N - 7J " _ ,Zl N d y ~ 114 I/4 ' " ~ - ~ G~ i 14 _0 1~ ~ I c - - - - - - ~ snan r.~ .. , . u-- 0 '~ ~~ ~~ - ~ `V 4076 OO W4B30 W368 ,yh-~ C A p ~ 82436-3 ~ A Z7 ~ ~ rA p ~ ~s~~do d_ ~ 2'-2 3 8" N ~Kn ' ~~ < ~ F~~~ 3cA m ' o c N ~ ~~d AN3 ~ ~9 2 'I / ti ~f (~I o=O "~ o b° "NIl 0 '°_ /T ~7c ~H!?f~ Drn~ I6 ~_5~~ ~pm° _ A ~O O x ~ O~ ~D~h 3D~ /`~ a` m r d r!pp~ dD i ~~\~~~r ~Trn n~~ ~~ p N m ON ~~1~- Ar ~u m m -n~z rn mtAntn;u x m .~p~ u,~~ X m ~ AZ O ~ O~ o ~ °-0 m 00~ ~z0~ °o-nz- m~ p~ N~ ° N ~~ D N d ~ -n= =r GIN 9 -.~I 6s~ J~ o ~ \ A ~~Ni `A ~~ r ~ b ° m w O ~°<o~~ $ m ~ r~ 1 / m BDROb - ~ -- 3 3~_~~~ a O ~ ' tl o d GBD3636 ~~2836~ BDRIB / -P _ m ~m ~ N ti 8 '0 -` ~ 183 0 O Q ~ ~i~ L 2'-I I O /~ ~ ~ 1 / ~~ ~ C p~ ~ ~~ I~ 2 _9 ~I 9 ~ A A O O I GUSTOM O'~ A3 _ rTir~-f~ a N N N ~ g-~~ ~=x w O O = ~- -~ ~ ~~IY „ N A O OD ~~ A ~ ~ornz/ '~ OD- ~' N AO xlrn -nD rn A " p O-i O ~ rnr C ~ a - - x D u m ~ rn 0 o z N x 9Z = ~_ ~ N N~ ~N ~ O SS rnm/ ~o ~N m ~ m -~ .. z rn S~.y. p A ~ N ~' k 4> ~d z y N z ~ y rn N rn ~~:~ ~t A O O = KITCNE~I REMODEL, L.4ULIDRY OAIE: uiizn""' JOEL 6 m REMODEL, ~ MUDROOM ADDZTTOLI 5520 SYLV -~ REV. DATE: ExcELSZOR, Exhibit D L 02/12/°8 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN .. ~ FIRST FLOOR PLAN U X ZN ~2 DN Op ~z Dp rrn rrn O p ~ cif 1 -. ~, ~~ ~., ~v~ :~. ~~ .:~~" ~~ ~. Exhibit E PHOTO -EXISTING FRONT CITY OF SHOREWOOD RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING A SETBACK VARIANCE TO JOEL BLATZ WHEREAS, Joel Blatz (Applicant) is the owner of real property located at 5520 Sylvan Lane, City of Shorewood, County of Heimepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as: "Lot 7, Block 1, Birch Bluff Woods, Hennepin County, Minnesota." WHEREAS, the Applicant has an existing single-family dwelling, which dwelling is located approximately 17 feet from the rear lot line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied fora 33-foot variance to construct an enclosed entry on the front of the building; and WHEREAS, the Applicant's request was reviewed by the City P1amler, whose recommendations are included in a memorandum, dated 28 March 2008, a copy of which is on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, after required notice a public hearing was held and the application reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting held on 1 April 2008, the minutes of which meeting are on file at City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the application at its regular meeting on 14 Apri12008, at which time the Planner's memorandum and the Planning Commission's recommendations were reviewed and comments were heard by the Council from the Applicant and from the City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Shorewood as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property contains approximately 47,047 square feet of area and is located in an R-lA, Single-Family Residential zoning district, which requires a 50-foot setback from the front property line. 2. The existing building on the property is located approximately 17 feet from the front property line. Birch Bluff Woods was platted in 1960. 4. The Applicant's home was constructed in 1967, at which time the City allowed it to be built 17 feet from the front property line. There is no record of any variance having been considered. 5. The existing home has a concrete stoop that extends across the front of the house. The stoop is covered by the roof overhang, which also extends across the front of the house. 6. The proposed 5' x 6' entry lies entirely within the area defined by the stoop and roof overhang. 7. A large tree is situated directly in front of the proposed covered entry. The Applicant does not propose to remove the tree. CONCLUSIONS 1. That the Applicant has satisfied the criteria for the grant of a variance under the Shorewood City Code and has established an undue hardship as defined by Mimlesota Statutes. 2. That based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants to the Applicant a setback variance to build an enclosed entry on the front side of the house, subject to the following conditions: a. The large tree situated in front of the proposed entry will not be removed. b. The 33-foot setback discrepancy on the front of the subject property shall be made up by increasing the rear yard setback for the property by 33 feet. 3. That the City Administrator/Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide a certified copy of this resohition for filing with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of Apri12008. Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk -2- `I`~' SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 10 Apri12008 RE: Liquor Store Hours -Proposed Code Amendment FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 401) The City Council requested that the Planning Colmmission conduct a public hearing to consider changing the allowable hours of operation for on-sale liquor operations. Two such businesses currently exist in Shorewood, one at the Waterford Shopping Center and one at the Shorewood Shopping Center. The Planning Commission. conducted the hearing, at which no one from the public chose to express any opinions on the matter. Nor did the City receive any written correspondence supporting or opposing the amendment. The Plamling Commission's recommendation was simple -make the current Shorewood Code consistent with Miimesota Statutes, which allows on-sale liquor to be sold until 10:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. A draft ordinance to that effect is attached for your consideration. Cc: Larry Brown Tim Keane ~ _ t ~ ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®M CITY OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 401 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE RELATING TO LIQUOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Section 401.17, Subd. 3 of the Shorewood City Code shall be amended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Intoxicating liquor; off-sale. The hours of operation shall be as provided in Minnesota Statutes Section 340A.504. Section 2. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect following its passage and publication. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD this 14th day of April, 2008. ATTEST: Christine Lizee, Mayor Lawrence A. Brown, Acting City Administrator/Clerk CI I'1' OF ~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ° www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator DATE: April 11, 2008 RE: Discussion Regarding City Wide Survey Staff is in the process of soliciting input from the City Council, Planning and Park and Commissions for questions to be included in the city survey. Attached is a very preliminary draft of questions that have been compiled from feedback received from the City Council and Park Commission. The planning Commission is to consider what content they would like to see at one of their next meetings. Please note that little time was spent on format of the questioning to be able to have it appear electronically or for uniformity. These types of modifications will occur once the focus of the content can be agreed upon by the City Council. Thus, while this is a work in progress, Staff felt that publishing this to the City Council would generate other questions that the Council may desire to have included. Staff continues to review other City surveys across the nation for unique and inquisitive questions. Staff has also been working with various vendors to assist the City with security, sorting of results, and other documentation. Staff will present some additional details at Monday night's City Council meeting. Staff recommends this item be further discussed at Council Work Session in May to finalize the survey questions. ~®~® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER is Y~* tf EFo City of Shorewood Survey General City Government 1) What do you like most about living in the City of Shorewood? a) Location b) Natural Environment c) d) e) g) h) i) j) Schools Parks and Trails Open Space Safe City Services Lake Sense of Community Other: 2) What do you like least about living in the City of Shorewood? a) Traffic b) Lack of downtown c) Taxes d) Poor condition of roadways e) Lack of sidewalks or trails f) High cost of living g) Other: 3) How would you like the city to spend the $950,000 the City has received from the sale of our liquor stores? a) Reconstruct or Repave our roads b) Fix drainage problems c) Improve our park facilities d) Other 4) What kind of performance measures would be valuable to you in judging the performance of your city? a) Operations spending per capita compared with 4 similar cities. b) Full time employees per capita compared with 4 similar cities. c) Park spending per capita and per acre compared with 4 similar cities. d) Other 5) Are your phone calls and inquiries answered promptly? a) Yes b) No 6) Are you pleased with our 4-ward system (which reduces your voting options) or should we go back to all council candidates having to run city-wide (at-large)? Note: At-Large you get to vote for 2 councilmembers and 1 mayor every 2 years. Wards you only get to vote for 1 councilmember every 4 years and 1 mayor every 2 years. At-Large you may have a wider selection of candidates from across the city. At-Large means candidates must run city-wide, which may discourage many from running. At- Large promotes working for the overall city, not one neighborhood. Wards can break-up a neighborhood clique from controlling the city. If there is no Ward candidate or volunteer -the seat cannot be filled from outside and remains vacant. 7) Would you be in favor of limiting the increase in annual City spending to the annual inflation rate? a) Definitely b) Maybe c) No d) Spend even less 8) Would you be in favor of the City (probably in cooperation with the Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission) building afiber-to-the-home network that would offer hi- bandwidth services such as HDTV on-demand from multiple content providers at a price that is similar or less than what you might be paying today for cable TV and Internet access? a) Yes b) Maybe, would like more information c) No 9) How would you rate the ability for you to participate and become involved in local decision making? a) Satisfied b) Neutral c) Dissatisfied d) Don't know 10) Of the services that are provided to residents, rate on a scale of 0 (being dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) with each service. Police Services 0 1 2 3 4 5 Fire Services 0 1 2 3 4 5 Maintenance of Roadways 0 1 2 3 4 5 Snow plowing 0 1 2 3 4 5 Stormwater Management 0 1 2 3 4 5 11) Where do you go for information regarding City issues, services and programs? For each source of information listed below, please tell us whether it is a primary or secondary source of information, or not a source of information for you regarding City issues, services and programs. Please mark the box that best represents your opinion for each item. Primary Source Secondary Source Not a Source Attending City Council meetings ^ ^ ^ Viewing City Council meetings on cable channel ^ ^ ^ City's Internet website: www.ci.shorewood.mn.us ^ ^ ^ City newsletter "The ShoreReport" ^ ^ ^ Sun Sailor Newspaper ^ ^ ^ Lakeshore Weekly Newspaper ^ ^ ^ Other Newspapers or periodicals ^ ^ ^ Word of mouth ^ ^ ^ Other (please name): Parks and Recreation Manor Park What Activities do you and/or a member of the household use when you visit the park? ^ Playground Equipment ^ Baseball Field ^ Picnic Tables /Grills ^ Warming House ^ Picnic Shelter ^ Ice Skating Area ^ Tennis Court ^ Multi-use Building ^ Volleyball Court How often do you and/or a member of the household visit the Park? ^ Daily ^ Weekly ^ Monthly ^ Do Not Visit Are there any amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see? ^ Drinking Fountain ^ Bike Rack ^ Restrooms ^ Basketball Court ^ Trail ^ Other Silverwood Park What Activities do you and/or a member of the household use when you visit the park? ^ Playground Equipment ^ Ice Skating Area ^ Picnic Tables /Grills ^ Winter Sliding Hill ^ Practice Tennis Courts ^ Basketball Court ^ Trail How often do you and/or a member of the household visit the Park? ^ Daily ^ Weekly ^ Monthly ^ Do Not Visit Are there any amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see? ^ Drinking Fountain ^ Picnic Shelter ^ Restrooms ^ Bike Rack 0 Other Freeman Park What Activities do you and/or a member of the household use when you visit the park? ^ Playground Equipment ^ Volleyball Court ^ Picnic Tables /Grills ^ Baseball Fields ^ Picnic Shelters ^ Soccer Fields ^ Concession Building ^ Trails ^ Drinking Fountain How often do you and/or a member of the household visit the Park? ^ Daily ^ Weekly ^ Monthly ^ Do Not Visit Are there any amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see? ^ Tennis Court ^ Bike Rack ^ Ice Rink /Hockey Rink ^ Basketball Court ^More picnic areas ^ Other Badger Park What Activities do you and/or a member of the household use when you visit the park? ^ Playground Equipment ^ Football Field ^ Picnic Tables ^ Tennis Court ^ Multi-Use Building ^ Warming House ^ Hockey Rink ^ Ice Skating Rink How often do you and/or a member of the household visit the Park? ^ Daily ^ Weekly ^ Monthly ^ Do Not Visit Are there any amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see? ^ Drinking Fountain ^ Bike Rack ^Restrooms ^ Trail ^ Basketball Court ^ Other Cathcart Park What Activities do you and/or a member of the household use when you visit the park? ^ Playground Equipment ^ Baseball Field ^ Picnic Tables /Grills ^ Warming House ^ Tennis Court ^ Ice Skating Rink ^ Hockey Rink How often do you and/or a member of the household visit the Park? ^ Daily ^ Weekly ^ Monthly ^ Do Not Visit Are there any amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see? ^ Drinking Fountain ^ Bike Rack ^ Restrooms ^ Trail ^ Basketball Court ^ Other South Shore Community Park What Activities do you and/or a member of the household use when you visit the park? ^ Skate Board Ramps ^ Picnic Tables How often do you and/or a member of the household visit the Park? ^ Daily ^ Weekly ^ Monthly ^ Do Not Visit Are there any amenities that are not currently offered that you would like to see? ^ Drinking Fountain ^ Bike Rack ^ Restrooms ^ Picnic Shelter ^ Trail ^ Other How would you rate the parks in general: Agree Park Signs are visible ^ Parks are well groomed ^ Easy to locate the Parks ^ Comments Parks in General Disagree Neither ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ Have you attended or participated in Shorewood community events? ^ Yes ^ No What events have you attended? ^ Music in the Park ^ MCE Summer Rec Program At Freeman ^ Skateboarding Camp ^ Arctic Fever ^ Childrens Summer Programs Are there other programs that you would like to see offered? ^ Yes ^ No If yes, what would you like to see offered: How do you most often hear about Shorewood Park events? ^ Newsletter ^ Website ^ Flyers ^ Newspaper ^ Others Do you and/or members of your household use the trails within Shorewood primarily for recreational activities or to travel within the city? ^ Recreational ^ Travel ^ Do Not use them ^ Other So that funds are best utilized what additions or improvements do you feel would be considered priority. Rate from 1-5 with 1 being highest priority. 1 2 3 4 5 List Park Renovate Tennis Courts ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Update Lighting at Rinks ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Add Picnic Shelters ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Add Water /Sanitary Sewer for Restrooms /Drinking Fountains ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ More Community Events ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Playground Equipment Updated ^ ^ ^ 0 ^ If a proposed centralized tennis facility were moved to one location, where would you like to see this? ^ Badger ^ Cathcart ^ Manor ^ Silverwood Comments (ITY OF SHOREWOOD MEMORANDUM 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator DATE: April 10, 2008 RE: Discussion Regarding Settlement Matters Involving 5795 Country Club Road. At the March 24, 2008 City Council Meeting, City Attorney Keane was directed to determine the anticipated legal costs for perfecting judgment in the matter of Pastor Linus Nyambu, as it relates to damage done under the lease of the property located at 5795 Country Club Road. Mr. Keane has reported back indicating that costs to perfect judgment would range between $250 to $500. Staff has asked if this range of costs could be narrowed. Mr. Keane will be at Monday's meeting to report any new findings. In addition, Councilmember Turgeon had previously asked staff to distribute background materials to the City Council previously regarding this matter, and has also requested that this item be discussed further at the City Council meeting on Monday evening. Action Staff will seek the direction of the City Council as to whether the City Council would like to proceed with perfecting judgment, based on the anticipated costs. 8 ® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER ®0~ ((( e-mail memo to City of Shorewood Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator Mayor Kristine Lizee Members of the City Council Re: Pastor Linus Nyambu, Ascending Praise Church -Perfection of Judgment In response to the inquiry at the council meeting of March 24, 2008, please find below a summary of the requisites for filing the confession of judgment relating to Pastor Linus Nyambu. I have attached a copy of the executed confession of judgment. The perfection and recordation of confession of judgment will enter the judgment with the Helulepin County Clerk of Court, resulting in a judgment of record against Pastor Nyambu. This judgment will be a public record that will be disclosed on all credit applications, loan applications, real property transfers, mortgage applications, title commitments, UCC filings, and other matters where credit or a security interest maybe of interest to a lender. The record of judgment will remain of record for up to ten years or until satisfied. The recordation requires a preparation of an affidavit to be filed with the district court, together with a filing fee of $55. This filing may take place at any time upon authorization by the City. Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 335- 7192. For your information, the total legal services invoiced to the city in this matter has totaled $8,756. This reflects awrite-down by Leonard Street and Deinard from the total time in this matter of $13,859- at the already steeply discounted Shorewood rates. In my continued effort to wrap this matter up without additional burden to the City, I will prepare the affidavit and filing at only the expense of the filing fee to the City. TJK!ldg Confession attached 4505394.1 STATE OF MINN)vSOTA COUN"IY 01= 1-II;NNBPIN I~tSTR1CT COUR"t' FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Case Type: Contract Court File Na. City of Shorewood, a Municipal carl~oration, Plaintiff; CONFES5TON OF .TiJ17~IVlETVT AND WARRANTY OF ATTORNEY vS. Linos Nyambu, Defendants. t'astor Linos Nyambu ("Nyambu"} executes this verified statement and confession of judgment (the "Confession of Judgment"} in favor of the City of Shorewood ("Shorewood"), pursuant to Minn. Statutes Sections 548.22 and 548.23, and authorizes the courk administrator or clerk of any slate ar federal court of record in the State oC Minnesota to enter judgment in the favor oi' Shorewood for the Burn of $3,000.00, This Confession of Judgment is being entered into in conjunction ~,vith, and incorporates the terms of a Settlement Agreement and Mul:ual Release (the "Agreement") entered into by Shorewood and Nyambu. Statement of Facts Out of ~'Vhich Indebtedness Arose: On January 2, 2008, Nya-nbu entered into the Agreement with Shorewood under which he agreed to pay Shorewood a total ot~ 54,000 by January 31, 2008, in exchange for Sharewood agreeing to dismiss Ascending t'raise Church from the action commenced in Hen.ncpin County Court File No, 27-CV-07-19973. Shorewood acknowledges that Nyambu has previously paid $i ,000 as part of the Agreement. 2. The Agreement. 't'he parties participated iu settlement discussions to resolve all disputes among them, and in consideration of the terms of the Agecment and in order to avail 4232Rti7. I the uncertainty and expense of further litigation, Nyambu agreed to execute and deliver to Shorewood this Confession of Judgment. 3. The Payment, Nyambu acknowledges that under the terms of the Agreement he is indebted to Shorewood and must pay the totat sum of 54,000 Dollars ("Payment") according tv the teens and conditions set forth in the Agreement. Shorewood acknowledges that the Payment represents the final settlement amount agreed upon by Nyambu and Shorewood. 4. Warranty of Attorney. In the evens Nyambu defaults under the terms of the Agreement, Nyambu irrevocably authorizes any attorney desi~-ated by Shorewood to appear on his behalf in any federal or state court of record in the State of Minnesota at any tune after the default, and to waive the issuance of process and service of process, and by entry of a plea, confess judgment against Nyambu in the amount owing under the Agreement. 5. Acltnowlcd~nt. Nyambu has read this Confession of Judgment and fully understands its force and effect, verifies the reasonableness of the terms of the Confession of Judgment, and knowingly and voluntarily waives any and all defenses to the entry of a judgment pursuant to the terms of the Agreement and Confession of Judgment, VEItJ)FZCATION STATE ~F MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF ~~- ) Pastor Linos Nyambu, being first duly sworn upon oath, deposes and states that he has read and understands the terms of the foregoing Confession of Judgment and Warranty of Attorney, that he freely consented to the terms and conditions set forth above and that the same is true and correct. ~~-`~A- ~-4 t`1.c~f.1,,,~ - Pastor Linos Nyambu 4232867.1 2 The foregoing Verification was acknowledged before me this ~ day of 2008, by Pastor Linus Nyambu. ^~ N tart' Public r'MIMMM~57MNVM.'~+.~~/~M~~N~~.'1M1NVVW 7i • ALEAVA RAEL $AYRE ~! NOTAf~Y PUBitC•~11NN~S4TA ~ M! Comm~ss+on E~O~~es Jan. 3i, 201! 42~2Rfi7.1 `I~ SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator DATE: April 10, 2008 RE: Discussion regarding the Use of Golf Carts on City Streets. During the March 10th, 2008 City Council meeting, Councilmember Woodruff indicated that two requests had been received by City Council members for the use of golf carts on public roadways. Staff was directed to provide information regarding this type of use. The operation of golf carts is governed under Minnesota State Statute 169.045, as shown below: 169.045 SPECIAL VEHICLE USE ON ROADWAY. Subdivision 1. Designation of roadway, permit. The governing body of any county, home rule charter or statutory city, or town may by ordinance authorize the operation of motorized golf carts, or four-wheel all-terrain vehicles, on designated roadways or portions thereof under its jurisdiction. Authorization to operate a motorized golf cart or four-wheel all-terrain vehicle is by permit only. For purposes of this section, a four-wheel all-terrain vehicle is a motorized flotation-tired vehicle with four low- pressure tires that is limited in engine displacement of less than 800 cubic centimeters and total dry weight less than 600 pounds. Subd. 2. Ordinance. The ordinance shall designate the roadways, prescribe the form of the application for the permit, require evidence of insurance complying with the provisions of section 65B.48, subdivision ~ and may prescribe conditions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this section, under which a permit may be granted. Permits may be granted for a period of not to exceed one year, and may be annually renewed. A permit may be revoked at any time if there is evidence that the permittee cannot safely operate the motorized golf cart or four-wheel all-terrain vehicle on the designated roadways. The ordinance may require, as a condition to obtaining a permit, that the applicant submit a certificate signed by a physician that the applicant is able to safely operate a motorized golf cart or four-wheel all-terrain vehicle on the roadways designated. ~ ; PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER °( L cp Mayor and City Council Discussion of Golf Carts on Local Roadways April 10, 2008 Page 2 of 4 Subd. 3. Times of operation. Motorized golf carts and four-wheel all-terrain vehicles may only be operated on designated roadways from sunrise to sunset. They shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog or other conditions, or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons and vehicles on the roadway at a distance of 500 feet. Subd. 4. Slow-moving vehicle emblem. Motorized golf carts shall display the slow- moving vehicle emblem provided for in section 169.522, when operated on designated roadways. Subd. 5. Crossing intersecting highways. The operator, under permit, of a motorized golf cart or four-wheel all-terrain vehicle may cross any street or highway intersecting a designated roadway. Subd. 6. Application of traffic laws. Every person operating a motorized golf cart or four-wheel all-terrain vehicle under permit on designated roadways has all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the provisions of this chapter, except when those provisions cannot reasonably be applied to motorized golf carts or four-wheel all-terrain vehicles and except as otherwise specifically provided in subdivision 7. Subd. 7. Nonapplication of certain laws. The provisions of chapter 171, are not applicable to persons operating motorized golf carts or four-wheel all-terrain vehicles under permit on designated roadways pursuant to this section. Except for the requirements of section 169.70, the provisions of this chapter relating to equipment on vehicles is not applicable to motorized golf carts or four-wheel all-terrain vehicles operating, under permit, on designated roadways. Subd. 8. Insurance. In the event persons operating a motorized golf cart or four- wheel, all-terrain vehicle under this section cannot obtain liability insurance in the private market, that person may purchase automobile insurance, including no-fault coverage, from the Minnesota Automobile Assigned Risk Plan at a rate to be determined by the commissioner of commerce. History: 1982 c 549 s 2; 1986 c 452 s 19; 1 Sp1986 c 3 art 2 s 12; 1987 c 337 s 121,122; 1997 c 159 art 2 s 18 As staff reviewed this issue, the apparent questions are: What is the nature of the requests received? Will the permit required be issued merely due to convenience or recreation or due to physical challenges or limitations? Mayor and City Council Discussion of Golf Carts on Local Roadways April 10, 2008 Page 3 of 4 2. Statute 169.045 also makes reference to four-wheel all terrain vehicles. Is the City going to allow both of these types of vehicles to be operated on local roadways by an ordinance? 3. The subject statute indicates that these vehicles shall be operated by the owner securing and annual permit for a designated route. In addition, the statute allows operators of such vehicles to cross any intersecting street or highway. If approved, is the City willing to allow crossings of major roadways (such as State Trunk Highway 7 or Covington Road)? Note that Statute 169.045 states that if the governing body chooses to allow for the operation of such vehicles on the local roadways, it shall be governed by way of ordinance. Staff has researched ordinances that have been put in place by other municipalities, under this statute. Staff has included ordinances adopted from the following Cities, and are attached as follows: - Attachment 1: City of White Bear Lake, Ordinance No 607 -Operation of Motorized Golf Cart - Attachment 2: City of Princeton, Ordinance 760 -Motorized Golf Carts - Attachment 3: City of Slayton, Ordinance 308 - Attachment 4: City of Gaylord, Ordinance 248 -Motorized Golf Carts It appears that the ordinances that have been put in place are very similar. Minor modifications include the specific permit requirements. Certainly, it is without question that the State has permitted each municipality the right to develop and adopt an ordinance which would allow the use of golf carts on local (designated) roadways. Having said that, the question arises is this a proper and safe use for roadways within the City of Shorewood? Strictly from an en ineering viewpoint, staff receives many concerns about speed in almost every neighborhood. Often times the issue is brought up to staff that character Shorewood's narrow roadways makes it difficult for even pedestrians to travel along the edge of roadways without putting themselves at risk. Speed along local roadways is a constant and unresolved issue. Thus, the question is raised, how are drivers going to react along the narrow roadways to these slow moving vehicles? It would seem probable, from what staff has observed in various neighborhoods, that a motorist is likely to pass a golf cart designated as a slow moving vehicle. Mayor and City Council Discussion of Golf Carts on Local Roadways April 10, 2008 Page 4 of 4 With many of the local roadways ranging between 18 to 22 feet in width, the passing vehicle will be required to shift lanes into oncoming traffic. Creating the additional need to have one motorized vehicle pass another traveling along the edge of the roadway or even in the midst of the travel lane should not be taken lightly. In various portions of the Country, it is not uncommon for such vehicles to be operated on local roadways. Typically, one may see this in gated or elderly housing areas, or on roadways that are wide enough to permit the slower moving vehicle to travel along the shoulder or edge of the roadway, versus the main stream of traffic. Again, the points expressed above are solely from a traffic engineering perspective. Action If the City Council determines that such an ordinance to allow for the operation of golf carts is desired, Council would then direct staff to prepare a draft ordinance for operation of Golf Carts on Local Roadways. 607.010 TRAFFIC REGULATIONS ~ 607.015 VI. TRAFFIC REGULATIONS 607 OPERATION OF MOTORIZED GOLF CART 607.010 Findings and Puroose. The City Council finds that the operation of motorized golf carts on certain roadways may improve-the mobility and accessibility of physically disabled individuals. The State of Minnesota authorizes cities to allow the operation of motorized golf carts on some roadways, as defined in Minnesota Statute 169.045. 607.011 Permit Required. No person shall operate a motorized golf cart on roadways within the City unless granted a permit under this ordinance. Registration does not exempt compliance with all applicable local, state, or federal laws. 607.012 Definitions. Certain words or phrases when used in this section shall have the following meaning: 1. Motorized Golf Cart. A motorized golf cart is a vehicle with four wheels used primarily for light terrain slow moving operation. For purposes of this ordinance, the motorized golf cart shall be equipped with the following: front and rear tum lights, head lights and tail lights, rear view mirror and a windshield. 2. Designated Roadways. Roadways within the City of White Bear Lake with a posted speed limit of thirty-five (35) miles per hour or less. 3. Phvsically Disabled. A Whi#e Bear Lake resident who meets the criteria set forth in Minnesota Statute 169.345 to obtain a disability parking certificate. 607.013 Application of Permit. Every application for permit under this section shall be made on a form supplied by the City. The application shall include: 1. Copy of a current permanent, long term, or temporary disability parking certificate. 2. Evidence of insurance complying with the provisions of Minnesota Statute 658.48 subdivision 5. 3. Evidence of Valid driver's license 607.014 Slow-Moving Vehicle Emblem. The motorized golf cart shall display the slow-moving emblem as described in Minnesota Statute 169.522 when operating on designated roadways. 607.015 Crossing Intersecting Hi4hwavs. The motorized golf cart may cross any street or highway intersecting a designated roadway. ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE -CITY OF WHITE BEAR LAKE 607.016 TRAFFIC REGULATIONS 607.019 607.016 Application of Traffic Laws. Persons operating a motorized golf cart have the same rights and duties applicable to drivers of any other motor vehicle under the provisions of Minnesota Statute. 607.017 Times of Operation. A motorized .golf cart may only be operated on designated roadways from sunrise to sunset. They shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog, or other conditions, or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons and vehicles on the roadway at a distance of 500 feet. 607.018 Term of Permit. A permit issued under this ordinance will be effective beginning with the date of issuance. Permit may not be granted for a period over one year, and may be annually renewed. The license shall expire March 31 each year or the date of expiration on the disability parking certificate. A permit may be revoked by the White Bear Lake Police Department at any time if there is evidence that the licensee cannot safely operate the motorized golf cart on designated roadways. 607.019 Permit Displayed.. The permit issued shall be displayed so that it may be viewed from the rear and left side of the motorized golf cart. (Ref. Ord. No. 1037, 6/14/06) City of Princeton Title 7 TrafficJVehicles (E) Issuance of permit. The Administrator of this city, upon approval by the Council, may issue a permit authorizing the applicant to organize and conduct RMV organized event or RMV contest within the city for a period not to excee consecutive days. (1) The Administrator is hereby authorized, upon recommendati of the Chief of Police, to suspend and/or alter and change existing ' y ordinance and regulations regulating the operation of snowmobiles in the city so as to permit the operation thereof, under different to and conditions, in said RMV organized events. (2) The Administrator may authorize opera ' g a RMV during said organized RMV event on any public property an or city-owned property, not including the municipal airport, and, furthe ay establish minimum required safety regulations and provisions to g rn the operation of RMV during such RMV organized events. (a) These regulati and provisions may include authorizing persons 12 years of age older to so operate, providing that each such snowmobile operator all have in his or her immediate possession a valid State of Minn ota snowmobile safety certificate. (b) a said terms, regulations and provisions may also require the wearing by all RMV operators at all times of State ofMinnesota-approved safety helmets. 750.99 Pe 'es. Any person violating the terms of this chapter shall be guilty of a petty sdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, be as provided in § 100.99. Chapter 760 -Motorized Golf Carts 760.01 Use of City Streets. (A) Motorized golf carts shall only be operated on city streets which the Council shall by resolution designate as cart routes. (B) Only persons who have a valid permit issued by the city under the conditions in §760.02. (C) When a person holding a valid permit does not reside on a designated cart route, the permit holder may use the most direct route available to reach a designated route from the residence, but shall not operate the carton any other street not designated as a cart route. Where the permit holder's destination is not on a designated route, the permit holder may use the most direct route between the destination and the nearest designated route. ATTACHMENT 2 7-19 ORDINANCE -CITY OF PRINCETON City of Princeton Title 7 Traffic/Vebicles (D) Motorized golf carts may only be operated on designated routes from sunrise to sunset. They shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog or other conditions or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons in vehicles on the roadway at a distance of 500 feet. (E) Motorized golf carts shall display the slow moving vehicle emblem provided for in M.S. § 169.522, as it may be amended from time to time, when operated on designated routes. (~ Every person operating a motorized golf cart under permit on designated routes has all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the provisions of M.S. Ch. 169, as amended from time to time, except when those provisions cannot reasonably be applied to motorized golf carts and except as otherwise specifically provided in M.S. § 169.045, Subd. 7, as amended from time to time. 760.02 Requirement for Permit. (A) Each person desiring a permit for the operation of a motorized golf cart must submit an application provided by the city accompanied by an application fee as established by the City Council by resolution. (B) Each application shall show evidence of the name and address of the applicant, evidence of insurance which meets the requirements of M.S. § 65B.48, Subd. 5, as amended from time to time, and such other information as the city may require. (C) Each permit must be renewed annually and each renewal must meet the requirements set forth in this section. (D) A permit may be revoked at any time if it is shown the permittee cannot safely operate the motorized golf cart on the designated routes or if the person has had a valid driver's license revoked for traffic violations. 760.03 Liability. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as an assumption of liability by the city for any injuries to persons on property which may result from the operation of a motorized golf cart by a permit holder or the failure by the city to revoke the permit. 760.99 Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished as provided in § 100.99. 7-20 City of Slayton, Minnesota Ordinance 308 An ordinance regulating the use of motorized golf carts and four-wheel all-terrain vehicles in the city of Slayton, providing penalties for violation thereof, and repealing ordinance no. 292 and any other ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent or in conflict herewith. THE. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SLAYTON, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Defmition. For purposes of this. ordinance, afour-wheel all-terrain vehicle is a motorized flotation-tired vehicle with four low-pressure tires that is limited in engine displacement to less than 800 cubic centimeters and total dry weight of less than 600 pounds. Section. 2. Definition. For purposes of this ordinance, a physically handicapped person means any person who has sustained an amputation or material disability of either or both arms or legs. Section 3. Operation Prohibited. No motorized golf carts or four wheel alI-terrain vehicles shall be .operated in the City of Slayton at any time on Broadway Avenue from 28th Street to 20th Street or on county, state, or federal highways or roads within the city limits or under the jurisdiction of the City of Slayton. Section 4. Permits Required. No person shall operate a motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicle on streets and alleys within the city limits or under the jurisdiction of the City of Slayton without first obtaining a written permit from the City, except no permits will be required for parades. Said permits shall prohibit operation of a motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicles on Broadway Avenue from 28th Street to 20th Street and on county, state, and federal highways and roads within the city limits or under the jurisdiction of the City of Slayton. Section 5. Restriction of Permits. Permits are restricted to physically handicapped persons as defined in Section 2 or this ordinance and to persons using four wheel all-terrain vehicles for business purposes in a manner which is integral to the purpose and nature of the business they are conducting. Section 6. Application Forms. Applications for a permit to operate a motorized golf cart or four- wheel all-terrain vehicle shall be made to the City Clerk/Administrator on forms furnished by the City. Section 7. Permit Period. Permits shall be issued for periods of one (1) calendaz yeaz commencing on January 1st and ending on December 31st of each year and may be annually renewed. Section 8. Permit Fee. A permit fee of $50.00 shall be charged and will be required to be paid when an application for a permit is submitted to the City Clerk/Administrator. The permit fee will not be prorated if issued after January 1st during any calendar year. Section 9. Permit Revocation. A permit may be revoked at any time if there is evidence that the permittee cannot safely operate the motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicle for which the permit has been issued on streets or alleys within the city limits or under the jurisdiction of the City of Slayton. ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE -CITY OF SLAYTON Section 10. Insurance Required. Each applicant far a permit. shall be required to furnish evidence of insurance complying with the provisions of M.S.A. Chapter 65B.48, Subdivision 5. Section 11. Where Operation id Permitted. Permittees will be allowed to operate their golf carts or four wheel all-terrain vehicles on all streets and alleys within the city limits or under the jurisdiction of the City of Slayton except as prohibited in Section 3. Section 12. Times of Operation. Motorized golf carts and four wheel all-terrain vehicles may only be operated on designated roadways from sunrise to sunset. They shall not be operated in inclement weather or when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog, or other conditions, or at any time when there is insufficient light to clearly see persons and vehicles on the roadway at a distance of 500 feet. Section 13. Speed Limit. The maximum speed at which a motorized golf cart or four wheel all- terrain vehicle may be operated as permitted under the provisions of this ordinance is 15 miles an hour. Section 14. Slow-Moving Vehicle Emblem. Motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicles shall display. the slow moving vehicle emblem provided for in M.S.A. Chapter 169.552 when operating, as permitted in this ordinance, on streets and alleys within the city limits or under the jurisdiction of the City of Slayton. Section 15. Application of Traffic Laws. Every person operating a motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicle, under permit, in the City of Slayton has all of the duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle under the provisions of M.S.A. Chapter 169 and traffic ordinances and laws of the City of Slayton, except when those provisions cannot reasonable be applied to motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicles and except as otherwise specifically provided in this ordinance. Section 16. Non-application of Certain Laws. The provision of M.S.A. Chapter 171 aze not applicable to person operating motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicles under permits issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. The provisions of M.S.A. Chapter 169 relating to equipment on vehicles, except for the requirements of M.S.A. Chapter 169.70, are not applicable to motorized golf cart or four wheel all-terrain vehicles operated under permits issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance. Section 17. Right to Appeal. If an application for a permit is denied by the City Clerk/Administrator, the party applying for the permit shall have the right to appeal the denial to the City Council by filing a written request for a hearing before the City Council at the Clerk/Administrator's office within five (5) days after the party's application for a permit has been denied. The hearing before the City Council will be held in the City Council Chambers within twenty (20) days after the written appeal has been filed and the appealing party shall receive at least seven (7) day notice of the date and time of the hearing. The decision the City Council makes by majority vote after the hearing has been held will be final and will be mad immediately following the hearing. Section 18. Penalty. Any person convicted of violating the requirements of this ordinance is guilty of a petty misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not exceed three hundred dollazs ($300.00). Passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Slayton, Minnesota this 1st day of August, 2005. MAYOR: Cal Wurpts CITY CLERK/ADMINISTRATOR: Cathy Magnus City of Gaylord Page 1 c City of Gaylord Community, Agriculture, industry Ordinance No. 248 -Motorized Golf Carts AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF MOTORIZED GOLF CARTS ON DESIGNATED STREETS BY PERSONS WITH MOBILITY IMPAIRMENTS IN THE CITY OF GAYLORD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GAYLORD, SIBLEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1.Ooeration Authorized. The operation of motorized golf carts by permit is hereby authorized on the roadways of all streets within the City of Gaylord, except on State Trunk highways. Notwithstanding the restriction against operating a motorized golf carton State Trunk highways, the operation of a motorized golf cart under permit may cross any street, highway or road that intersects a street on which the operator is specifically authorized in the permit to operate a motorized golf cart. Any person operating a motorized golf cart under permit has all the rights and duties applicable to the driver of any other vehicle, except when those provisions cannot reasonably be applied to motorized golf carts. SECTION 2. Permits. Authorization to operate a motorized golf carton City streets is by permit only. Permits shalt be issued by the Police Chief only to physically disabled persons, as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 169.345, who have supplied the information required under Section 10-903. Ali permits shall expire annually on December 31, unless renewed. The fee fw a permit shall be $5.00 unless adjusted by resolution by the Gaylord City Council. SECTI N .Permit lications. Each application for a permit to operate a motorized golf carton the roadway of streets shall include: (1) The name and address of the applicant (2) A description of the spedflc area, including the names of all affected streets within which the applicant seeks authorization to operate a motorized golf cart; and (3) Such other information as the Council may from time to #ime require. in addition, each permit application, whether for an initial permit or a renewal, shall be aarompanied by (a) a oertiflc~te signed by a physician stating that the applicant is capable of safely operating a motorized golf cart on the roadway of streets designated in the permit application and should be granted a permit based on mobility impairments, and (b) evidence of insurance comptying with the requirements under State statute for motorcycle owners (presently Minnesota Statutes Section 658.48, subdivision 5}. SECTION 4.. Rp~uired Equipment. The following equipment is requined on any motorized golf cart during operation upon the roadway of any street: (1) The slow moving vehicle emblem provided for by the State statute, properly mounted on the rear of the golf cart pursuant to State regulations; and (2) A rear view mirror, property mounted on the golf cart so as to reflect to the operator a view of the street for a distance of at least 200 feet to the rear of the golf cart.. S~TION.5. Unlawful Acts. It is unlawful for any person to operate a motorized golf carton the roadway of any stn3et within the City unless: (1) The operator has in possession a valid, current and unrevoked pemmi# issued to the operator by the Police Chief; (2) The motorized golf cart is being operated on a roadway that is specifically designated in the operator's permit, except when crossing at an intersection as provided in Section 1; (3) The motorized golf cart is being operated during daylight hours between sunrise and sunset; (4) The motorized golf cart is being operated at times other than during inclement weather ar when visibility is impaired by weather, smoke, fog, or other condition, or at any time when there is insufficient light to dearly see persons or vehicles on the roadway at a distance of 500 feet. (5} The motorized golf cart is equipped with the required equipment described under Section 4; (6) The operator has current insurance coverage as provided in Section 3, pursuant to State statute; and (7j Tha operator observes all traffic laws and regulations, except when those provisions cannot reasonably be applied to motorized golf carts. ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE CITY OF GAYLC~FiD City of Gaylord SECTION 6. Revocation or Modification of Permits. A permit issued under Section 2 may be revoked or modified at any time by the Police Chief if there is evidence that the permit holder cannot safely operate a'notorized golf cart on the roadway of streets within the City. For purposes of this section, the commission of any of the violations described in Section 5 constitutes evidence that the violator cannot safely operate a motorized golf cart on the roadway of streets within the City. SECTION 7. al. Any person whose permit to operate a motorized golf cart has been revoked may appeal the revocation to the City Council. Appeals shall be submitted in writing. to the City Administrator within 30 days of the date of revocation. SECTION 8. Pena .Any person violating any provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Page 2 c SECTION 9. ~ffeaive Datg. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication. pI" SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD •SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952) 474-3236 FAX {952) 474-0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Larry Brown, Acting City Administrator DATE: April 10, 2008 RE: Discussion Regarding Electronics Waste Recycling The City Council has expressed an interest to include the recycling of electronics during the Spring Cleanup day. Per the attached memo from Hennepin County: "Hennepin County will accept consumer generated electronics collected by a Hennepin County city from a residential collection event that they, the city, sponsors. We will pay for and coordinate the recycling of the electronics. The city is responsible for the collection costs associated with the staffing at the collection event, the container used to collect and transport the electronics in, and the transportation costs to deliver the electronics to the recycler that the county designates. The containers will be 40 cubic yards are smaller in size. " Staff has solicited quotes from vendors to determine costs for the transport of two 40 cubic yard containers. To date, staff is still waiting for responses such that costs can be weighed out against the benefit. Out hope is to report at Monday night's meeting the costs for such services. The attached memorandum from Hennepin County provides a listing of the items accepted. The City Council may want to consider charging a nominal fee for each time dropped off to cover transportation costs. Staff will present this item in detail, along with costs for City Council discussion on Monday evening. .m ~®~' PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Hennepin County will accept consumer generated electronics collected by a Hennepin County city from a residential collection event that they, the city, sponsors. We will pay for and coordinate the recycling of the electronics. The city is responsible for the collection costs associated with the staffing at the collection event, the container used to collect and transport the electronics in, and the transportation costs to deliver the electronics to the recycler that the county designates. The containers will be 40 cubic yards are smaller in size. Consumer Electronics: 1. Consumer electronics can only be accepted from households, not businesses, home businesses, non-profit organizations, or government entities. 2. Electronics must be consumer type and sized items not business or industrial in nature. 3. Photocopiers or fax machines are not acceptable. 4. Consumer electronic items such as TV's, VCR's, computers, and stereos will be accepted from the cities household collection. A list of example acceptable consumer electronics is below. 5. Items that are not acceptable will be sent back.(appliances such as microwaves, toasters, coffee pots, etc) Electronics examples: Answering Machine CD Player Camcorder Chassis/Case Circuit Boards Computer CPU Computer Monitor Computer Keyboard Computer Printer Computer Scanner Computer: Laptop Computer: Disc Drives DVD Player Hand-held devices (Calculator, Palm Pilot, etc.) Paper Shredder Picture Tube/Bare CRT Power supplies Projector Radio Speaker Stereos/Record Player Tape Player Telephone: Cellular/Mobile Telephone: Cordless Telephone: Plug-in Television: all types Typewriter-electric VCR `.:Video Game System If a city would like to collect electronics at an event and have the electronics delivered to the County, the city must coordinate the activity with the County coordinator, Barry Melquist at 612-348-4491.